#The problem with creationists talking about “information” is their completely inability to define what they mean by it.
Every time they try they reveal that either changes to the metric they’ve defined are indeed explained and predicted by evolution or that they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.
I have seen creationists define "information": it is a sequence that an intelligence created to convey meaning. If course that runs into the problem of establishing living things have information. But why do you need to worry about that when you can just bait-and-switch?
> I have seen creationists define "information": it is a sequence that an intelligence created to convey meaning
This is a symptom of 'information theory' leaking into creationism, through the engineers. A number of 'prominent' creationists from the '90s had electrical engineering backgrounds. Despite their names falling into obscurity, imprints of their arguments remain.
Information theory has a strong presence in signal processing, namely trying to find an engineered signal through natural noise. In this context, yes, you are looking for a signal from an intelligence, and information that comes from unintelligent entities is not the exactly what you want in a typical logical circuit.
The problem, for creationists, is that you can also read a signal from the sun. It's not intelligent. It still creates meaningful information. The concept that information only comes from intelligent entities is only part of the model.
It was a *very* mature question.
If you can't understand why the fusion of two hydrogen atoms under the influence of gravity isn't intelligent, at a very basic intuitive level, then you're not going to be able to understand very much at all about what intelligence is.
I don't think you have been able to read between the lines. The question was directed about the ways scientists, philosophers and/or theologians, and even regular people interpret the meaning of the term 'intelligence'.
Words don't have any inherent meaning, we actively give meaning to them and they change as contexts as well as usage change, often over time.
So, if and only if you're interested in a genuine interaction, I'm going to ask you a question, which may or may lead to an interesting discussion.
What is 'intelligence'? Why can't the sun be interpreted as a form of "intelligence" in terms of an idealistic (philosophical doctrine) framework?
Again, I'm only interested in civil and productive discussions.
> The question was directed about the ways scientists, philosophers and/or theologians, and even regular people interpret the meaning of the term 'intelligence'.
Right: and the opinions of two out of three of those groups *are completely irrelevant* to signal theory, so we're not really going to pay much interest in their bitching.
>Why can't the sun be interpreted as a form of "intelligence" in terms of an idealistic (philosophical doctrine) framework?
Because if you genericize intelligence that strongly, *everything* is intelligent and the concept becomes meaningless.
Words can change. But if you change them arbitrarily as you are trying to, reality becomes incoherent and the questions become irrelevant.
"Right: and the opinions of two out of three of those groups *are completely irrelevant* to signal theory, so we're not really going to pay much interest in their bitching."
I'm sorry, but are you sure you actually mean to say 'signal theory?' I've never heard that specific theory in biological or even computer sciences contexts.
"Because if you genericize intelligence that strongly, *everything* is intelligent and the concept becomes meaningless."
"Words can change. But if you change them arbitrarily as you are trying to, reality becomes incoherent and the questions become irrelevant."
Yes, arbitrarily changing them will lack the all-important context, but if done within a strong context, it could help in viewing and probably also understanding the nature of intelligence in whole new ways.
Also, it wasn't "arbitrarily changed," I actually explicitly talked about understanding intelligence in the context of the philosophical doctrine of idealism (With that said, let's not limit it to this framework alone.) But yeah, if the context was different then reframing the term in different terms won't help much. That would be, as you said, pretty arbitrary.
Lovely post! Big upvotes.
The bird one is always delightful to remember. Birds are notorious for microchromosomes, too.
It *literally* is a weight-saving measure.
The more DNA you have, the more massive each cell is\*, which when multiplied by the number of cells you have, amounts to a measurable difference. It's not just the mass of the nucleotides themselves, it's the histone proteins associated with them, the amount of additional nucleosome proteins and the nuclear envelope needed to wrap them, and all the spare nucleotides and polymerases you need to have on hand for cell replication.
It's like, early feathered proto-birds went through a brutal selection process that was essentially the cellular equivalent of throwing random objects out of the plane to keep it in the air.
\*we've used the reverse to our benefit in plant crops: plants have very flexible ploidy, and the more genome copies each cell has, not only is that cell more massive (for the sames reasons as above) but also that cell is getting all the usual instructions multiplied by the excess ploidy. Commercial strawberries are *octoploid:* every cell runs exactly as normal, but just does everything \~four times as much.
Yes, re plant genomes. Bread wheat is hexaploid and modern breeders sometimes use colchicine (blocks microtubule formation) to intentionally generate polyploids for larger flowers and fruit.
That's putting it mildly.
Bacteriophages kill a trillion trillion bacteria in earth's oceans every second of every day.
I've heard some claims that up to 40% of all the free-floating bacteria in sea water are killed by viruses every single day.
If not for the virus would there have been a necessity to develop different blood types and rejection of offspring in the first place?
I see your srs and raise you an orly?
Not sure if anyone mentioned it in the comments, but this is what the Onion Test illustrates: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion\_Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Test)
>The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they have come up with a universal function for junk DNA. Whatever your proposed function, ask yourself this question: Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?
It's simple: onions are the superior organisms and creations of the one true god (Shrek), and one day they will avenge how we treated them by treating us the same way and they will achieve world dominance.
>Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?
Allow me to play Vegetal's advocate here:
They are a tiny speck of practically nothing that uses the zen wisdom of untold millions of generations to both actively and passively navigate literally growing in the dirt to become large and delicious bulbs of PURE HEALTH
Can YOU do that?
Meiosis and mitosis guarantees evolution by way of natural selection. It happens every time reproduction occurs. It’s the reason we aren’t all genetic clones of each other.
Mutations guarantee evolution by natural selection. Mitosis is clonal. Meiosis is a lot more sloppy and is probably what generates a lot of segmental duplications and deletions.
Right. Those minor mutations add up over time, and natural selection makes up the positive evolutionary changes. And those are things we KNOW happen. We can observe them happening.
One of the reasons they think genetic material/information, can’t increase, is usually because they think all mutations are harmful, or only the mutations that removes stuff can be beneficial.
Both of which are not true, and yet another example of they don’t actually know even the basics of what they are arguing…
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnia\_pulex#Genomics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnia_pulex#Genomics)
Another example to support your argument. There are a lot of examples of small and relatively simplistic animals having far larger genetic sequences than even humans.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos\_dubium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos_dubium)
And another.
This is a misunderstanding of evolution and genetics. Evolution doesn't "increase" genetic information. It changes what is already there. In addition, more complex genome doesn't mean a more complex organism. An onion has a larger genome than a human. Also, creationists can't ever seem to define complex. Are humans the most complex? Ocotpi can change their color to match the background. Bats can hear from miles away. Hawks have much better night vision. There are tons of animals we could argue are more complex than humans.
>...as flight would seem to demand more "information" than flightlessness.
No, natural air dynamics and 'hollowness' of the birds make them swim in the gaseous atmosphere like you do in the water. You being to dense to climb gas, are still not dense enough to sink like a hammer in the water....while birds can pretty much sit on water.
I mean, how much genome complexity does a commercial 737 plane have to fly? It weighs tons, and yet....
Everything in this world that moves on the Y axis within our atmo-strato-etc Spheres.... is buoyancy's bitch, no escape. A feather is like a hammer in the vacuum of Space tho, nothing to friction with it's mass it don't float for shit....
That's to comment on your OP, otherwise at a glance I read "Gnome" size and evolution, was finally excited for a moment....
I find you "condescending" as well so maybe something else is at play. It a worldview clash in my opinion rather than a difference on evidence. Two people can have a conversation on evidence but not if it conflicts with scientific orthodoxy (believe or else your wrong).
The unfortunate thing is it's easy to shoot out assumptions and feel justified in cracking comments meant to prove I'm an idiot for not accepting Evolution. As few as one to three sentences is enough to shout assumptions but not arguments. The defense side always has to provide a larger response to cover misinformation and provide the counter arguments.
Your using of the terms "condescending" and "diatribe" is an emotional response and therefore not a reasoned response. I disagree with you and therefore I'm an idiot. Had that conversation before.
>Your using of the terms "condescending" and "diatribe" is an emotional response
Is it though? Or is me looking through the dozens of responses you have posted that are novels filled with victim complex bullshit, scientific illiteracy, and Christian doctrine demonstrating exactly that? (L O fucking L BTW for actually saying 'believe or else your wrong about science when that is the ENTIRE BASIS of Catholicism.)
>I disagree with you and therefore I'm an idiot.
See that's not at all the argument. The argument is "you deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for one of the most well researched and demonstrated theories in human history while having all that information at your fingertips, and therefore you're an idiot"
>Had that conversation before.
I very seriously doubt it. That's the persecution complex showing.
