Science Disproves Evolution

[ByFaithAlone]

I find it odd that you argue that because a lot of scientists accept Brown's work (although I would appreciate it if you would reference this claim) and yet you ignore the 99.9% of scientists that deny Brown's work and accept evolution. Hypocricy? I think so...

Clarification - are you suggesting science is a 'majority rules' enterprise? Think Galileo Galilei? Let the hypocrite without hypocrisy cast the first stone...

Incorrect. I would never claim to say that the truth must be what the majority says in any field. However, what I am saying, is that I find it odd that Pahu quotes scientists that support the book if a greater number think the book is a complete waste of paper except perhaps for laughs.

That being said, when a majority of facts seem to point in the direction of evolution and a majority of the science community supports it. This gives me strong evidence for my claim that evolution appears to be true. Note that this is not a fallacious argument from authority because it has both expert consensus and legitimate expertise (see here for more evidence on the appeal to authority in both a valid and fallacious sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Fallacious_appeal_to_authority).

[ByFaithAlone]

Viole I do tend to agree with you but sometimes I just get annoyed with some of the bad logic and science so I come on to here for a bit and try to respond despite generally no head to head confrontation lol...

That being said, when a majority of facts seem to point in the direction of evolution and a majority of the science community supports it. This gives me strong evidence for my claim that evolution appears to be true. Note that this is not a fallacious argument from authority because it has both expert consensus and legitimate expertise (see here for more evidence on the appeal to authority in both a valid and fallacious sense.

I haven’t read Brown’s book so will not comment regarding it’s validly but I believe you are presenting fallacious reasoning at best. Most of the “majority of the science community” you refer to are materialistic (atheistic) thinkers who reject God out of hand for the obvious reasons. They assume Darwinian evolution as they have no other choice. There are hundreds of PhD scientists, theist and non-theist who correctly reject much of Neo-Darwinism due to the obvious lack of evidence and its heavy reliance on metaphysical (religious) concepts required to keep it afloat. You may need to re-think.

How exactly is my reasoning fallacious? Please explain. When I mention the scientific community it matters not what creed they hold to but the science they view as correct. I respect the scientific opinions of many people (for example viole) without agreeing with their metaphysical or philosophical views. It is not the facts that make us different but how we view them and interpret them based on logic.

Additionally, you say obvious lack of evidence and religious concepts are required for the theory of evolution to be a success... Do you realize that a scientific idea requires boatloads of evidence before it can even be considered a "theory?"

[ByFaithAlone]

Incorrect. I would never claim to say that the truth must be what the majority says in any field. However, what I am saying, is that I find it odd that Pahu quotes scientists that support the book if a greater number think the book is a complete waste of paper except perhaps for laughs.

It's even worse as the scientists Brown quotes more often than not do not agree with Brown's conclusions in the first place. Most of them accept evolution, big bang, an old Earth etc. and Brown just quote mines them to death. Plus I have, on one occasion, found that Pahu's own claims were not supported but rather contradicted by the content he posts from the website. What a thread.

Quote mining out of context is one of my pet peeves and I agree with you... I have seen a lot of it based on the postings by Pahu

[ByFaithAlone]

How exactly is my reasoning fallacious?

Please go back and read my post—I explained...exactly.

Do you realize that a scientific idea requires boatloads of evidence before it can even be considered a "theory?"

Yes – the defenders of the Ptolemaic system told Galileo they had “boatloads of evidence” to support the notion that the Earth is stationary, but guess what—their boat sank.

All you said was that a majority of people who support evolution are atheists. I don't see how this makes my claim fallacious or what fallacy I have even violated (which you again fail to mention).

As to the second issue, what evidence exactly did the Ptolemaic system have? Please reference your claims. Thanks.

[ByFaithAlone]

All you said was that a majority of people who support evolution are atheists. I don't see how this makes my claim fallacious or what fallacy I have even violated (which you again fail to mention).

Self-explanatory - you base your version of evolutionism on your “majority of the science community” who are materialistic thinkers who reject God out of hand. They do not consider an intelligent designer - thus their worldview (religious convictions) influences their 'science'. Their conclusions are based on myth and circularity - Darwinism is true because Darwinist say Darwinism is true.

You are arguing against their philosophical views not their scientific views. Materialism and Darwinism are very different concepts. One can hold a scientific position but not a philosophical position with one's peers. An example would be Francis Collins. Their philosophical views are irrelevant.

As to the second issue, what evidence exactly did the Ptolemaic system have? Please reference your claims. Thanks.

Off topic - start a thread and I will join you there.

So you claim something and then call me off topic for responding to it.... hmm....

[ByFaithAlone]

[

You are arguing against their philosophical views not their scientific views. Materialism and Darwinism are very different concepts.

Darwinism is materialism.

False. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and materialism is a philosophical view. One can hold to one and also deny another. For example, a Jew can believe that all life descended and evolved from common ancestors. However, the same Jew can also hold a philosophical branch of monism or dualism or pluralism that opposes materialism.

As to the other issue, if you claim that you believe evolution makes metaphysical and "religious" claims, I counter that it has evidence, you counter that the Ptolemaic system had evidence and yet refuse to provide any, I might go as far as to claim no such evidence actually exists and you made it up. As it is pertinent to the topic as an illustration, I would kindly request that you provide evidence or denounce your previous point that evolution makes some sort of metaphysical claim.

[ByFaithAlone]

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and materialism is a philosophical view. One can hold to one and also deny another. For example, a Jew can believe that all life descended and evolved from common ancestors. However, the same Jew can also hold a philosophical branch of monism or dualism or pluralism that opposes materialism.

Classical Darwinism states that evolution did not have man in mind---a statement of religion. Most religious Jews I know will say that God created "in the beginning". Please sit down for this--Darwinism is materialism.

