The argumentation of modern popular discourse

[stevevw]

Yeah I'm not apposed to evolution but I also have no problem accounting for the age of everything (due to evolution being based upon time) with the idea that God created everything mature, there's a Biblical basis for it in the example of the creation of Adam & Eve.

I don't think its so much about how things turned out as we see or perceive them with just our sense but what our experience of this world represents to us throughout time. What it reveals to us.

Primarily the evolution/creation debate is about our existence in the overall scheme of things. Its not just about how we are placed in the material world we can measure. Its also about "US" and I think we have some important things to say about knowledge of what is going on beyond the material world.

We are born believers in something at work beyond the objective world like a creator or a universal Mind behind things and we have embodied this throughout time. Its not superstition, make believe or mystical but rather a natural and real part of who we are.

So I think we can find knowledge from our experience which represent more transcendent truths or laws of nature that support the idea that this world and universe was created by someone in the form of consciousness and Mind rather than something.

 

[mindlight]

For the mods reading though this mentions evolution I only use it as an example. This has to do with argumentation, not necessarily the topic of Creation. For everyone else please forgive my frequent hyperbole.

A way in which the world & people operate and those with ignorant, misguided or malevolent desires exploit you is by offering you boxed questions. Logical systems that contain only non sequiturs. So for example in regards to the origin of life, intelligent design is disregarded due to preconceived notions that are logically coherent with evolution. If you deny this tyrant that is the dogma of our modern day you are lambasted and seen as logically incoherent. Nobody stops to consider that the initial assumption may have more than one logical conclusion or that the logical conclusion drawn may not be congruent with the initial proposition. This isn’t even to mention that the accuracy of scientific hypotheses with the most support is dependent upon current technology and methodologies. The same way you wouldn’t view a person who lived 10,000 years ago as stupid for thinking that the world was flat because of the nature of his technological lens that he’s able to view the world through. But let’s get back to the example of the origin of life. I would like to ask you the question:

Why is evolution the best way to determine the origin of life?

A) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of adaptation over a large quantity of time

B) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of it’s occurrence by chance through a large quantity of time

C) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of its occurrence by chance & due to the evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of genetic adaptation over a large quantity of time

D) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to it’s ability to out compete every other hypothesis in regards to the origin of life

E) All of the above

Have you noticed something? Every answer I gave has nothing to do with the origin of life. Not a single one tells you how life began, it only tells you how it has grown or functions. Even with the reasoning of chance/randomness through a large quantity of time that is offered in the option of (B) & (C), it does not explain how life began at all. How life came from non life or even how that non life came into existence. The pillar under all of this is the assumption that evolution can explain the origin of life, when in actual reality all it can tell you is how we descended (& changed) from the first life.

How does stuff like this happen? How does the origin of life get tied in with evolution in the minds of the modern soul?

Abiogenesis rather than evolution is the dominant scientific theory on the emergence of life and the underlying assumption here is uniformitarian naturalism. Materialistic reductionism has been a feature of our age and there has been a corresponding loss of transcendence. I would suggest that in practice most people have already moved on from this assumption in their daily lives and have adopted a pagan worldview that includes spiritual elements.

How you phrase an argument when people never address their epistemological assumptions is part of the issue here. Most people go with the flow and when you argue something that contradicts that stream of thinking then they regard you as mad, bad, or a religious freak. It is easy to marginalize and the like/dislike of the culture of social media aids in that. That said most people are not equipped with the tools to address these assumptions and simply react to or conform to the dominant view. So paranoid conspiracy theories based on the tweet culture do not really address the fundamental problem of the political dominance of a certain mindset over education, media, and research institutions.

What we need is an educational system that equips people to think coherently and to use the appropriate methods of checking truth claims.
1) The scientific method can verify scientific facts and should be a reality check on fanciful theories. But just because a scientific model is coherent and has explanatory power does not make it true in an objective sense when it cannot prove its claims by the scientific methodology. So there are levels of truth, things we can be certain about, and things that are in effect provisional models of understanding. That distinction is rarely made by scientists talking to the common man and that erodes their credibility when their theories are exposed.
2) The historical method of evaluating primary sources and witnesses is an important way to sift plausible from implausible. But a great many people lack the reading and thinking skills to see from a historical perspective. In a generation that googles answers to specific questions a coherent mind for sifting facts from fiction, plausible from implausible is sadly missing most of the time.
3) Christian theology is not a completely open playing field and certain boundaries are set by doctrines the church as a whole has agreed on and by a straightforward reading of scripture.
4) People rely a lot on experience but not all people's eyes are open to what those experiences mean. Living with our senses open and without presupposition requires training and a decision to step outside our comfort zones. Few people are really willing to do that.

 

[Fervent]

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all you have is inductive redaction, everything looks like an iteritive process.

