Who is Mr Darwin?

[Vap841]

So a lot of creationists have an incredibly active fantasy life around Mr Darwin.
Some think he is even still alive.

That’s news to me lol.

Do they think that he hangs out with Elvis?

 

[Shemjaza]

"It would be fascinating if Creationists had scientific evidence to support their ideas... but they are never able present it."

Wait...don't you say that anti-Creationists such as yourself have "evidence to support" your anti-Creationism?

Creationists affirm the proposition that God created man, whereas anti-Creationists affirm the proposition that God did not create man, no? Now, this pair of propositions—

P: God created man
~P: God did not create man​

—is a pair of contradictories, which means that one of them must be true and one of them must be false. Do not anti-Creationists (such as Darwinists) say they have "evidence to support" the proposition they like, namely ~P? And do not anti-Creationists affirm that ~P is true, and that P is false?

So, the question is: Since you, being an anti-Creationist, claim that ~P is true, and claim that you have what you call "evidence to support" ~P, why, then, would you go around complaining that Creationists "are never able to present" anything you would be willing to call "evidence to support" P?

Here's what you're saying: "It would be fascinating if Creationists had scientific evidence to support [a proposition I, being an anti-Creationist, consider to be false]... but they are never able present it."

Can evidence support propositions that are false? Yes or No?

Except your proposition is not "P: God created man" your proposition is "P: God created man in a specific scenario."

"God created man" is an unfalsifiable proposition, but "humans appeared in their modern form and did not evolved from common ancestors with other animals" is a statement that has considerable evidence available.

I'm an atheist because I think the evidence for deities in particular and supernatural in general is insufficient, but I can't prove their negation, so I'm an agnostic atheist.

However, I accept evolution and could be labelled an anti-Creationist because there is abundant evidence from multiple fields of science to demonstrate evolution.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

You can call just about anything "peanut butter" -- but that doesn't make it so.



Unless, of course, words like "science" have meanings that you might or might not know or care about -- and ignoring this fact in favor of pointless word games are characteristic of the Creationist side of the discussion.

"You can call just about anything "peanut butter" -- but that doesn't make it so."

Me? No, I can only call peanut butter "peanut butter".
What doesn't make what so?

"Unless, of course, words like "science" have meanings that you might or might not know or care about"

By "words...have meanings," do you mean that words mean things? Words don't mean things; rather, people (sometimes) mean things by means of words. The word, "science," doesn't mean anything; someone may mean something by means of the word, "science". So, if you'd like to tell me exactly what (if anything) you mean by your word, "science," I'm all ears. But also, bear in mind that I'm under no burden to assume that you must be using your word, "science," in a cognitively meaningful way, just because you are using it.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Evolution is a science, not an "ism". It is not a philosophy or a religion. Evolution follows the scientific methods. It is not based on the founding ideas of one person or one book. People who study evolution professionally are evolutionary biologists (and sometimes call themselves "evolutionists", but they don't practice "evolutionism"). People who accept evolution as the best available theory of the origin of species don't have a group name. (And it is definitely not "Darwinists".)

"Evolution is a science, not an "ism"."

That's just the sort of thing Darwinists/evolutionists/evolutionism hucksters like to say.

People who want to not be considered Darwinists should stop advertising that their thinking is Darwinist thinking.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

I'm sorry; were you addressing another post that you mistook for mine?

That's what you wrote—in every one of your posts: "We are our choices." No?

You think people are choices?

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Evolution is a science, not an "ism"."

That's just the sort of thing Darwinists/evolutionists/evolutionism hucksters like to say.

People who want to not be considered Darwinists should stop advertising that their thinking is Darwinist thinking.

How is evolution a dogma, philosophy, or religion?

If I and others are "Darwinists", how much Darwin do you think I've read or can quote from memory?

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

You can call just about anything "peanut butter" -- but that doesn't make it so.