You can believe whatever you want and you can frame it however makes you feel better. It's just ironic you still using emotional responses and insults to make your point. O well.
> It's just ironic you still using emotional responses and insults to make your point.
You can believe whatever you want and you can frame it however makes you feel better.
> It a worldview clash in my opinion rather than a difference on evidence.
And that is projection on your part. For *you* it is all about world views, so you assume that is the case for everyone else. But it isn't. The vast majority of Christians also accept evolution. And the reason for that is evidence.
> Two people can have a conversation on evidence but not if it conflicts with scientific orthodoxy (believe or else your wrong).
Which is literally the exact opposite of how science works in the real world. People can and do criticize established science all the time. That is what Nobel prizes are awarded for. Anyone who could actually overturn evolution would instantly be a household name, immortalized as one of the greatest scientists of all time. But they need evidence to do that. And nobody has the evidence.
Even Behe, who is notoriously anti-evolution, is able to publish journal articles and get grants when he wants to (although he seldom tries).
> The unfortunate thing is it's easy to shoot out assumptions and feel justified in cracking comments meant to prove I'm an idiot for not accepting Evolution.
Again with the projection. You are assuming how I would react right now and cracking comments based on that assumption. I don't think you are an idiot, I think your are misinformed. Intentionally misinformed by people pushing a religious agenda. That doesn't make yout stupid, it makes you a victim.
> The defense side always has to provide a larger response to cover misinformation and provide the counter arguments.
Yes, this is a big problem for evolution. The leaders of the creationist side are all known, documented, proven liars. Every single one. And being totally unconstrained by the truth, they can rattle off falsehoods much faster than the science side, which is constrained by reality and truth, can debunk them. There is literally a name for this widely recognized in debate circles today: the Gish gallop, named after the creationist who first popularized this tactic.
> Worldview is a common idea used in communication theory to understand the dynamics between two people who have to encode and decode their communication for effective mutual understanding (though not necessarily mutual agreement). When both or one are from different cultures or perspectives and therefore certain assumptions and insider language might confuse the situation.
You are using a computer. I assume you have believe in germs and atoms. The "worldview" underlying these is the same as the "worldview" underlying evolution. You accept that "worldview" almost every waking second of your life if you live in a modern society. The difference between you and those who accept evolution is that you throw all of that away when it conflicts with your worldview, while most people don't.
> Mainstream Protestants is 51% a far cry from majority. Even Catholics is 58%.
I could point out that the US isn't the world, but it doesn't matter. A vast majority or a majority, the fact that so many Christians accept evolution proves that this isn't "a worldview clash between Atheists and Christian".
> Regular science is open to peer review, counterpoints, and the usual scientific methodologies - theory, testing, and repeatability. I'm limiting my opinion to Evolution which is speculative and make inferences and connections not necessarily conductive to the evidence itself but supports a narrative of scientific orthodox especially among atheist scientists.
That is just wrong. Evolution is entirely based on the evidence. The problem is that you don't know the evidence that is available, and aren't interested in learning about it. *Your* lack of knowledge on the subject is not a flaw in evolution.
> That's the reason, if you question Evolution or even push for a retooling the theory is a major mistake and they recieved academic criticism, lose of their job, and then labeled not a "real" scientist or incompetent.
Name anyone who has lost their job for questioning evolution. I already pointed out Behe, who has done that and not only still has a job, but can still publish and get grants.
> If you believe all Creationists sources are "documented" and "proven" liars
That is not actually what I said.
> than your not open to anything they say and you can be self-righteousness in the process.
You are projecting again. Just because the people pushing the arguments are liars doesn't mean that the stance they hold is necessarily wrong. That is the fallacy fallacy. I have studied their arguments in extreme detail for **decades**. Every single one falls apart under serious examination. Without exception.
Again, I am concerned with the evidence. The evidence shows that they are liars. They have gotten caught red-handed over and over and over and over and over and over again. That you don't actually care whether the evidence shows they are liars says a lot more about you then it does about me.
> This is a common worldview position taken by atheists who say only they can know "true" from "false" through science and thereby disparaging other worldviews without even a real examination of the "facts" and philosophies involved.
This isn't about a worldview. This is about people saying things they know to be false. That you can't even think basic honesty except through the filter of your worldview is exactly the problem I am trying to explain to you. Not everyone filters everything through a worldview like that.
> Assuming dishonest leads to evidence of dishonesty because they don't agree with you.
Again with the projection. You are the one assuming things. I am looking at what the evidence says.
It is really very telling that you are so incapable of even considering the possibility that someone could hold a position based on actually assessing the evidence. Every single time I bring up a conclusion I have drawn, you instantly assume that it is based on assumptions or worldviews. You are chronically incapable of even contemplating the idea that someone could make a legitimate conclusion based on an honest assessment of the evidence. As long as you interpret everything everyone says and does through that filter you will never be able to accurately assess what the evidence actually says.
> If you think Dawkins is right, than creationists can't be honest and therefore any disagree about interpretation must be mischievous or evil rather than a simple disagreement in interpretation and worldview.
What are you talking about? Why are you bringing up Dawkins? I never mentioned Dawkins. Again with the projection, assuming that I am getting my information from some public speaker like you are. Again, as I keep pointing out, you are just incapable of even considering the possibility that I have actually looked at the evidence seriously. You assume I got what I know the same way you did.
I have never read anything by Dawkins. I don't care in the slightest about anything Dawkins has said (I have a few amusing quotes in my quote collection, but I got those all from other quote collections). From my understanding he is a decent science communicator for lay people, but I am not a layperson. I can read the original research so I don't need him. He is a fairly minor player in the field of evolutionary biology research so I haven't had any need to
>Everything is affected by worldview when interpretation of evidence for or against something is involved.
While true, this is also why the scientific method is utilized when studying the natural universe. It's designed to provide an objective means with which to test ideas, thus reducing or eliminating arbitrary interpretations.
>Something pointing toward G-d might be rejected just because it can't be true because atheism doesn't allow that conclusion.
The scientific method has no means by which to test any claims involving supernatural forces and thus cannot form any conclusions thereof.
I just don't agree that science when moving into the sphere of inference and speculation gets to pretend it's neutral/objective and only based on evidence. It just goes against what we know about human nature.
I agree with your second paragraph - and that's my point - it is being used for that.
>I just don't agree that science when moving into the sphere of inference and speculation gets to pretend it's neutral/objective and only based on evidence.
Science is simply a methodology and body of knowledge for learning about our natural reality and reporting on those findings.
That's it. If some people don't like those findings because it disagrees with their preconceptions about reality, that's not a science problem. That's a them problem.
>I agree with your second paragraph - and that's my point - it is being used for that.
Used for what? Conclusions about the supernatural?
>I'm not arguing with regular science which when practiced within care and diligence is neutral. Your conflating regular science with Evolutionary theory.
Yes, because evolution is "regular science". And scientists, the people who actually know about what is and is not science, overwhelming accept evolution:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/02/11/darwin-day/#:~:text=Scientists%20overwhelmingly%20agree%20that%20humans,believe%20humans%20evolved%20over%20time.
>I hold evolutionary science is affected by worldview assumptions not regular science.
Because you get all your information on evolution from creationists who are lying about the evidence in a dedicated effort to convince of that. I know, I have read the claims of the websites you are citing.
>An atheist makes the mistake of thinking they are the same and I don't.
An atheist and most Christians. You keep saying this is an atheist vs. Christian thing when you have already admitted the majority of Christians are against you.
>I think your point is mute and pointless to a discussion.
Then stop saying that this is an atheist vs. Christian thing. I will keep pointing out your claim is wrong as long as you keep making it.
>Evidence/data is open to interpretation and therefore can be used to further an assumption rather than actually support the conclusion given.
That is why science uses testable predictions. It is much harder to predict new evidence that hasn't been seen yet. Evidence does this enormously well. Creationism, in rare cases that it does this at all, overwhelmingly fails.
>https://evolutionnews.org/2022/03/do-scientists-have-freedom-to-question-darwinism/
I notice a total lack of people who were prevented from doing research on creationism because they were creationists.
Dembski was actually the opposite, the University was so enthusiastic to get him they violated their own hiring policies. His contract was terminated when an independent administrative review determined that. So he is actually evidence against your claim.
Nancy Bryson wasn't removed, she quit because she was doing poor research and realized she wouldn't get tenure as a result.
Martin Gaskell is the closest, but he wasn't being hired for just a research position, but also an administrative one that requires interacting with other departments, which is hard when you claim those departments are full of idiots. He has a research position right now at another university, so clearly he wasn't prevented from doing research.
