Oolon Colluphid

It was only cloudy to yourself it seems. People either accept evolution or they don’t.

Of the former group, some believe that god or gods were also bodding about somehow; others find that less than parsimonious. But they all think that evolution is sufficient to account for life.

The latter group, however, believe that evolution is insufficient to account for life, that it requires anything from a help over the jumps (eg Behe) to being made completely by supernatural intervention (eg Gish, Hovind). These people are therefore called creationists. Since they require the involvement of the supernatural, what they believe is unscientific.

On the contrary, I agree.
Nature can do it on its own = ‘evolutionist’
Nature alone cannot do it, supernatural intervention necessary = creationist.

Right. If you were wrong, and were revealed as such, why should we bother further, unless further / new material were presented? A refuted hypothesis is a dead one.

That’d most likely be me. I therefore have cause to doubt your understanding of the term ad hominem. That is attacking the person rather than the argument, justifying your position by criticism of the other person. Eg: "You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children.". I don’t see where I’ve done that; you seem to be confusing it with insult, sarcasm and taking-the-piss.

And it never entered your head that the (special) creationist position is simply untenable, and so you were wasting your time arguing that there might, maybe, why-aren’t-you-looking-for-it-open-mindedly? you’re-just-blinded-by-previous-errors-and-lies! be something in it?

Well, thank you for the lesson in debating.

... the correct usage of colons and semicolons?

Look pal, I don’t give a stuff who is bothered by my categorical rejection of creationism. If anyone wants to see the evidence why I reject it so emphatically, I’ll be happy to oblige. After 150 years of scientific research which does categorically refute special creation, I see no reason to pussy-foot around so as not to upset anyone ignorant enough to accept it.

You’re struggling with your definitions again.

How is making a judgement based on all the evidence (rather than some or none of it) subjective?

Thank you for your concern.

Correct. The difference here is that evolution is a fact, not a matter of opinion. You set yourself up to defend the indefensible. That you found it defensible at all reveals nothing but ignorance on your part; that you wished to defend it implies at least a sympathy with it -- for appealing to open-mindedness shows an ignorance of science.

Where are the ad homs? And where is the fear? I for one am not afraid of any of this, because, though I may walk in the valley of the shadow of creationism, I have a rough idea what the hell I’m talking about.

And pigs will evolve insect-like wings.

TTFN, DT

notMichaelJackson

Hey, stickman, are you the same "the stickman" who posts at the ACLU forums? If so quit avoiding me there and respond to my abortion threads.

long winded fool

I recognize creationism as unscientific. So then are unscientific theories fair game for irrational arguments?

And those that don't accept evolution are stupid and can logically be refuted by using irrational arguments, since they are irrational.

LOL. So any scientist who makes a hypothesis that is later refuted is discredited as a scientist? You are hearing only what you want to hear in this argument, friend. I seem to be unable to convince you that I'm not a creationist. You are arguing against an imaginary opponent here. Pointing out a creationist who believes an unresolved mistake and applying this to all creationists is a variation of an ad hominem fallacy, unless I'm mistaken on my terms. If I am, maybe you can find the proper word for this logical fallacy. Irrelevant Conclusion perhaps?

As I read your post, it is obvious you are prepared solely for an argument against the validity of creationism. When faced with a criticism of your arguing methods, you turn around and refute creationism again. It seems from this point of view that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the evidence is not worth debating. This is why I criticize you. Everyone feels fear at a challenge of their intellect. You can flinch and lash out irrationally and instinctively, or you can show confidence in your position and refrain from "fighting dirty" even when your challenger is. (And if you still don't understand, "fighting dirty" means using the same type of irrational arguments that frightened creationists sometimes use against evolution.) It's scientists like you who want to strong-arm people into believing in evolution. If insults and berating, not to mention irrational arguments that you assume are rational enough simply because of the irrationality of the position you're arguing against, are your tools in the debate against creationism, you are a coward. You are indeed afraid and it shows in your argument. You may convince weak-minded creationists not to debate you, but you are showing your lack of faith in your own judgment when you take a battle mentality when discussing what you supposedly believe to be the truth.