Unless, of course, words like "science" have meanings that you might or might not know or care about -- and ignoring this fact in favor of pointless word games are characteristic of the Creationist side of the discussion.

"You can call just about anything "peanut butter" -- but that doesn't make it so."

Me? No, I can only call peanut butter "peanut butter".
What doesn't make what so?

"Unless, of course, words like "science" have meanings that you might or might not know or care about"

Words don't mean things; rather, people mean things by means of words. The word, "science," doesn't mean anything; someone may mean something by means of the word, "science". So, if you'd like to tell me exactly what (if anything) you mean by your word, "science," I'm all ears.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Except your proposition is not "P: God created man" your proposition is "P: God created man in a specific scenario."

"God created man" is an unfalsifiable proposition, but "humans appeared in their modern form and did not evolved from common ancestors with other animals" is a statement that has considerable evidence available.

I'm an atheist because I think the evidence for deities in particular and supernatural in general is insufficient, but I can't prove their negation, so I'm an agnostic atheist.

However, I accept evolution and could be labelled an anti-Creationist because there is abundant evidence from multiple fields of science to demonstrate evolution.

You wrote: "Except your proposition is not "P: God created man" your proposition is "P: God created man in a specific scenario.""

Except the proposition I wrote ('God created man') is the proposition I meant, rather than something I did not write/mean, which you for some reason wish I had written/meant.

You wrote: ""God created man" is an unfalsifiable proposition"

Except you mean that the proposition, 'God created man,' is false. There you see how easy it is for me to play your own game against you.

I had asked you: "Can evidence support propositions that are false? Yes or No?"
You: <NO ANSWER>

 

[Shemjaza]

You wrote: "Except your proposition is not "P: God created man" your proposition is "P: God created man in a specific scenario.""

Except the proposition I wrote ('God created man') is the proposition I meant, rather than something I did not write/mean, which you for some reason wish I had written/meant.

You wrote: ""God created man" is an unfalsifiable proposition"

Except you mean that the proposition, 'God created man,' is false. There you see how easy it is for me to play your own game against you.

I had asked you: "Can evidence support propositions that are false? Yes or No?"
You: <NO ANSWER>

Ah, then you were being blatantly dishonest.

You entered a discussion about evolution vs Creationism, then created a proposition that was not directly relevant to that discussion. IE Theism vs Atheism.

Evidence CAN be found to support propositions that are false. However, the preponderance of evidence is a particularly reliable method of discovering the truth.

The alternative method of discovering the truth appears to be personal emotional reaction and religious conviction. Methods that can clearly be demonstrated to be unreliable.

When I said "God created man" is unfalsifiable, I meant that it was unfalsifiable.

As I said, I happen to think it is false, but can't demonstrate it.

I however, DO think evolution IS demonstrable and true. You appear to consider that mutually exclusive with your statement, and so either your position is false, or you misphrased your position.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you had misphrased your statement.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Except your proposition is not "P: God created man" your proposition is "P: God created man in a specific scenario."

"God created man" is an unfalsifiable proposition, but "humans appeared in their modern form and did not evolved from common ancestors with other animals" is a statement that has considerable evidence available.

I'm an atheist because I think the evidence for deities in particular and supernatural in general is insufficient, but I can't prove their negation, so I'm an agnostic atheist.

However, I accept evolution and could be labelled an anti-Creationist because there is abundant evidence from multiple fields of science to demonstrate evolution.

You wrote: "evolved from common ancestors with other animals"

Could you please tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for something to "evolve from" something/for something to "evolve into" something? I've asked Darwinists what it would be for an individual fish to "evolve into" an individual man, and all I ever get from them is a reaction along the lines of "You just don't understand how evolution works! Individual animals don't evolve!" Of course, every animal is an individual—an individual animal—so, to say "Individual animals don't evolve" is to say "Animals don't evolve." And of course, that's fundamentally, insurmountably problematic for Darwinists, since they go around saying things like "Dinosaurs [animals] evolved into birds [animals]!" Out of the one side of their mouth, Darwinists say animals "evolve," whereas, out of the other side, they say animals "don't evolve". Not a brilliant ploy, Darwinists.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Ah, then you were being blatantly dishonest.