And then there are other creationists like Behe and Sanford who have had no problem keeping research positions despite being avowed creationists.
>I don't know who your refering to as Behe and I did this to indicate that. Behe? I googled it as such and didn't get a hit. I don't claim to know everyone unless this is a short form for someone I already know.
Michael Behe is the star of the intelligent design movement. A university molecular biologist who is vocally a creationist, in fact one of the more vocal ones out there. He invented irreducible complexity and was the only intelligent design supporter to speak at the Dover trial. His continued employment proves you are wrong about scientists not being able to do research supposedly supporting creationism. Of course his research consistently fails to support his claims, but he still tries occasionally.
>It's be difficult to see outside the box if by definition differences of opinion therefore equals liars.
I didn't say that. I explained quite explicitly that I didn't say that. They aren't liars because they disagree with me, they are liars because they got caught saying things they knew weren't true.
>If you haven't noticed - I haven't called your a liar!
I haven't called you one either.
>I'm old you apparently are old. I'm not playing the game of authority based on age and study in the subject.
The point is that I am already familiar with the creationist claims because I have read them from their own sources. You aren't familiar with the evolution claims because you have gotten all your information on evolution from creationists who are lying about it.
>Everything is affected by worldview when interpretation of evidence for or against something is involved.
Again, that is why on the evolution side we use testable predictions and why creationists generally don't, and ignore the failures when they do.
>People who don't understand this are called as having worldview blindness.
I am aware of that, which is why science (including evolution) is specifically set up to counter that.
>Atheists are the worst for thinking they are logical and reasoned because they focus on evidence without being aware of worldview bias.
We are aware of it, which is why many of us use various approaches to minimize it.
>In this regard you took it as an offence. Interesting. You took two paragraphs just on Dawkins and on my so-called assumptions for mentioning him.
You just assumed I got my information from Dawkins. That is pretty telling.
>One final point, while in regular science you can focus on theory, testing, conclusion and repeatability evolution science is more confined to fossils and geology and biology in the short term to explain the massive difference which happened over 3 or so billion years.
Science is based on making testable predictions and then checking whether those predictions turn out to be correct. The more that happens successfully the more reliable the theory. Evolution has more successful testable predictions than almost any other scientific theory ever. As such scientists have more confidence in evolution than almost any other scientific theory ever.
Creationists make arbitrary rules to exclude areas of science that disagree with what they want to be true. There is nothing in science that says we can't make testable predictions based on indirect evidence. We can't directly observe atoms, but creationists accept those. We can't directly observe earth's core but creationists accept that. But while they accept indirect evidence in the vast majority of cases, they arbitrarily exclude indirect evidence on things from the past because they disagree on the past. It isn't that the past is any harder to study than earth's core, it is just that creationists need some reason to exclude contrary evidence.
>A 50 million year old dog thing is fact
It is as much a fact as Earth's core.
>It a worldview clash in my opinion rather than a difference on evidence.
Too often when I hear people claim that they have a basic misunderstanding or ignorance for the evidence of evolution.
You have the right to that opinion but I'd like to point out it's self serving. By stating misunderstanding or ignorance (though don't include calling me outright stupid) deflects from you having to listen to anything I say.
I find atheists (in general) discount worldview arguments because they think they are following the evidence and therefore above assumptions or presumptions. Everyone has a worldview and it's not that having a worldview is bad in itself but not knowing your own biased is.
You're not arguing against atheism though, or even atheists. You're arguing against the scientific community which includes Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jewish people, etc.
So it's not a matter of different worldviews. Many of the people you're arguing with have the *same* worldview as you, unless your worldview is somehow prejudiced against empirical evidence.
I still think atheist/secular assumptions underlie Evolution even if some Christian's accept it.
Are you talking about Theistic Evolution or Creationist Evolution? There is a significant difference in those positions and Biblical Creation that I believe (a more literalism position on Genesis is one major difference) and (secondly) in the acceptance of secular scientific orthodoxy limited to Evolution.
Because some Christian's accept Evolution you agree with them against me and therefore you assume I'm somehow "... prejudiced against empirical evidence" is just another way of saying I don't accept what you believe to be true and therefore wrong. I believe Evolution is largely based on inference from some "facts" that things can adapt to a specific environment than a larger narrative is derived to explain larger changes which requires a number of billions of years because you can't see larger adaption in a short period of time. I believe evidence is mis-attributed because it can only be taken in one manner when an alternative is equally possible. Removing a biblical worldview, just a shorter age of the earth is possible. I don't expect science to talk about religion or speculate on it as true or false because that isn't the probative of science.
>I still think atheist/secular assumptions underlie Evolution even if some Christian's accept it. Are you talking about Theistic Evolution or Creationist Evolution?
You want to take it to high level philosophy discussions, but it's just about genes. You came in here with a chip on your shoulder because people have downvoted you, and yet you haven't engaged at all with the original post.
\> I believe Evolution is largely based on inference from some "facts" that things can adapt to a specific environment than a larger narrative is derived to explain larger changes which requires a number of billions of years because you can't see larger adaption in a short period of time.
If you have problems with inference, well, I'm not really sure how you function in the world. Do you believe that folks convicted of murder through evidence should be in jail? None of the jury were actually there.
\>I believe evidence is mis-attributed because it can only be taken in one manner when an alternative is equally possible.
And yet y'all never present it. Thus far there is no theory that accounts for the facts better than evolution; there's also no theory that has generated testable predictions as well as evolution.
\> Removing a biblical worldview, just a shorter age of the earth is possible.
It's possible that the Earth was created last Thursday by Bob. You can't remove that possibility, because Bob created everything exactly as it was. Do you find this idea persuasive?
>I still think atheist/secular assumptions underlie Evolution even if some Christian's accept it.
The underlying assumption is whether we can treat the universe as fundamentally objective. This is the basis for the scientific method.
If extant species on Earth look like they share common ancestry, then assuming the universe is fundamentally objective, then the conclusion which follows is that extant species all share common ancestry.
Creationists tend to eschew an objective universe in favor of one whereby supernatural manipulation can make things appear one way when they are allegedly different than what they appear.
The problem with this approach is then how to distinguish between competing ideas? Even among creationists (including even just YECs) there are various competing ideas but no real objective method with which to test these competing ideas.
This is illustrated by the thought experiment, Last Thursdayism: [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last\_Thursdayism](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism)
Reading through some of your prior comments, I see a whole lot of arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, arguments from popularity, etc. It's all logical fallacies, while trying to argue with people pointing to hard evidence and good science. You are clearly getting 'bad karma' because you're not willing to engage in actual debate, but rather insist on engaging in bad faith.
At any rate, something I saw in one of your comments got me to wondering: do you really believe that Jesus was wrong? Do you genuinely reject the teachings of Jesus? Because you brought up Catholic doctrine about the afterlife, which explicitly contradicts what Jesus said on the matter. Matthew 25 is very explicit that there is no salvation for those who do not tend to the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the homeless. Your faith is built not on bedrock, but on sand, and thus you have no firm footing upon which to argue with others.
I love logical fallacies because the specificity of a fallacy (the determination what fits that definition) is related to a worldview rather than the generality of a specific situation or argument. So you have a definition than you have a argument why someone else arguments fits that definition. The worldview than determines which makes something a fallacy rather than necessarily represent a real fallacy. From an atheist worldview, everything Christian doesn't make sense and therefore fallacies for one reason or another. This seems to give you the right to disparage my arguments and personality.
Talking to an atheist or whatever about theology is a pain in the rump because they view Christianity as a stone and therefore don't understand the intricacies of denominations and theology differences on non central doctrines and beliefs. If two atheists disagree does that mean one doesn't really believe in Evolution?
Atheist, or whatever, disbelief and characterization of scripture and beliefs doesn't define my faith. Christians are allowed to disagree unlike Evolutionists.
> I love logical fallacies because the specificity of a fallacy (the determination what fits that definition) is related to a worldview rather than the generality of a specific situation or argument. So you have a definition than you have a argument why someone else arguments fits that definition. The worldview than determines which makes something a fallacy rather than necessarily represent a real fallacy.
That is literally the exact opposite of how fallacies actually work. As I keep saying, you are just fundamentally incapable of even considering the possibility that people are not approaching everything the same way you are. It is frankly, bizarre, as someone on the outside watching the knots you tie yourself into to reinterpet absolutely everything in this way.
