...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[In situ]

Personally, I have witnessed creationists drop out of thread discussions when painted into a corner. .

All debate with YEC v.s. science I seen have boiled down to disagreement on definitions, in where YEC defenders never wants to agree to the definitions taken by the scientific community but like to introduce, and use, their own vocabulary and thus both camps declare them self as winner at the end of the debate.

What I seldom see is an attempt to come to an understanding of each point of view and to try to find common ground. Many opponents of YEC think they understand how YEC's reasons and, while they bashing facts after fact in the head of each other, becomes inclined to believe the other to hold irrational beliefs or to be irrational or intellectual dishonest.

I don't think our reality is that simple. I recognize any normal mentally healthy person to be rational, and to have reason for what they believe. I see rational reasoning behind YEC but I do not agree with it, for reason I already stated; the methodical way of redefine definition and concepts to agree to once own view points or world view, i.e. bias. I don't recognize, per default, this as being intellectual dishonest but an attempt to reconcile all scientific facts with once own personal experience and knowledge.

Therefore, in my view, a "drop out" maybe a consequence of frustration of not being understood but not because of a refusal to admit defeat. At the very least, that is at the point were I find it is perhaps time to stop a conversation with someone you disagree with.

 

[TheBear]

Do you want to become a Chinese? In China, you have no right to decide the number of children you give birth to. Also in China, you can find evolutionist almost everywhere. they even don't know what creationists mean ! If you are an evolutionist, it may sounds cool for you to make friends with them and talk to each other about the high value of freedom.

You made the claim that creationists don't run away from topics. I proved that claim to be wrong. Now, you're moving goalposts. How predictable.

 

[Loudmouth]

You bet. Here's why:

1) Only minor variations within species have been demonstrated or observed!

Those minor variations accumulate over time until they produce the divergence seen between modern species.

2) coded sequential information such as that found in DNA has never been seen to originate from any unguided chemical processes!

Yes, it has. It is observed every time a bacteria replicates.

3) life reduction experiments clearly show there are NO EXAMPLES of simpler life that evolutionists postulate must have existed to give rise to the functionally complex life we see today!

Strangely, there are no examples of deities creating life.

4) selective breeding only results in trait optimization and distinct limits not new morphological distinction!

Mutations do create new morphology and selectable function]

5) mutations are a degenerative process that accrues more prohibitively operational damage than it can possibly overcome by any controversial or occasional “good mutation”!

So of the millions of mutations that separate humans and chimps, how many cause "operational damage"?

6) Examples of Macro evolution cited by evolutionists are totally within the bounds of a known process called ADAPTATION and do not result in new body plans or body parts that build new function.

So chimps and humans have the same body plan?

 

[durangodawood]

...if you are taking someone else's word for it, then it becomes a faith issue (which, there is nothing philosophically wrong with that.)

Trust is typically based on past results. Thats hardly the same as faith.

 

[TheBear]

What do you have to say to rebut the points I've just relayed to you? You don't even have to tell us. It can only be an abject admission of your fundamentally erroneous belief in the matter, or an equally abject silence. Or can you refute it?

Well you're a feisty one, aren't you?



I'll get to your list and address the points.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationists run away?

Yes, all of the time. They are not seen at scientific conferences. They do not submit papers for peer review. They refuse to do actualy scientific research. They are completely absent from the arena of science.

Many of us have seen many creationists come through, be confronted with the evidence, and then run the other direction.

 

[In situ]

Do you want to become a Chinese? In China, you have no right to decide the number of children you give birth to.

The Chinese people did this because they know of a concept known as carrying capacity. If the Chinese had not decided to do this, do you know home many Chinees there would had been on this planet today? If the Chinese people had not done what they did Chinese people would today suffer from a much more sever starving than they already do.

What make you think it is our self given, and granted, right to decide how many children we can have when we live in a community that is about collaborating and sharing resources with each other for, ultimately, our own selfish benefits?

In the developed world we already have a negative trend in birth v.s death ratio so such drastic measure are not needed - yet! If the Chinese had not done what they did, this world would had been an even more miserable world to live in. Therefore, in a sense we all own your gratitude to the Chinese and for the decision they took because it affect not only them but us as well...