Do you hear what you sound like? Like me, you are aptly named, Darwin's Terrier. I can see I won't be seperating you from your rope and torch anytime soon.

Doubting Didymus

Right, thats it. You want to accuse me of irrational argumentation? Then I will meet this challenge with formal logic. Your accusation is not trifling. You will back your argument up or it will be shown to be irrational and false.

Darwins terrier has already formalised his argument:
All the evidence shows creationism to be false
Therefore Creationism is false

My own argument is the standard "anyone who does not believe in evolution is ignorant, a liar, or insane". This is a conclusion that follows directly from DT's argument, which is implied in my posts on the subject. Formally:

All the evidence shows evolution (X) to be true
Therefore the regection of evolution, which is what we generally know as creationism (Y) is false, given that Creationism is the rejection of evolution.

P1: X - (evolution is true)
P2: Y=Not X - (Creationism is the rejection of evolution)
subC: Therefore Not Y (creationism is false)

My secondary conclusion:
Therefore, given the falsehood of creationism, all those who believe it are lying OR ignorant OR insane (in other words, a mistake.)

To formalise:
P3: Believing a falshood is a mistake.
C: Believing Y is a mistake.

To refute this argument and show it to be illogical you must either challenge the validity (that is, show how the premises may be true, and yet the conclusion still false), or challenge the soundness by refuting (or challenging the supporting evidence for) one or multiple premises. I am confident of the validity, so you must show falsehood or weakness in my premises thusly:
1) Evolution is not, in fact, true. OR
2) Creationism in the common usage (as used here) is not the rejection of evolution, OR
3) Believing a falsehood is not a mistake.

Good bloody luck.

A further note: most of my posts in this thread have challenged you to provide evidence for your own premise, that creationists are not always either lying or mistaken, and that evolutionists are also frequently lying or mistaken. Your complete refusal to do this is grounds to assume unsoundness in your argument. When challenged, you must provide evidence for your premises. That's logic, friend.

Jobar

lwf- really, you're just digging yourself deeper and deeper. You seem to think that we have not 'honestly listened' to the creationists. The trouble is that we have. We, unlike you, are fully aware of the basis of their beliefs.

You take us to task for calling them liars, or at best ignorant. Why do you bother doing this? Do you think that science follows the same rules as polite drawing-room conversation, and we should do our best to just 'get along' with the ones who disagree with us? If that's the case, then you not only don't understand creationism, you don't understand science either! It is normally done politely (though certainly not always!) but good manners aren't what make science go. Facts. Evidence. Proof. That's what you need to have, in order to do science. And creationists have none of these.

long winded fool

I am not defending the intellectual integrity of any particular creationist, however you are in no position to comment on the intellectual integrity of all creationists. What I speak of is the common sense idea that a lack of intellectual integrity shouldn't be countered with a similar lack of intellectual integrity. The only support I have for this statement is that, if honest communication and learning are your goals, then you ought to argue responsibly. If trading insults and looking smart are your goals, then you need no intellectual integrity. Not on this board anyway.

If you'd like to get technical Doubting Didymus, then your argument is fraught with fallacies.

All the evidence shows creationism to be false,
Therefore creationism is false.

You are missing the premise which shows that you are in possession of all the evidence. You have a universal premise and a universal conclusion. Your universal premise is unproven. Why should I automatically believe that all the evidence points to evolution? Because you say so? Why should I believe that you have looked at all the evidence? And why should I believe that you've made the proper analysis even if you did? Because you can answer five questions about it? How does abiogenesis work? Why aren't there any "transitional" fossils? Unless I am in possession of ALL the evidence, this argument does not apply to me and creationism isn't necessarily false. Even if you assume you have all the current evidence, you can never be sure that someone hasn't found evidence to the contrary, (though you may dishonestly assume this) therefore you ought to assume the possibility that someone will and your conclusion is unsound. But why not use it anyway?