 

[Stephen3141]

[Edit: I've left the website but feel free to continue contributing to the threads I've made. Iron sharpens iron. Isaiah 1:18.]
For the mods reading though this mentions evolution I only use it as an example. This has to do with argumentation, not necessarily the topic of Creation. For everyone else please forgive my frequent hyperbole.

A way in which the world & people operate and those with ignorant, misguided or malevolent desires exploit you is by offering you boxed questions. Logical systems that contain only non sequiturs. So for example in regards to the origin of life, intelligent design is disregarded due to preconceived notions that are logically coherent with evolution. If you deny this tyrant that is the dogma of our modern day you are lambasted and seen as logically incoherent. Nobody stops to consider that the initial assumption may have more than one logical conclusion or that the logical conclusion drawn may not be congruent with the initial proposition. This isn’t even to mention that the accuracy of scientific hypotheses with the most support is dependent upon current technology and methodologies. The same way you wouldn’t view a person who lived 10,000 years ago as stupid for thinking that the world was flat because of the nature of his technological lens that he’s able to view the world through. But let’s get back to the example of the origin of life. I would like to ask you the question:

Why is evolution the best way to determine the origin of life?

A) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of adaptation over a large quantity of time

B) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of it’s occurrence by chance through a large quantity of time

C) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of its occurrence by chance & due to the evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of genetic adaptation over a large quantity of time

D) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to it’s ability to out compete every other hypothesis in regards to the origin of life

E) All of the above

Have you noticed something? Every answer I gave has nothing to do with the origin of life. Not a single one tells you how life began, it only tells you how it has grown or functions. Even with the reasoning of chance/randomness through a large quantity of time that is offered in the option of (B) & (C), it does not explain how life began at all. How life came from non life or even how that non life came into existence. The pillar under all of this is the assumption that evolution can explain the origin of life, when in actual reality all it can tell you is how we descended (& changed) from the first life.

How does stuff like this happen? How does the origin of life get tied in with evolution in the minds of the modern soul?

Technically, the beginning of life, is a different scientific question than how biological life has changed. You shouldn't confuse these different topics.

 

[Stephen3141]

For the mods reading though this mentions evolution I only use it as an example. This has to do with argumentation, not necessarily the topic of Creation. For everyone else please forgive my frequent hyperbole.

A way in which the world & people operate and those with ignorant, misguided or malevolent desires exploit you is by offering you boxed questions. Logical systems that contain only non sequiturs. So for example in regards to the origin of life, intelligent design is disregarded due to preconceived notions that are logically coherent with evolution. If you deny this tyrant that is the dogma of our modern day you are lambasted and seen as logically incoherent. Nobody stops to consider that the initial assumption may have more than one logical conclusion or that the logical conclusion drawn may not be congruent with the initial proposition. This isn’t even to mention that the accuracy of scientific hypotheses with the most support is dependent upon current technology and methodologies. The same way you wouldn’t view a person who lived 10,000 years ago as stupid for thinking that the world was flat because of the nature of his technological lens that he’s able to view the world through. But let’s get back to the example of the origin of life. I would like to ask you the question:

Why is evolution the best way to determine the origin of life?

A) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of adaptation over a large quantity of time

B) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of it’s occurrence by chance through a large quantity of time

C) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of its occurrence by chance & due to the evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of genetic adaptation over a large quantity of time

D) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to it’s ability to out compete every other hypothesis in regards to the origin of life

E) All of the above

Have you noticed something? Every answer I gave has nothing to do with the origin of life. Not a single one tells you how life began, it only tells you how it has grown or functions. Even with the reasoning of chance/randomness through a large quantity of time that is offered in the option of (B) & (C), it does not explain how life began at all. How life came from non life or even how that non life came into existence. The pillar under all of this is the assumption that evolution can explain the origin of life, when in actual reality all it can tell you is how we descended (& changed) from the first life.

How does stuff like this happen? How does the origin of life get tied in with evolution in the minds of the modern soul?

So in general, are you asking whether modern argumentation tends to wrongly combine multiple questions, as if they were one question?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

So in general, are you asking whether modern argumentation tends to wrongly combine multiple questions, as if they were one question?

I wrote this a while ago sorry mate but I remember being so confused how 99% of people associate evolution with the origin of life and argue as if it were some explanation. When all it did was kick the can down the road. How people use it as a presupposition for explaining things when all it does is say how life continued, not how it started. I've noticed since I've written this that there's been more discussion about Abiogenesis amongst normal people but for the most part it's still just assumed that it's some kind of evolutionary process.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wrote this a while ago sorry mate but I remember being so confused how 99% of people associate evolution with the origin of life and argue as if it were some explanation. When all it did was kick the can down the road. How people use it as a presupposition for explaining things when all it does is say how life continued, not how it started. I've noticed since I've written this that there's been more discussion about Abiogenesis amongst normal people but for the most part it's still just assumed that it's some kind of evolutionary process.