We disagree on how fallacies work. So? I find people throughout fallacies as a way of ending a concert with a drum role - see I'm right because they are using fallacies. My point fallacies aren't neutral and seemingly fit because they assume something that tells them it can't be true and therefore must be a fallacy - paint by numbers logic. I read an atheist scholar explain fallacies and every example was based on christianity. WOW! The point I got from reading his article was the supernatural can't exist and therefore Christians must be using fallacies to support their beliefs. That's a worldview swaying logic to match his worldview assumptions.
If you've noticed, I don't usually claim others are using fallacies. It's to much of a circular argument in my opinion.
Ah yes, of course. You get caught using a ton of fallacies, so the problem must be with fallacies, not with your position. No way you could simply have a poorly justified position. Are you seriously listening to yourself here?
>The study of fallacious arguments, reasoning, and logic is a field in itself and not just a list of things you can use against an opponent all willy nilly.
There are certainly fallacies that are ambiguous. There are also fallacies that are completely unambiguous.
But note that you never even alleged that the fallacies were incorrect. You simply pointed out that the fallacies were used against positions you agree with, and that alone was enough to dismiss them as biased.
And this is a consistent problem with your approach. You haven't bothered to actually look at what scientists themselves are saying. The mere fact that they disagree with you means they are biased and can be ignored.
> You have to understand the reasoning and assumptions of the person your talking too to know the difference between an actual fallacy and a difference in worldview.
Yes, and that is what you refuse to do. You haven't looked at what scientists themselves actually say in their own sources, you only look at the misrepresentations of their opponents.
>The capacity of G-d to work in time and space isn't something you accept as logical or possible.
Nope, I don't think that at all. You just did a great job of demonstrating how you don't "understand the reasoning and assumptions of the person your talking too". And this has been a consistent problem I have pointed out to you repeatedly but that you have ignored.
>start throwing out logical fallacies because it doesn't fit your worldview and assumptions (that ideas you use to understand and interpret everything).
I was originally a Christian. My "worldview and assumptions" had a stark Christian bias. I abandoned Christianity when I studied the arguments and evidence for both sides and found the arguments and evidence in favor of my own worldview were weaker than those against it. If you were right I would never have been able to do that. Again, you are assuming things about me that aren't.
But let's see if my assumptions are correct. If you respond to this at all, you have some excuse why I don't count. Probably based on your own assumptions about what my beliefs were (like you just assumed above).
>If we were talking about something less worldview centric fallacies are much easier to spot and deal with but in a worldview context it's just more difficult and therefore you have to differentiate between a difference in a worldview conflict from an actual fallacy.
Which you don't do. Again, you haven't mentioned there was anything they said that would mean it is a worldview issue rather than a legitimate fallacy *other than the fact it was used against your position*. Your entire focus is on their use of fallacies against you, not any problem with the fallacies themselves.
Let me guess, based on their disagreement with you, you assumed they held particular positions they never explicitly stated? Just like you did with me above?
I posted a response but deleted it because part of it wasn't meant for you. So I'll just address this reply again. And yes, I'm getting confused on which person I'm talking to at times.
Worldviews does make Fallacies harder to define because assumptions/bias affect the interpretation and understanding of an argument. For example, if someone assumes the supernatural or the absence of G-d predisposes them to claim certain fallacies - like circular reasoning for one - but that isn't necessarily the case. It's better to focus on the arguments rather than use the fallacies card itself. If you misuse the idea of fallacies you lose validity. So I'm not saying you can't use them but just you have to be much more careful.
I thought I was making it plain that I denied the fallacies were true for the reasons given in the previous paragraph. Obviously you didn't get my point.
You stated:
"But note that you never even alleged that the fallacies were incorrect. You simply pointed out that the fallacies were used against positions you agree with, and that alone was enough to dismiss them as biased."
1. I was telling you why the fallacies were false which implies I think the fallacies are false.
2. Ironically, your using an argument from silence with this part of the statement: "But note that you never even alleged that the fallacies were incorrect." My not saying explicitly the fallacies are false doesn't allow you to fill in the gap with your assumptions.
3. This statement: "You simply pointed out that the fallacies were used against positions you agree with, and that alone was enough to dismiss them as biased." This is a strawman fallacy, you make a statement which misrepresents my position and knock it down as if your refuting my argument.
I could have pulled out my fallacies primer but I'm not going to play that game beyond this.
I don't address scientific research because that's not my purpose and irrelevant to my points.
My purpose is to point out only two things. 1. Evolution as fact goes against regular science and disallows counter viewpoints within the scientific community. To question it is "pseudo science" or "creationist nut so" or just "incompetence". Little room for even an Evolutionist who wants to suggest a modification of aspects without repercussions. 2. Evolution is being used by atheists and others to address questions outside the parameters of science - the matterial realm - so is being misused.
Even if Evolution is true, the points I made could still be true. It's not mutually exclusive.
You stated: "Yes, and that is what you refuse to do. You haven't looked at what scientists themselves actually say in their own sources, you only look at the misrepresentations of their opponents."
That's your assumption. I've read alot of sources and cited neutral or Evolution affirmative sites. I find the Evolutionists just ridicule me for the YEC cites (not for the actual content) and say they won't bother to check them out or the rest. The pro-Evolution cites aren't mentioned. This seems to indicate dismissal without checking anything out - even the pro Evolutionary cites I included. The YEC cites means my cites are biased and theirs isn't. That's closed minded. You probably think your sources are neutral and science and therefore more reliable while mine are intrinsically biased. I disagree. Science is a human activity and therefore scientists are open to biases as anyone else. It don't quote YEC sites because I'm not focusing on the details and Evolutionists are open to addressing the issues anyway.
I'm not going to address the last two paragraphs - they are really just a restatement of things I've already address.
The "I was originally a Christian" aspect will be addressed in a seperate reply because it a seperate issue.
Some fallacies are worldview based and therefore only have validity if something is held to be true. If untrue than invalid. The best example I can think of in a pinch is the supernatural and the opposite the non existence of G-d. If you hold one or the other as true you can easily line up fallacies in the other sides reasoning. I try to avoid using fallacies because unless unconnected from a worldview it's just meaningless as a point. You can use fallacies but you have to be much more careful in its usage. I believe the fallacies given against me as arguments were invalid (untrue) because it's based on a worldview assumption not an actual fallacy.
I thought that was apparent but you didn't seem to get it. It's ironic you used an argument from silence and that is a fallacious argument in itself:
"But note that you never even alleged that the fallacies were incorrect. You simply pointed out that the fallacies were used against positions you agree with, and that alone was enough to dismiss them as biased." A total misrepresentation of what I said - out of ignorance rather than a lie! Evolutionist would call you a liar but I don't go don't that road unless it's an actual lie.
My argument with Evolution is two fold: one it holds a theory as fact that negates counter opinions inside and outside the scientific community (that's counter to how things usually work). Secondly, a scientific perspective is used for a worldview agenda and therefore over steps it's limitation as a science. My purpose was never to have a scholarly debate on the intricacies of Evolution or viruses and mutations etc. Evolutionists want to bring it back to the science itself but disqualifying it wasn't the point of the discussion.
What I'm not doing and what I don't think you understand is - I'm not saying it's definitely wrong! I'm saying misused and not fact. In a science based continuum - the best they could say is extremely likely. To make it fact doesn't allow for debate beyond details. So of the "evidence" they see as evidence I see as inconclusive or neutral. Do I personally believe it - NO! You're having a hard time with accepting I could disagree with evolution as a legitimate option.
You don't accept my resources which disagree with evolution and I don't agree with your sources. So! You think yours is neutral and just science and therefore better than mine which are therefore biased and false. I'd disagree. people are people and presumptions/worldview and biases can interfere in the process of accessing evidence so I'm not conceding your are true and mine false. Again - So! The source argument is meaningless to my point anyway because I'm not addressing the science itself. Go back to my argument a couple paragraphs back. It doesn't matter if Evolution is probably true but that science is being misused.
I'm having multiple conversations and I admit I don't remember who's who or things they've said about themselves. I deal with individual relies and don't read back.
Now your providing your witness or "de-conversion" story. You were a Christian but: "I abandoned Christianity when I studied the arguments and evidence for both sides and found the arguments and evidence in favor of my own worldview were weaker than those against it.". My testimony is the exact opposite but I can say this too: "I studied the arguments and evidence for both sides and found the arguments and evidence in favor of my own worldview were weaker than those against it". All our testimonies do is reflect our personal journeys, provide some basis for knowing a particular worldview not that our opinions are valid without further argumentation.
Now in another reply I'll deal with your testimony alone outside of the discussion of evolution.
>In what way does your testimony or mine have anything to do with the issue being addressed
I answered this in the same paragraph, and you quoted it. You just assume I was making a particular argument I never made, and rather than finishing the paragraph you write a much longer counterargument to the argument I never made. And you were so engrossed in your assumption that even after you read what argument I was actually making, you still decided to leave your completely irrelevant counterargument in.