As it is pertinent to the topic as an illustration, I would kindly request that you provide evidence or denounce your previous point that evolution makes some sort of metaphysical claim.

Well partner, I don't "denounce" my points - there is no reason to do so. What I said is correct. Case in point---Darwinists make the metaphysical claim that man and chimp share a common ancestor. You are just going to have to move forward.

Evolution merely states that man (and other life forms) evolve from a common ancestor or ancestors. That is a scientific (not metaphysical) claim. The argument that there is no point to this evolution or that the material is all there is would be a metaphysical claim.

Please review your definitions.

I would also like to remind you that your claims must be supported with evidence if desired so when I request the source that claims some sort of scientific evidence for the Ptolemaic system, I would like a response.

[slowpoke55]

Evolution merely states that man (and other life forms) evolve from a common ancestor or ancestors. That is a scientific (not metaphysical) claim.

You are quire mistaken my friend. Your statement that all life evolved from a common ancestor via naturalism is a statement of religion. You are welcome to try to convince us otherwise via the scientific method but you will most likely fail.

BFA is absolutely correct, the scientific theory of evolution is all about physical processes and doesn't delve into metaphysical claims. This is basic philosophy of science. You have to understand scientific theories in their proper place - all their claims are made on a physical plane and never on a metaphysical one.

Again, statement that all life evolved from a common ancestor via naturalism is a statement of religion (metaphysical).

You have several errors here.

The science behind evolution is not a process that hinges itself on a philosophy. Unlike religion, it doesn't put the conclusion first and then try to force fit the evidence to fit it. Like you do when trying to claim DNA as a common material for a designer.

Also, evolution is observable. Simply look at your parents and then look at yourself and then look at your kids. See the variation? or are you exact copies?

The processes that produce variation are observable and understood well enough to make predictions about likelihood of diseases, etc..- genetics.

And predictions can be made with a basic understanding of inheritance.

http://en.wikipedia....ian_inheritance

Also, we can trace our ancestry via DNA. Beliefs are superfluous to this investigation, simply take a DNA sample and read it.

Also, Natural selection, one of the fundamental mechanisms of evolution, is observable.

http://evolution.ber.../article/evo_25

It takes zero faith, zero belief to understand or observe these, just as it takes it takes zero belief or faith to understand the mechanisms of the combustion engine. This makes faith or belief superfluous to understanding the process.

Waldoz, this is where you fall back on one of your many fallacies.

I'll give you your choice. You can use as many as you see fit...

Appeal to Ignorance.

False Dilemma

Appeal to Auhority

Negative Proof Fallacy

Of course you are always welcome to conflate evolution with abiogenesis to make your argument for a creator.

Overall, what your going to be left with is distorting evolution to somehow fit your specific religious view point, which is ultimately a God of the Gaps argument. Let me clarify what I mean by "specific religious view". By this I mean that there are other theists here on the forum who don't support Waldoz's viewpoint (Waldoz claims evolution is really a theist vs. atheist argument - this is clearly shown to be wrong), there are Christians (example the Biologos group) that don't support Waldoz's viewpoint, there are Christian scientists like Kenneth R. Miller who don't support his view and there are major Christian groups like the Catholic Church that don't support his view.

[Bagsy84]

Hi, new here, first post.

Stretching the data wouldn't be scientific.

I don't think it is observable, demonstrable, testable.

(Referring to anything that has happened historically)-perhaps some things but when it comes to evolution. Saying we came from common ancestor is not observable demonstrable nor testable. Thus I cannot accept it as science. it is an amusing theory though.

just about anything anyone uses for common ancestor can be used as evidence for common design.

and in the end, if a scientist creates life in the laboratory, it would only prove that it does take intelligence to create life.

Catch 22. yup.

So I think in the end, what we really need to do here is just go out and feed the poor and hungry and help them start a business.

For both worldviews...

That way, the nonbeliever can prove that their worldview is none of the assumed "ungodly, unethical,immoral, or not an excuse to get out of doing good for others and running from moral rules etc w/e" whilst the faithful can live out their beliefs and not just talk the talk.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Bagsy84

[ByFaithAlone]

Evolution merely states that man (and other life forms) evolve from a common ancestor or ancestors. That is a scientific (not metaphysical) claim.

You are quire mistaken my friend. Your statement that all life evolved from a common ancestor via naturalism is a statement of religion. You are welcome to try to convince us otherwise via the scientific method but you will most likely fail.

Ok... I am going to take this nice and slow for you as you seem to have a hard time grasping this subject.

Philosophical naturalism: Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. (The Free Dictionary)

A more in depth analysis of philosophical naturalism from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that the modern definition of naturalism is largely debated but most those that consider themselves to be "hard" naturalists tend to stray towards non-reductive physicalism which sounds more like what you were getting at. "Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical." - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. (The Free Dictionary)

A more thorough and scientific definition is provided as follows:

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Based on these definitions, would you still claim that evolution logically necessitates the person who believes evolution to be factual to also be a naturalist. If so, please provide a logical response (i.e. one in the form of premises and the conclusion: "Any person who believes evolution to be factual must also be a philosophical naturalist")

I would also like to remind you that your claims must be supported with evidence if desired so when I request the source that claims some sort of scientific evidence for the Ptolemaic system, I would like a response.

LOL - you appear to be obsessed with the geocentric model--not sure why but as I have mentioned, start a thread and I will be happy to discuss in detail. No reason to derail another's thread.

I don't want to derail the thread but you offered an analogy with no evidence and when I try to refute your claim and ask for evidence you decline on the basis that it will derail the thread. Seems hypocritical since you brought it up in the first place.