Creationism is false,
Therefore anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, a liar, or insane.

False Dilemma, Begging the Question, Composition, Appeal to Popularity, Prejudicial Language. (While I admit not all of these are present in the above, all have been and continue to be used by many evolutionists on this board. I just decided to get as many as I could in at one time while I was looking up the old fallacies. I'm pretty lazy.)

Evidence for creationism? You are bound and determined to make me a creationist aren't you? Try to concentrate on my argument, not the straw man constructed for me by everyone else.

Oolon Colluphid

Of course not. When we have made one, you’ll doubtless be the first to let us know. But then again, since you do not seem to be aware of what a rational argument is, we’ll take your flagging it up with a pinch of salt.

Or insane. Or practising doublethink. Or, the most common one, simply ignorant of the facts. Remember that creation was, for most of human history, the only reasonable explanation. Now, however, we know better... or at least many do; many others, who have not investigated it and/or refuse to investigate it, still cling to the old ideas. If they wish to remain blissfully unaware, that’s fine. But they should keep it to themselves, not try to get their own ignorance taught as science in schools etc.

See DD’s post.

No. I do find it odd, the things you find amusing. Now who’s fallaciously extrapolating from one instance to all members of that class? Either that, or your reading comprehension is suspect.
Try reading it again, s-l-o-w-l-y.

Examples please. You appear to be reading what you expect, not what I have written.

I neither know nor care. But to stretch your own analogy, you are, however, a Nuremberg defence lawyer. You are defending -- arguing for the acquital of -- the indefensible. I seem to be unable to convince you that by even raising the matter, you are doing so. Play your little ersatz philosophical games if you want, but don’t expect not to get called on it.

So please lay out the logic underlying your argument.

Yup, you are, but I’m hardly surprised. It would be the fallacy of composition. Which I have described for you earlier. And I explained why we are not commiting that fallacy. You are not reading, or you are out of your depth for reading comprehension.

Let me lay it out for you.

1. Some creationists believe a falsehood.

2. Therefore, you argue, to extrapolate this to all creationists is a fallacy of composition.

3. But belief in the falsehood is what defines someone as being a creationist. Being a creationist means believing the falsehood, since creationism is false. (Hence us repeatedly refering back to the evidence, which you claim not to dispute, that demonstrates the untruth of creationism.)

4. Therefore, by definition, point 1’s “some creationists believe a falsehood” means that “all creationists believe a falsehood”. If some did not, they would not be creationists. Your argument’s logic is that “some northern leopard frogs are Rana pipiens... but they might not all be. But if it is not R pipiens, it isn’t a northern leopard frog.

5. Note that this does not require everyone to ‘believe in’ evolution instead, merely that since creationism is thoroughly refuted, it is a falsehood. Even if evolution were to be refuted too -- and this is a point creationists do not understand when they attack evolution -- all it would mean is that we would no longer have an explanation for life, not that an already-refuted idea (creationism) could step into the breach. That’s basic Popperian epistemology.

Now. Stop right here. Go back and read those points again.
.
.
.
.

Got it? Now carry on.

Maybe you are getting confused because of your unconventional definition of ‘creationist’...? But that has been covered earlier.

You are trying to run before you can walk. Try some simple stuff with sets.

Well the validity of your argument is transparently lacking.

Where, eh bozo? You’re hearing what you expect to hear again.

My interpretation of the evidence? You really need to read up on scientific epistemology and inference from evidence.

Just why the blue fuck do you think we’re here then? Just to pat ourselves on the back at how clever we are? Then why do we have a current thread bemoaning the lack of debaters?

Let me know when such a challenge occurs.