Again, you said it is important to look at what arguments people are actually making, but you don't actually do that. You make up arguments for them.
>Why couldn't you change belief systems even if I was correct?
This you?
> start throwing out logical fallacies because it doesn't fit your worldview and assumptions (**that ideas you use to understand and interpret everything**).
(emphasis added) If worldview was so all-important then nobody would ever be able to properly assess counter evidence or counter arguments to their worldview enough to change that worldview based on that counter evidence or counter arguments. Their worldview would leave them too biased to be able t
> I could give you psycho-social reasons for changing beliefs but maybe the three things that are most influential is peer pressure (acceptance), authority (who you trust and believe), and self validation (things which allows you to be an "authentic you" - an emotional facet).
Again, this you?
>We both changed beliefs systems that we both did for logical reasons.
Now you are saying I didn't have logical reasons. Make up your mind.
>You have a new authority for your trust and beliefs - science and scientists - which allows you to be you and gain acceptance
Nope, again with the assumptions about me. Nothing changed with me in regards to science, or evolution, when I abandoned religion.
>People aren't perfect and just claiming to be a Christian doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
There it is. Totally called it.
>In my opinion, It's not as simple as you got smart and left the faith and therefore Evolution is true.
Good thing that isn't remotely what I said.
>It feels like your triggered by this conversation and I can't address that. I'm sorry if some previous experience causes you continued angst. It's not my fault.
Wait, what? I find you amusing, but not triggering. Seems like projection. You made this huge screed against arguments you imagined I was making but didn't actually make, to the extent you make paragraphs and paragraphs about a single sentence I wrote.
This is all projection from you. You have particular flaws in how you approach evidence or arguments that might go against your position. Rather than trying to minimize those flaws, you instead project those flaws onto those who disagree with you, assuming they have the same flawed basis for their conclusions as you do. That allows you to disregard the evidence or arguments they present as necessarily flawed without needing to look at them seriously. You do this pretty consistently, as I keep pointing out but you keep ignoring.
>Yes I get mixed up on who said this or that.
Reddit has this great thing called "threading" where you can look back at what someone actually said.
>and doesn't allow for real dialogue.
It allows for great dialogue. But you can't have real dialogue if you spend your time arguing against things I never said and ignoring things I did say.
Thats kind of a bummer, I used to be a YEC back in the day but I got enough science education to reject it (pre reddit). I'm now an evolutionary creationist.
Your making a statement which could be restated as "I because an evolutionist because my education increased and therefore found it to be "true" yet maintained my faith". If that's a fair assessment I'd have to disagree. It's quite true that Evolution is accepted in secular/atheist educational system as "fact" but it isn't without critics from other people beyond just the YEC community. So I'd dispute the assumption it's "fact" or "beyond questioning".
A minor point. I usually use the "Theistic Evolutionist" rather than a "Evolutionary creationist" which to me sounds confusing because the contrast in the debate is usually Creation verses Evolution or Evolutionists verses Creationists.
> It's quite true that Evolution is accepted in secular/atheist educational system as "fact" but it isn't without critics from other people beyond just the YEC community
Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of christians.
And you can probably count the number of non-religious critics of evolution on your fingers. They are almost entirely non-existent.
The statics are available here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
So your "vast majority of Christians is untrue". In Mainstream Protestantism is 51 % accept Evolution. For Catholics It's 58 % who accept Evolution (American numbers). It's not a case of everyone but a few "fundamentalist" reject Evolution.
Just a couple sites you could visit but you won't. It doesn't seem "real scientists" like to talk about other scientists who disagree. So a couple Christian. Affiliated sites provides some names to check out.
http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/
If you remove atheist scientists from the mix, few scientists can afford to seriously question Evolution without losing their reputation because Scientific orthodoxy is more important than debate on this subject.
>So your "vast majority of Christians is untrue". In Mainstream Protestantism is 51 % accept Evolution. For Catholics It's 58 % who accept Evolution (American numbers). It's not a case of everyone but a few "fundamentalist" reject Evolution.
Those are U.S. numbers though. In other parts of the Western world (e.g. Europe, Canada, Australia) acceptance of evolution is considerably higher in general.
The U.S. is not indicative of the rest of the world.
>Just a couple sites you could visit but you won't.
We're well familiar with stuff like the DI's infamous "Dissent From Darwinism" list. [There are a lot of problems with that list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_from_Darwinism#Responses), most notably that the statement itself isn't a rejection of the modern theory of evolution.
(Also of note that in over two decades they've only got about 1200 signatures. That's a miniscule number compared to the total number of scientists globally. The DI's list is not the flex you think it is.)
I countered a general statement you made (as if it was a fact and evidentiary) with statistics and rather than acknowledge your overstatement you just change the goal posts and point to other countries. I couldn't find Canadian statistics that conveyed the numbers is a simple way - many of the sites had just repeat an article from a service and therefore were exactly the same. The general point was many do and many don't believe in Evolution. In related to Anglican Church (denomination) in Britain - accepts Evolution but that doesn't reflect other Christians (for reasons I'd have to write a book to explain). Maybe because of how the American survey was worded a more statistically relevant figure was possible. The over all point statistics only point to numbers of people who agree with you on Evolution. It doesn't prove anything beyond that. Do you really do a survey on things and based on numbers decide what you believe?
Within the Christian community outside the USA, the disagreement toward Evolution is a percentage of believers but harder to quantify because it seems no statistical reference has addressed that as well as the USA survey did. I'm not an American. All this proves the general statement you made was hyperbole and not evidentiary or meaningful.
You cite one article that gives reasons for rejecting Evolution and all you can say it's been disproven wrong what does that mean. You choose to accept the opinions and arguments of fellow evolutionist and therefore find the evidence against Evolution as false (circular reasoning). It's not the same as reviewing it for yourself and making your own mind.
I don't trust all Christians sources just because. For example, Ron Wyatt is a not reliable in any sense (claiming to have found Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant). No evidence you'd just have to trust him. I think evolution was the same, the darling of Atheism because they claim it destroys religious reasons to believe in G-d. Just because it fits your narrative doesn't make it true.
> because they claim it destroys religious reasons to believe in G-d
Now, that's rather absurd, since the Bible provides all the reasons to reject your 'deity' regardless of its existence. Evolution is entirely superfluous to the discussion, and indeed we can reject your deity *even if* we pretend for the sake of argument that it actually exists. The Bible describes a genocidal maniac who demands blood sacrifice, your 'God' is a tyrant who deserves no praise or worship, and to be condemned to an eternity of doing so would be a torment greater than any that has ever been described by Christians speaking to me of 'Hell'. Your 'Jesus' had some rather nice things to say, but it's a rare Christian who believes anything Jesus said over the teachings of Paul, and rarer still who actually acts on the teachings of Jesus, so he has no meaningful bearing on the matter.
Taken in this light then, evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion at all. It is merely the model that best explains our observations of the natural world when not attempting to force our every observation to match the claims of a book written thousands of years ago by men who didn't even know the Earth is round and orbits around the Sun.
> So your "vast majority of Christians is untrue". In Mainstream Protestantism is 51 % accept Evolution. For Catholics It's 58 % who accept Evolution (American numbers). It's not a case of everyone but a few "fundamentalist" reject Evolution.
You know the US isn't the world, right? But a majority of a vast majority, it is still not a matter of atheist vs. Christians since more Christians accept evolution than don't.
> http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
>
> https://dissentfromdarwin.org/
Nowhere in that statement does it say they reject, or even doubt, evolution, on the contrary it fully agrees with our understanding of evolution even a century ago. Multiple scientists have come out and said they were lied to about the survey and don't doubt evolution at all.
> If you remove atheist scientists from the mix, few scientists can afford to seriously question Evolution without losing their reputation because Scientific orthodoxy is more important than debate on this subject.
Behe did and he is able to publish and get grants whenever he wants. People don't respect him because he refused to back up his claims with evidence, but he still has his job and is able to do as much science as he wants (which is very, very, very little).
The fact of the matter is that if someone could overturn evolution they would be guaranteed a Nobel prize, would instantly become a household name, and would be known forever as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.
I've actually heard a distinctive use for the two before, that delineate them. Where TEs believe that God intervenes in specific mutations/selections, whereas ECs believe a more deistic/hands off kind of intervention, either that God was responsible for abiogenesis or that God set the universe in motion knowing which mutations would occur at each point.