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't you just love ad hominem? I would suspect so, since you use it in almost every response.

Where did I use it in the response you are quoting?

You still didn't answer my initial question. How many of the experiments have you reproduced in a laboratory on your own merit (especifically w.r.t evolution).

Actually, a few in a tangetial sense. I deal with DNA sequence quite a bit, as well as reported sequence in databases. When was the last time you did a PCR, designed primers, or had DNA sequenced?

Or, are you just believing what these scientists have to say, without being able to substantially prove it yourself?

I believe in the system that is in place where people build on the findings of others. Did you even read what I wrote? If the reported chimp sequence was wrong the research based on that sequence would demonstrate it. Other scientists are checking the work. It would literally require a world wide conspiracy of scientists to create the kind of fake evidence you are alluding to.

To go against the presented scientific status quo can warrant penalties anywhere from ridicule to scholarly articles pulled, to termination. I have been witness to it.

It all depends on how you go against the status quo. If you do so with no evidence and a chip on your shoulder then you probably will be scorned.

Now, back to the original question: how many scientific laboratory experiments have you conducted in your life, specifically w.r.t evolution? Or, do you just take scientists at their face-value?

Do you just assume there is a world wide conspiracy to create fake evidence? What reason do you have for doubting the evidence that are found in peer reviewed papers?

Follow up: where did you get your masters and/or Ph.D, and in what discipline of science?

Bachelors actually, with a ton of real world experience in the lab.

 

[In situ]

So you are saying what - that I should know that evolution is real?

I also notice you falling back on a Straw Man now.

I am not being facetious, I really don't understand what you are saying (or, at least, it hasn't clicked yet.)

Then I understand why you are using a straw man. You are excused for that, but I still hold you responsible for you Ad Verecundiam done earlier; you should know better:

"Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather absolute argument for establishing facts."

You tried to imply that you your opponents argument was invalid by trying to show he or she did not posses enough expertise in the issue. However such argument in itself is invalid because an expert can be wrong as well.

The argument should be addressed, not the agitator, and any scientific literate person ought to know this, in particular one with your said expertise. That is the Whys and the Whats.

In other words I question our own claimed expertise...

 

[In situ]

Oh, I see.

But, who constitutes what is valid? Lay-persons? Or, do scientists/experts qualify something as invalid? If it is the latter, then it circles back to my point : you should be able to repruduce the science for your own enrichment, and to be able to determine objectively what is, and isn't valid. Of you are taking someone else's word for it, then it becomes a faith issue (which, there is nothing philosophically wrong with that.)

You are creating a Red Herring now to conceal the fact that you are using invalid argument, but require your opponents to do it.

You claimed you had qualification to judge on scientific matters and referred to specific expertise of your own for this (which actually make you guilty of have done two Ad Verecundiam's)at the same time you arguing with several fallacious arguments.

So far I counted to:

• 2 Argument from Authority
• 1 Straw Man
• 1 Red Herring

Because of your fallacious argument I questioning your claim of actually having any of your claimed expertise.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I see rational reasoning behind YEC but I do not agree with it,

What rational reasoning do you see behind Young Earth creationism?

 

[durangodawood]

What rational reasoning do you see behind Young Earth creationism?

Just start with premise #1: the Bible is correct in a literal sense. From there, the reasoning is quite rational.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Just start with premise #1: the Bible is correct in a literal sense. From there, the reasoning is quite rational.

That's OK, as long as you test the premise against reality, and reject it if it fails. Pulsars, lake varves and endogenous retroviruses, among many other lines of evidence, falsify it. Therefore it is irrational to retain it.

 

[pjnlsn]

Do you want to become a Chinese? In China, you have no right to decide the number of children you give birth to. Also in China, you can find evolutionist almost everywhere. they even don't know what creationists mean ! If you are an evolutionist, it may sounds cool for you to make friends with them and talk to each other about the high value of freedom.

Well, clearly to be informed on scientific matters means that your government must be totalitarian. I mean, obviously.

 

[In situ]

What rational reasoning do you see behind Young Earth creationism?