Can I? Thanks! Then I have your permission to call you a brainless twerp who wouldn’t know a rational argument if one chewed his arse off.

Hey, this “irrational and instinctive” business may not advance the argument, but it certainly feels good!

Like we didn’t... where?

The only genuinely irrational arguments in this thread are yours. We have explained why at some length; it’s not our fault if you’re too stupid to see it.

Whee! I’m a scientist! (Mind you, coming from the expert opinion of LWF, it’s not much of a fuckin accolade .)

<Sigh>
1. People do not, or should not, ‘believe in’ evolution. Most people here simply accept it on the basis of the unabiguous evidence.

2. No scientist is forcing anyone. It is creationists who attack science, and rake over century-old arguments in attempts to get their faith taken as the more valid position. Since these beliefs are plain wrong, and since it is science which is attacked, scientists would be remiss if they did not counter it. Scientists arguing for evolution are not spreading propaganda, they are stating what is to the best of our knowledge the truth.

My chief weapon is evidence. Evidence and logic... logic and evidence... My two weapons are logic and evidence and ridicule... My three weapons are logic and evidence and ridicule... and a ruthless inability to tolerate bullshit... Among my weaponry... are such elements as logic and evidence, ridicule, a ruthless inability to tolerate bullshit and an almost fanatical devotion to the truth.

Cardinal Didymus! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!

Go on, find one. Say, are you getting your definition of ‘irrational’ from the same source as the ones for ‘creationist’, ‘ad hominem’ and so on?

Since repeating an argument in the hope it will become more valid the more often you say it (ie the Bellman’s Fallacy, “What I tell you three times is true"), not to mention deliberately missing or ignoring points made and explanations offered to you, are your tools in this discussion, you are an ignoramus.

[Edited to add, lest my usage is unclear, I am using 'ignoramus' as defined in Chambers English: 'an ignorant person; one pretending to knowledge he does not possess'.]

What shows in my argument is exasperation at dealing with a philosophical retard. Again, that dictionary problem, getting ‘fear’ and ‘indignation’ muddled...

You may convince weak-minded idiots that you can argue logically, but it won’t wash round here, and you are showing your ignorance of what the debate is about when you attempt to argue as you have anyway.

Like someone severely pissed off at your ludicrous reasoning and ignorance-born arrogance, hopefully.

I can see I won’t be reuniting you with reality any time soon.

TTFN, DT

Daggah

LWF,

Please answer me this. What are your opinions of Kent Hovind, Carl Baugh, Duane Gish, and Jonathan Wells? Do you know anything about them?

Oolon Colluphid

DD, before some smart-alec (W@L, probably ) points this out (as they’ve previously done to me), ‘thusly’ isn’t a proper word; ‘thus’ already is an adverb.

Note that although your argument is apparently “fraught with fallacies”, the only one he really tackles is the first premise; the others (and he doesn’t know which fallacies they might be) would only be fallacies if P1 were untrue (with the possible exception that you may have a false trichotomy there, but he offers no alternatives). His examples? Same old creationist idiocy: abiogenesis (irrelevant to evolution) and no transitionals (a lie... pending his definition of ‘transitional’ at least. I mention that because his dictionary is unreliable, and it’d be best to find out what he means by it from the start.)

It seems he does indeed want to argue about the evidence after all.

Carry on and bury him.

Cheers, DT

Oolon Colluphid

LWF, I’m intrigued.

Suppose I say that I am a Zorgon from the planet Tharg, and am typing this with my twenty-fingered hands while hovering over Winchester in my spaceship. It’s on the telly right now.

Suppose, further, that someone believes this.

Suppose many people come to visit me and find that I am a human in an office; many others watch the skies of Hampshire and see no spaceship; and many more turn on their tellies and find nothing but ‘Richard and Judy’.

If someone who is aware of all this then says that the believer is ignorant, a liar or insane, on what grounds is this conclusion fallacious?

TTFN, DT