You entered a discussion about evolution vs Creationism, then created a proposition that was not directly relevant to that discussion. IE Theism vs Atheism.

Evidence CAN be found to support propositions that are false. However, the preponderance of evidence is a particularly reliable method of discovering the truth.

The alternative method of discovering the truth appears to be personal emotional reaction and religious conviction. Methods that can clearly be demonstrated to be unreliable.

When I said "God created man" is unfalsifiable, I meant that it was unfalsifiable.

As I said, I happen to think it is false, but can't demonstrate it.

I however, DO think evolution IS demonstrable and true. You appear to consider that mutually exclusive with your statement, and so either your position is false, or you misphrased your position.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you had misphrased your statement.

You wrote: "Evidence CAN be found to support propositions that are false. However, the preponderance of evidence is a particularly reliable method of discovering the truth."

LOL

IOW, your doctrine of the nature of evidence is, at best, entirely worthless.

What (if any) difference would you say there is between what you would call "evidence" and what you would call "the preponderance of evidence"?

Give us an example of something you would call "a proposition that is false," and then give us an example of something you would call "evidence to support" it. Describe for us exactly what it would be for your "proposition that is false" to be "supported" by "evidence". Give us an example of something you would call "evidence that supports" the false propostion, 'The Grand Canyon is in Rhode Island'. Have fun trying to instantiate your asinine, false claim that "Evidence CAN be found to support propositions that are false."

You wrote: "I however, DO think evolution IS demonstrable and true."

Oh? Then, by all means, right here, right now, just do for us whatever it is you would call "demonstrating evolution". Or, can you only "demonstrate evolution" to evolutionists?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ah, then you were being blatantly dishonest.

And we are surprised because...?

 

[Shemjaza]

You wrote: "evolved from common ancestors with other animals"

Could you please tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for something to "evolve from" something/for something to "evolve into" something? I've asked Darwinists what it would be for an individual fish to "evolve into" an individual man, and all I ever get from them is a reaction along the lines of "You just don't understand how evolution works! Individual animals don't evolve!" Of course, every animal is an individual—an individual animal—so, to say "Individual animals don't evolve" is to say "Animals don't evolve." And of course, that's fundamentally, insurmountably problematic for Darwinists, since they go around saying things like "Dinosaurs [animals] evolved into birds [animals]!" Out of the one side of their mouth, Darwinists say animals "evolve," whereas, out of the other side, they say animals "don't evolve". Not a brilliant ploy, Darwinists.

Evolution is a process that happens on the scale of entire populations over the course of generations.

As a micro-evolution example a wolf is not a dog, but all dogs are descended from a population of wolves.

It isn't a matter of a single wolf transforming into a dog... or even a single dog being born to wolf parents, it's about all the little traits that are helpful to dogs developing separately in the population and becoming more common from generation to generation as the ones without them don't thrive.

On a small scale of thousands of years you can get very distinct sub-species like Canis familiaris and Canis lupus... and the genetic and fossil evidence demonstrates that this trend can continue to much more significant changes on a longer time frame.

So, while a dog is still a canine... it's also still a carnivore, still a mammal, still a vertebrate and still an animal.


With humans and chimps both coming from a common ape ancestor it's a matter of the populations splitting into the forest and climbing focused chimps and the savanna focused ancestors of humanity. The complicated tree of the savanna apes only has humans left now, but we have fossil evidence of many more species. In fact around 100 thousand years ago there were at least 5 distinct hominid species.

You've probably seen this image of fossils of the extinct species that clearly shows how difficult it is to differentiate "ape" from "man".

 

[AV1611VET]

With humans and chimps both coming from a common ape ancestor ...