I can understand your doubts. It is a quite complicated question to answer and if it wasn't complicated you probably wouldn't ask the question. It would require me to write a small novel to explain the inner thinking and reasoning of YEC's, but I tried to explain it by the way YEC's insist in using their own terminology, not accepting conventional definitions, or explanation, etc. The assumption is that it must seam to be rational from their point of view just as you, and I, insist in thinking our reasoning is rational from our point of view.

As an example did you notice in the conversation I had with Mark that when I pointed out that common ancestor is a posteriori knowledge (based on observation) he then still insisted it was a priori knowledge (an assumption). Mark is not stupid and he believes common ancestor is a priori knowledge. That is fine with me, I got no problem with that. But when I confront him with with the opposite, my beliefs, it is only rational for him to refuse to accept such beliefs because the consistency of his own reasoning depends on it to be a priori knowledge - in the same manner as the consistency of my reasoning also depends on it to be a posteriori knowledge.

I am not interested in trying to tell anyone what to believe in, because people are free to believe whatever they like, but I can show them that they are wrong when they claim my reasoning is irrational.

Hence, the issue, to me, is not about who is "right" or "wrong" but a failure to recognize that an opponents reasoning might be just as valid as your own. It is always up to each individual to decide which reasoning that makes most sense to them; that is how I change my own opinions, if the other persons view makes better sense than my own then I change opinion.

Ever wonder why you cannot convince a YEC with facts? It is because fact are secondary in what we believe, it is our reasoning behind the facts that are primary for our believes.

Did this make sense?

 

[pjnlsn]

Just start with premise #1: the Bible is correct in a literal sense. From there, the reasoning is quite rational.

Except not at all, since what it all depends on is itself not rational. The assumption that the Bible is true.

For, among other things, including misconceptions about the natural world, the entity the Bible speaks of is unlikely to exist. As with any deity.

The existence of any deity is unlikely and unproven.

 

[BarryDesborough]

I can understand your doubts. It is a quite complicated question to answer and if it wasn't complicated you probably wouldn't ask the question. It would require me to write a small novel to explain the inner thinking and reasoning of YEC's, but I tried to explain it by the way YEC's insist in using their own terminology, not accepting conventional definitions, or explanation, etc. The assumption is that it must seam to be rational from their point of view just as you, and I, insist in thinking our reasoning is rational from our point of view.

As an example did you notice in the conversation I had with Mark that when I pointed out that common ancestor is a posteriori knowledge (based on observation) he then still insisted it was a priori knowledge (an assumption). Mark is not stupid and he believes common ancestor is a priori knowledge. That is fine with me, I got no problem with that. But when I confront him with with the opposite, my beliefs, it is only rational for him to refuse to accept such beliefs because the consistency of his own reasoning depends on it to be a priori knowledge - in the same manner as the consistency of my reasoning also depends on it to be a posteriori knowledge.

I am not interested in trying to tell anyone what to believe in, because people are free to believe whatever they like, but I can show them that they are wrong when they claim my reasoning is irrational.

Hence, the issue, to me, is not about who is "right" or "wrong" but a failure to recognize that an opponents reasoning might be just as valid as your own. It is always up to each individual to decide which reasoning that makes most sense to them; that is how I change my own opinions, if the other persons view makes better sense than my own then I change opinion.

Ever wonder why you cannot convince a YEC with facts? It is because fact are secondary in what we believe, it is our reasoning behind the facts that are primary for our believes.

Did this make sense?

No. There is an enormous difference between presuppositional assumption and conclusion based on evidence. The former is just infantile.

 

[In situ]

Just start with premise #1: the Bible is correct in a literal sense. From there, the reasoning is quite rational.

This statement is more telling about your own world view, biases and beliefs, than the belief system of a YEC. Or was your comment intended as a joke?

 

[In situ]

No. There is an enormous difference between presuppositional assumption and conclusions based on evidence. The former is just infantile.

I agree with this, but also admits I have failed to explain what I mean and thus failed to justify why I reason as I do.

 

[durangodawood]

Just start with premise #1: the Bible is correct in a literal sense. From there, the reasoning is quite rational.

I'm quite serious about this. If you decide God meant all the words of the Bible to be interpreted literally, then everything else follows rationally from there, no matter how much the results contradict apparent reality.
.
You can do this with any book, if you decide to.
.