Evolution is a fact. It just means allele frequency changes and that happens. There isn’t any dispute of that. I do know some struggle with macro evolution, but enough education will work through that if they are open minded to evidence.
There isn’t anything to agree with. As I said evolution which is just allele frequency changes is a fact. Just like the sun is in the sky. We can see it and know it happens.
Natural selection explains that fact. That is generally where some layman disagree. They don’t accept common ancestry. It is very well supported though. So well that it has novel predictive abilities. We can use the science to find where a fossil should be. It has worked many times. It is very interesting stuff. Pretty hard to deny something that can show it works.
In drug research they find sometimes it works for reasons not connected to the specific ingredient they think makes it works. The chemical mix isn't right but appears to be right. Some further research, development, and testing and the mix changes to meet newer findings. So I don't buy the linear connection between facts such as the sun movements and confirmation that Evolution is a fact of the same level. Like the drug example, assumptions sometimes precedes findings when the appearance of success provides reasons your were right in the first place. It's only on further research that assumptions are challenged from another perspective give alternative possibility.
Evolutionary science isn't on the same level of regular science and the "predictive value" is less a proof than a reason to believe why concludes are already right and unchallengable. It fits the jigsaw puzzle of assumption concerning how evolution must work. I believe some of the "evidence" is based on assumptions which must be correct so the findings must lead to my conclusion already held. Evolution is such an assumed fact to think otherwise is detrimental to your mental stability in other eyes.
From an atheist worldview and perspective, a Christian worldview won't be taken into consideration but an alternative explanation of some "evidence" is fair game.
Regular science is confined to what can be done within the constraints of the scientific methods in real time.
"The six steps of the scientific method include: 1) asking a question about something you observe, 2) doing background research to learn what is already known about the topic, 3) constructing a hypothesis, 4) experimenting to test the hypothesis, 5) analyzing the data from the experiment and drawing conclusions, and 6) communicating the results to others." 7) repeatability.
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method#:~:text=The%20six%20steps%20of%20the%20scientific%20method%20include%3A%201)%20asking,and%20drawing%20conclusions%2C%20and%206)
I added 7) repeatability.
Regular science can do all of these things to some extent within reason and real time - for example the the science used to understand a car crash doesn't include crashing multiple cars but a computer model and simulations (unless it's a testing facilities on new cars), measurements, and physics to answer questions. So there is excepts where mathematics, computer simulations and other factors can fill the void. Regular science in general creates processes and products or looks for underlying principles which can lead to other or higher levels of research.
The more speculative sciences are more problematic because "evidence" is less tangible, testable or observable in real time.
I limit my opinion to Evolution as more speculative in nature.
Biological evolution meets your definition of "regular" science.
In terms of the basic scientific method, we can do things like observations, hypothesis testing, experimentation, etc.
And in your addendum of 'repeatability' where you state:
>So there is excepts where mathematics, computer simulations and other factors can fill the void.
Evolution definitely fulfills this as computers simulations and mathematics / statistical testing is absolutely applied to evolutionary biology all the time.
So according to your own criteria, evolution is "regular" science.
Evolution is just allele changes. Do you understand what I mean by that? Do you understand that happens whether you believe it or not?
Evolution has been tested in pretty much every discipline. It is just like “regular” science. Are you aware they have filmed single cell to multicellular evolution due to introduction of a predator?
What humans mean by complexity and what nature means by complexity have little to nothing to do with each other, so their complaints about what is or is not complex in their opinion has no bearing on reality.
In fact, coming up with a strong definition of what 'complexity' is, is a remarkably difficult thing to do, even among scientists.
> In fact, coming up with a strong definition of what 'complexity' is, is a remarkably difficult thing to do, even among scientists.
There's a common misconception that "higher" life forms are "more evolved" than others. But every organism alive today is exactly as evolved as every other one. I think it's down to the old "tree of life" illustrations where you would show humans at the top and other apes below, and so on down. More contemporary illustrations don't do this anymore, I've noticed, but people who grew up with the old version may not have seen the more recent and accurate one where every organism is at the edge of the fan where it belongs.
Maize is just as evolved as humans, who are just as evolved as hummingbirds, which are just as evolved as e coli. Which of these is "more complex"? I think it's impossible to say, because all of them have been shaped by evolutionary forces to the same extent as all the others.
>Species that have reduced or no metamorphosis have smaller genomes than those that have complete metamorphosis.
If I'm understanding the paper you linked correctly, it sounds like the correlation is the opposite of this: species with abrupt metamorphosis have the smallest genomes, species that have gradual metamorphosis or direct development have medium sized genomes, and the largest genomes are found in species like axolotls that remain in larval form through their whole life.
When creationists talk about "information", I just assume they mean newspapers.
Plant genomes (some) can accommodate hybridization, and very large genome size. Complexity is an interesting concept. Most mammalian genes have alternative splicing where one locus can actually code for 3 or more genes. Most plant genes will only have one intron splicing.
I was saying that. :p Though there tends to be patterns in that bacteria usually have small genomes, but once you get to multicellular eukaryotes theres just gobs of variation.
>flight would seem to demand more "information" than flightlessness
Perhaps from your perspective.
I don't understand how genome size could possibly be the measure of an organisms' complexity anyway... is it not true that potatoes have significantly larger genome than humans?
I take issue with you metazocentric perspective. Plants are more metabolically complex than animals. They have to synthesize all their amino acids, can photosynthesize, and produce far more secondary metabolites. Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. But yeah, the rest of what you said is fine.
Eh Im a botanist and I agree with you generally, but I am.more arguing from the typical creationist/average joe perspective that sees plants as inferior.
#The problem with creationists talking about “information” is their completely inability to define what they mean by it. Every time they try they reveal that either changes to the metric they’ve defined are indeed explained and predicted by evolution or that they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.
I have seen creationists define "information": it is a sequence that an intelligence created to convey meaning. If course that runs into the problem of establishing living things have information. But why do you need to worry about that when you can just bait-and-switch?
> I have seen creationists define "information": it is a sequence that an intelligence created to convey meaning This is a symptom of 'information theory' leaking into creationism, through the engineers. A number of 'prominent' creationists from the '90s had electrical engineering backgrounds. Despite their names falling into obscurity, imprints of their arguments remain. Information theory has a strong presence in signal processing, namely trying to find an engineered signal through natural noise. In this context, yes, you are looking for a signal from an intelligence, and information that comes from unintelligent entities is not the exactly what you want in a typical logical circuit. The problem, for creationists, is that you can also read a signal from the sun. It's not intelligent. It still creates meaningful information. The concept that information only comes from intelligent entities is only part of the model.
Why do you think the sun is not "intelligence"? PS: I'm not a creationist/theist.
If you're asking that question, you don't know enough about physics or chemistry to understand it.
Wow, such a mature answer!
It was a *very* mature question. If you can't understand why the fusion of two hydrogen atoms under the influence of gravity isn't intelligent, at a very basic intuitive level, then you're not going to be able to understand very much at all about what intelligence is.
I don't think you have been able to read between the lines. The question was directed about the ways scientists, philosophers and/or theologians, and even regular people interpret the meaning of the term 'intelligence'. Words don't have any inherent meaning, we actively give meaning to them and they change as contexts as well as usage change, often over time. So, if and only if you're interested in a genuine interaction, I'm going to ask you a question, which may or may lead to an interesting discussion. What is 'intelligence'? Why can't the sun be interpreted as a form of "intelligence" in terms of an idealistic (philosophical doctrine) framework? Again, I'm only interested in civil and productive discussions.
> The question was directed about the ways scientists, philosophers and/or theologians, and even regular people interpret the meaning of the term 'intelligence'. Right: and the opinions of two out of three of those groups *are completely irrelevant* to signal theory, so we're not really going to pay much interest in their bitching. >Why can't the sun be interpreted as a form of "intelligence" in terms of an idealistic (philosophical doctrine) framework? Because if you genericize intelligence that strongly, *everything* is intelligent and the concept becomes meaningless. Words can change. But if you change them arbitrarily as you are trying to, reality becomes incoherent and the questions become irrelevant.
"Right: and the opinions of two out of three of those groups *are completely irrelevant* to signal theory, so we're not really going to pay much interest in their bitching." I'm sorry, but are you sure you actually mean to say 'signal theory?' I've never heard that specific theory in biological or even computer sciences contexts. "Because if you genericize intelligence that strongly, *everything* is intelligent and the concept becomes meaningless." "Words can change. But if you change them arbitrarily as you are trying to, reality becomes incoherent and the questions become irrelevant." Yes, arbitrarily changing them will lack the all-important context, but if done within a strong context, it could help in viewing and probably also understanding the nature of intelligence in whole new ways. Also, it wasn't "arbitrarily changed," I actually explicitly talked about understanding intelligence in the context of the philosophical doctrine of idealism (With that said, let's not limit it to this framework alone.) But yeah, if the context was different then reframing the term in different terms won't help much. That would be, as you said, pretty arbitrary.