I hear that all the time, but no one gives me his name.

Level with me.

Was it Charles Darwin? Carlos Linnaeus? who?

 

[Shemjaza]

You wrote: "Evidence CAN be found to support propositions that are false. However, the preponderance of evidence is a particularly reliable method of discovering the truth."

LOL

IOW, your doctrine of the nature of evidence is, at best, entirely worthless.

Evidence isn't perfect and I never claimed it was. It is the most reliable method I've seen presented.

What (if any) difference would you say there is between what you would call "evidence" and what you would call "the preponderance of evidence"?

Give us an example of something you would call "a proposition that is false," and then give us an example of something you would call "evidence to support" it. Describe for us exactly what it would be for your "proposition that is false" to be "supported" by "evidence". Give us an example of something you would call "evidence that supports" the false propostion, 'The Grand Canyon is in Rhode Island'. Have fun trying to instantiate your asinine, false claim that "Evidence CAN be found to support propositions that are false."

Trivial.

The preponderance of evidence implies that you have thoroughly investigated the situation and come to a conclusion based on all available evidence.

Also, when I said that evidence can be found that supports false propositions, I wasn't implying that evidence can be found to support any proposition.

But your silly example is trivial anyway.

With a small subset of data you can reach incorrect conclusions.

Lets just say you have two bits of data, a holiday photo of some people labelled: "Us at the Grand Canyon on our trip to the USA!" and the other bit of data is a postcard for "Rhode Island, USA!" you now have limited evidence and a possible conclusion is that they are the same place. Now if you also had a road map of the USA you could see the state boundaries and now the preponderance of evidence is that they are in fact in different locations within an area called the USA.

You wrote: "I however, DO think evolution IS demonstrable and true."

Oh? Then, by all means, right here, right now, just do for us whatever it is you would call "demonstrating evolution". Or, can you only "demonstrate evolution" to evolutionists?

People can be reasonable or unreasonable in why they accept things.

The evidence of genetic relatedness of modern animals is consistent with the evidence of species transition found in geological evidence for the history of the Earth.

The theory of evolution that natural selection acts on natural variation in species caused by mutation explains the patterns of evidence found.

 

[Shemjaza]

I hear that all the time, but no one gives me his name.

Level with me.

Was it Charles Darwin? Carlos Linnaeus? who?

Well Linnaeus classified them as primates, but I don't believe he ever implied he believed in common ancestry.

Charles Darwin clearly did accept that humans and chimps had a common ancestor and wrote about it in his later books, but I'm not aware he was the first to publish on this fact.

 

[ottawak]

And do not anti-Creationists affirm that ~P is true, and that P is false?

many do not. In this forum, "Creationist" especially when capitalized, refers specifically to biblical or young Earth creationists. So an 'anti-Creationist woulld be a person who rejects biblical or young Earth creationism. Consequently, anti-Creationism includes many Christians and other theists in addition to atheists.

 

[Shemjaza]

many do not. In this forum, "Creationist" especially when capitalized, refers specifically to biblical or young Earth creationists. So an 'anti-Creationist woulld be a person who rejects biblical or young Earth creationism. Consequently, anti-Creationism includes many Christians and other theists in addition to atheists.

Especially in this context when it was framed as an opposition to evolution.

My experience is that a certain class of Creationist is happy to have all the varieties of Christian when they can use it to flex it for popularity and political weight... but will write them off as atheists and unbelievers the second they are talking specifics of beliefs and doctrine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well Linnaeus classified them as primates, but I don't believe he ever implied he believed in common ancestry.

Charles Darwin clearly did accept that humans and chimps had a common ancestor and wrote about it in his later books, but I'm not aware he was the first to publish on this fact.

Well, for the record, any child in our Sunday school classes can give you his name.

 

[AV1611VET]

Consequently, anti-Creationism includes many Christians and other theists in addition to atheists.

Such as Episcopalians?