On my part, and being the scientifically inclined evolutionist that I am, I simply relegate the "origin of life" to where it belongs: in the Question Mark Zone!

This leaves the question open for speculations in all directions, whether religious or scientific. That's the "discourse" it not only deserves, but which is all that can really be had by it.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

On my part, and being the scientifically inclined evolutionist that I am, I simply relegate the "origin of life" to where it belongs: in the Question Mark Zone!

This leaves the question open for speculations in all directions, whether religious or scientific.

I find it impossible not to comment on your new tag. "Epistemological Free-Wheeler" is probably the greatest thing I've ever heard. I suppose as a *Christian* Theistic Evolutionist you do need to be a bit of a free wheeler , but at least you know it!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I find it impossible not to comment on your new tag. "Epistemological Free-Wheeler" is probably the greatest thing I've ever heard. I suppose as a *Christian* Theistic Evolutionist you do need to be a bit of a free wheeler , but at least you know it!

... likewise here in regard to your own avatar: I love the Santa hat! It's filled with sweet sentiments dear to my heart.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

... likewise here: I love the Santa hat! It's filled with sweet sentiments dear to my heart.

Well everybody knows that Christmas starts in August! I hope the sentiments are not St Nick slapping Arius, otherwise I might be in trouble

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well everybody knows that Christmas starts in August! I hope the sentiments are not St Nick slapping Arius, otherwise I might be in trouble

Oh no. I was just thinking about all of the gifts I used to get as a kid...

Plus, I'd like to have a t-shirt that says: St. Nick Lives!!!

 

[zippy2006]

How does the origin of life get tied in with evolution in the minds of the modern soul?

Proximity, the same way that the big bang gets associated with the origin of the universe. It's either, "Evolution is closest to the origin of life, therefore Evolution explains the origin of life," or else, "We are aiming to explain the origin of life, and Evolution is the farthest we've got."

 

[Stephen3141]

For the mods reading though this mentions evolution I only use it as an example. This has to do with argumentation, not necessarily the topic of Creation. For everyone else please forgive my frequent hyperbole.

A way in which the world & people operate and those with ignorant, misguided or malevolent desires exploit you is by offering you boxed questions. Logical systems that contain only non sequiturs. So for example in regards to the origin of life, intelligent design is disregarded due to preconceived notions that are logically coherent with evolution. If you deny this tyrant that is the dogma of our modern day you are lambasted and seen as logically incoherent. Nobody stops to consider that the initial assumption may have more than one logical conclusion or that the logical conclusion drawn may not be congruent with the initial proposition. This isn’t even to mention that the accuracy of scientific hypotheses with the most support is dependent upon current technology and methodologies. The same way you wouldn’t view a person who lived 10,000 years ago as stupid for thinking that the world was flat because of the nature of his technological lens that he’s able to view the world through. But let’s get back to the example of the origin of life. I would like to ask you the question:

Why is evolution the best way to determine the origin of life?

A) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of adaptation over a large quantity of time

B) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of it’s occurrence by chance through a large quantity of time

C) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of its occurrence by chance & due to the evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of genetic adaptation over a large quantity of time

D) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to it’s ability to out compete every other hypothesis in regards to the origin of life

E) All of the above

Have you noticed something? Every answer I gave has nothing to do with the origin of life. Not a single one tells you how life began, it only tells you how it has grown or functions. Even with the reasoning of chance/randomness through a large quantity of time that is offered in the option of (B) & (C), it does not explain how life began at all. How life came from non life or even how that non life came into existence. The pillar under all of this is the assumption that evolution can explain the origin of life, when in actual reality all it can tell you is how we descended (& changed) from the first life.

How does stuff like this happen? How does the origin of life get tied in with evolution in the minds of the modern soul?

You asked a general question. But I would like to respond to the specific example.

The modern scientific definition of "evolution" is based on random mutation, and natural selection.
Most Protestant Fundamentalists use the term "evolution" to mean (in some undefined way) the
development of life, other than creation by God. These are different definitions of "evolution".

The scientific community, recognizes (more and more) that the beginning of life, is a VERY
difficult problem. And that it is not obviously or easily explained by the early chemical
reactions, on this planet.

There are all sorts of christian arguments against 'evolution", that do not address the current
scientific understanding of Neo-Darwinian evolution.

There are all sorts of misuses of the term "evolution", not in a scientific way, but to
point to "change" in some undefined way or by some undefined mechanism.

Christians must be very precise, when they address the topic of evolution.
A lot of the Protestant Fundamentalists are badly imprecise.

 

[Stephen3141]

The beginning of the universe, and the beginning of biological life, are different topics than
whether some form of "evolution" is demonstrated.

Christians should be aware of this.