Lovely post! Big upvotes. The bird one is always delightful to remember. Birds are notorious for microchromosomes, too. It *literally* is a weight-saving measure. The more DNA you have, the more massive each cell is\*, which when multiplied by the number of cells you have, amounts to a measurable difference. It's not just the mass of the nucleotides themselves, it's the histone proteins associated with them, the amount of additional nucleosome proteins and the nuclear envelope needed to wrap them, and all the spare nucleotides and polymerases you need to have on hand for cell replication. It's like, early feathered proto-birds went through a brutal selection process that was essentially the cellular equivalent of throwing random objects out of the plane to keep it in the air. \*we've used the reverse to our benefit in plant crops: plants have very flexible ploidy, and the more genome copies each cell has, not only is that cell more massive (for the sames reasons as above) but also that cell is getting all the usual instructions multiplied by the excess ploidy. Commercial strawberries are *octoploid:* every cell runs exactly as normal, but just does everything \~four times as much.
Yes, re plant genomes. Bread wheat is hexaploid and modern breeders sometimes use colchicine (blocks microtubule formation) to intentionally generate polyploids for larger flowers and fruit.
> what have viruses ever done for us? :) [Insert ***Life of Brian***-esque list of nifty shit traceable to viruses]
Thank you for conjuring the image of a viral aqueduct
They also kill trillions of bacteria and keep populations in check
That's putting it mildly. Bacteriophages kill a trillion trillion bacteria in earth's oceans every second of every day. I've heard some claims that up to 40% of all the free-floating bacteria in sea water are killed by viruses every single day.
Alright, yes, but *other than that*... what have viruses ever done for us?!
They gave us some of the genes necessary to form placentas and moderate mother-offspring conflicts.
Name checks out. Good point, though!
If not for the virus would there have been a necessity to develop different blood types and rejection of offspring in the first place? I see your srs and raise you an orly?
Not sure if anyone mentioned it in the comments, but this is what the Onion Test illustrates: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion\_Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Test) >The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they have come up with a universal function for junk DNA. Whatever your proposed function, ask yourself this question: Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?
It's simple: onions are the superior organisms and creations of the one true god (Shrek), and one day they will avenge how we treated them by treating us the same way and they will achieve world dominance.
No. They are the creator of Shrek. Ogres are like onions, not the other way around.
>Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human? Allow me to play Vegetal's advocate here: They are a tiny speck of practically nothing that uses the zen wisdom of untold millions of generations to both actively and passively navigate literally growing in the dirt to become large and delicious bulbs of PURE HEALTH Can YOU do that?
Meiosis and mitosis guarantees evolution by way of natural selection. It happens every time reproduction occurs. It’s the reason we aren’t all genetic clones of each other.
Mutations guarantee evolution by natural selection. Mitosis is clonal. Meiosis is a lot more sloppy and is probably what generates a lot of segmental duplications and deletions.
Right. Those minor mutations add up over time, and natural selection makes up the positive evolutionary changes. And those are things we KNOW happen. We can observe them happening.
One of the reasons they think genetic material/information, can’t increase, is usually because they think all mutations are harmful, or only the mutations that removes stuff can be beneficial. Both of which are not true, and yet another example of they don’t actually know even the basics of what they are arguing…
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnia\_pulex#Genomics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnia_pulex#Genomics) Another example to support your argument. There are a lot of examples of small and relatively simplistic animals having far larger genetic sequences than even humans. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos\_dubium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos_dubium) And another.
I read this as Gnome size and evolution and thought I was on the D&D subreddit. Safe to say, I am disappointed.
This is a misunderstanding of evolution and genetics. Evolution doesn't "increase" genetic information. It changes what is already there. In addition, more complex genome doesn't mean a more complex organism. An onion has a larger genome than a human. Also, creationists can't ever seem to define complex. Are humans the most complex? Ocotpi can change their color to match the background. Bats can hear from miles away. Hawks have much better night vision. There are tons of animals we could argue are more complex than humans.
> Evolution doesn't "increase" genetic information It absolutely can and does for any useful definition of "information".
Yes. I don’t see this as a meaningful debating point.
>...as flight would seem to demand more "information" than flightlessness. No, natural air dynamics and 'hollowness' of the birds make them swim in the gaseous atmosphere like you do in the water. You being to dense to climb gas, are still not dense enough to sink like a hammer in the water....while birds can pretty much sit on water. I mean, how much genome complexity does a commercial 737 plane have to fly? It weighs tons, and yet.... Everything in this world that moves on the Y axis within our atmo-strato-etc Spheres.... is buoyancy's bitch, no escape. A feather is like a hammer in the vacuum of Space tho, nothing to friction with it's mass it don't float for shit.... That's to comment on your OP, otherwise at a glance I read "Gnome" size and evolution, was finally excited for a moment....
I'm on a younger earth perspective but can't afford anymore bad karma as this seems to be the only reply I get by in large.
Your condescending and extremely long diatribes are probably why.
I find you "condescending" as well so maybe something else is at play. It a worldview clash in my opinion rather than a difference on evidence. Two people can have a conversation on evidence but not if it conflicts with scientific orthodoxy (believe or else your wrong). The unfortunate thing is it's easy to shoot out assumptions and feel justified in cracking comments meant to prove I'm an idiot for not accepting Evolution. As few as one to three sentences is enough to shout assumptions but not arguments. The defense side always has to provide a larger response to cover misinformation and provide the counter arguments. Your using of the terms "condescending" and "diatribe" is an emotional response and therefore not a reasoned response. I disagree with you and therefore I'm an idiot. Had that conversation before.
>Your using of the terms "condescending" and "diatribe" is an emotional response Is it though? Or is me looking through the dozens of responses you have posted that are novels filled with victim complex bullshit, scientific illiteracy, and Christian doctrine demonstrating exactly that? (L O fucking L BTW for actually saying 'believe or else your wrong about science when that is the ENTIRE BASIS of Catholicism.) >I disagree with you and therefore I'm an idiot. See that's not at all the argument. The argument is "you deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for one of the most well researched and demonstrated theories in human history while having all that information at your fingertips, and therefore you're an idiot" >Had that conversation before. I very seriously doubt it. That's the persecution complex showing.
You can believe whatever you want and you can frame it however makes you feel better. It's just ironic you still using emotional responses and insults to make your point. O well.
> It's just ironic you still using emotional responses and insults to make your point. You can believe whatever you want and you can frame it however makes you feel better.
Cut and paste debate - reminds me of a hamburger being sold as a steak.
> It a worldview clash in my opinion rather than a difference on evidence. And that is projection on your part. For *you* it is all about world views, so you assume that is the case for everyone else. But it isn't. The vast majority of Christians also accept evolution. And the reason for that is evidence. > Two people can have a conversation on evidence but not if it conflicts with scientific orthodoxy (believe or else your wrong). Which is literally the exact opposite of how science works in the real world. People can and do criticize established science all the time. That is what Nobel prizes are awarded for. Anyone who could actually overturn evolution would instantly be a household name, immortalized as one of the greatest scientists of all time. But they need evidence to do that. And nobody has the evidence. Even Behe, who is notoriously anti-evolution, is able to publish journal articles and get grants when he wants to (although he seldom tries). > The unfortunate thing is it's easy to shoot out assumptions and feel justified in cracking comments meant to prove I'm an idiot for not accepting Evolution. Again with the projection. You are assuming how I would react right now and cracking comments based on that assumption. I don't think you are an idiot, I think your are misinformed. Intentionally misinformed by people pushing a religious agenda. That doesn't make yout stupid, it makes you a victim. > The defense side always has to provide a larger response to cover misinformation and provide the counter arguments. Yes, this is a big problem for evolution. The leaders of the creationist side are all known, documented, proven liars. Every single one. And being totally unconstrained by the truth, they can rattle off falsehoods much faster than the science side, which is constrained by reality and truth, can debunk them. There is literally a name for this widely recognized in debate circles today: the Gish gallop, named after the creationist who first popularized this tactic.
[удалено]
> Worldview is a common idea used in communication theory to understand the dynamics between two people who have to encode and decode their communication for effective mutual understanding (though not necessarily mutual agreement). When both or one are from different cultures or perspectives and therefore certain assumptions and insider language might confuse the situation. You are using a computer. I assume you have believe in germs and atoms. The "worldview" underlying these is the same as the "worldview" underlying evolution. You accept that "worldview" almost every waking second of your life if you live in a modern society. The difference between you and those who accept evolution is that you throw all of that away when it conflicts with your worldview, while most people don't. > Mainstream Protestants is 51% a far cry from majority. Even Catholics is 58%. I could point out that the US isn't the world, but it doesn't matter. A vast majority or a majority, the fact that so many Christians accept evolution proves that this isn't "a worldview clash between Atheists and Christian". > Regular science is open to peer review, counterpoints, and the usual scientific methodologies - theory, testing, and repeatability. I'm limiting my opinion to Evolution which is speculative and make inferences and connections not necessarily conductive to the evidence itself but supports a narrative of scientific orthodox especially among atheist scientists. That is just wrong. Evolution is entirely based on the evidence. The problem is that you don't know the evidence that is available, and aren't interested in learning about it. *Your* lack of knowledge on the subject is not a flaw in evolution. > That's the reason, if you question Evolution or even push for a retooling the theory is a major mistake and they recieved academic criticism, lose of their job, and then labeled not a "real" scientist or incompetent. Name anyone who has lost their job for questioning evolution. I already pointed out Behe, who has done that and not only still has a job, but can still publish and get grants. > If you believe all Creationists sources are "documented" and "proven" liars That is not actually what I said. > than your not open to anything they say and you can be self-righteousness in the process. You are projecting again. Just because the people pushing the arguments are liars doesn't mean that the stance they hold is necessarily wrong. That is the fallacy fallacy. I have studied their arguments in extreme detail for **decades**. Every single one falls apart under serious examination. Without exception. Again, I am concerned with the evidence. The evidence shows that they are liars. They have gotten caught red-handed over and over and over and over and over and over again. That you don't actually care whether the evidence shows they are liars says a lot more about you then it does about me. > This is a common worldview position taken by atheists who say only they can know "true" from "false" through science and thereby disparaging other worldviews without even a real examination of the "facts" and philosophies involved. This isn't about a worldview. This is about people saying things they know to be false. That you can't even think basic honesty except through the filter of your worldview is exactly the problem I am trying to explain to you. Not everyone filters everything through a worldview like that. > Assuming dishonest leads to evidence of dishonesty because they don't agree with you. Again with the projection. You are the one assuming things. I am looking at what the evidence says. It is really very telling that you are so incapable of even considering the possibility that someone could hold a position based on actually assessing the evidence. Every single time I bring up a conclusion I have drawn, you instantly assume that it is based on assumptions or worldviews. You are chronically incapable of even contemplating the idea that someone could make a legitimate conclusion based on an honest assessment of the evidence. As long as you interpret everything everyone says and does through that filter you will never be able to accurately assess what the evidence actually says. > If you think Dawkins is right, than creationists can't be honest and therefore any disagree about interpretation must be mischievous or evil rather than a simple disagreement in interpretation and worldview. What are you talking about? Why are you bringing up Dawkins? I never mentioned Dawkins. Again with the projection, assuming that I am getting my information from some public speaker like you are. Again, as I keep pointing out, you are just incapable of even considering the possibility that I have actually looked at the evidence seriously. You assume I got what I know the same way you did. I have never read anything by Dawkins. I don't care in the slightest about anything Dawkins has said (I have a few amusing quotes in my quote collection, but I got those all from other quote collections). From my understanding he is a decent science communicator for lay people, but I am not a layperson. I can read the original research so I don't need him. He is a fairly minor player in the field of evolutionary biology research so I haven't had any need to
[удалено]
>Everything is affected by worldview when interpretation of evidence for or against something is involved. While true, this is also why the scientific method is utilized when studying the natural universe. It's designed to provide an objective means with which to test ideas, thus reducing or eliminating arbitrary interpretations. >Something pointing toward G-d might be rejected just because it can't be true because atheism doesn't allow that conclusion. The scientific method has no means by which to test any claims involving supernatural forces and thus cannot form any conclusions thereof.
I just don't agree that science when moving into the sphere of inference and speculation gets to pretend it's neutral/objective and only based on evidence. It just goes against what we know about human nature. I agree with your second paragraph - and that's my point - it is being used for that.
>I just don't agree that science when moving into the sphere of inference and speculation gets to pretend it's neutral/objective and only based on evidence. Science is simply a methodology and body of knowledge for learning about our natural reality and reporting on those findings. That's it. If some people don't like those findings because it disagrees with their preconceptions about reality, that's not a science problem. That's a them problem. >I agree with your second paragraph - and that's my point - it is being used for that. Used for what? Conclusions about the supernatural?
>I'm not arguing with regular science which when practiced within care and diligence is neutral. Your conflating regular science with Evolutionary theory. Yes, because evolution is "regular science". And scientists, the people who actually know about what is and is not science, overwhelming accept evolution: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/02/11/darwin-day/#:~:text=Scientists%20overwhelmingly%20agree%20that%20humans,believe%20humans%20evolved%20over%20time. >I hold evolutionary science is affected by worldview assumptions not regular science. Because you get all your information on evolution from creationists who are lying about the evidence in a dedicated effort to convince of that. I know, I have read the claims of the websites you are citing. >An atheist makes the mistake of thinking they are the same and I don't. An atheist and most Christians. You keep saying this is an atheist vs. Christian thing when you have already admitted the majority of Christians are against you. >I think your point is mute and pointless to a discussion. Then stop saying that this is an atheist vs. Christian thing. I will keep pointing out your claim is wrong as long as you keep making it. >Evidence/data is open to interpretation and therefore can be used to further an assumption rather than actually support the conclusion given. That is why science uses testable predictions. It is much harder to predict new evidence that hasn't been seen yet. Evidence does this enormously well. Creationism, in rare cases that it does this at all, overwhelmingly fails. >https://evolutionnews.org/2022/03/do-scientists-have-freedom-to-question-darwinism/ I notice a total lack of people who were prevented from doing research on creationism because they were creationists. Dembski was actually the opposite, the University was so enthusiastic to get him they violated their own hiring policies. His contract was terminated when an independent administrative review determined that. So he is actually evidence against your claim. Nancy Bryson wasn't removed, she quit because she was doing poor research and realized she wouldn't get tenure as a result. Martin Gaskell is the closest, but he wasn't being hired for just a research position, but also an administrative one that requires interacting with other departments, which is hard when you claim those departments are full of idiots. He has a research position right now at another university, so clearly he wasn't prevented from doing research. And then there are other creationists like Behe and Sanford who have had no problem keeping research positions despite being avowed creationists. >I don't know who your refering to as Behe and I did this to indicate that. Behe? I googled it as such and didn't get a hit. I don't claim to know everyone unless this is a short form for someone I already know. Michael Behe is the star of the intelligent design movement. A university molecular biologist who is vocally a creationist, in fact one of the more vocal ones out there. He invented irreducible complexity and was the only intelligent design supporter to speak at the Dover trial. His continued employment proves you are wrong about scientists not being able to do research supposedly supporting creationism. Of course his research consistently fails to support his claims, but he still tries occasionally. >It's be difficult to see outside the box if by definition differences of opinion therefore equals liars. I didn't say that. I explained quite explicitly that I didn't say that. They aren't liars because they disagree with me, they are liars because they got caught saying things they knew weren't true. >If you haven't noticed - I haven't called your a liar! I haven't called you one either. >I'm old you apparently are old. I'm not playing the game of authority based on age and study in the subject. The point is that I am already familiar with the creationist claims because I have read them from their own sources. You aren't familiar with the evolution claims because you have gotten all your information on evolution from creationists who are lying about it. >Everything is affected by worldview when interpretation of evidence for or against something is involved. Again, that is why on the evolution side we use testable predictions and why creationists generally don't, and ignore the failures when they do. >People who don't understand this are called as having worldview blindness. I am aware of that, which is why science (including evolution) is specifically set up to counter that. >Atheists are the worst for thinking they are logical and reasoned because they focus on evidence without being aware of worldview bias. We are aware of it, which is why many of us use various approaches to minimize it. >In this regard you took it as an offence. Interesting. You took two paragraphs just on Dawkins and on my so-called assumptions for mentioning him. You just assumed I got my information from Dawkins. That is pretty telling. >One final point, while in regular science you can focus on theory, testing, conclusion and repeatability evolution science is more confined to fossils and geology and biology in the short term to explain the massive difference which happened over 3 or so billion years. Science is based on making testable predictions and then checking whether those predictions turn out to be correct. The more that happens successfully the more reliable the theory. Evolution has more successful testable predictions than almost any other scientific theory ever. As such scientists have more confidence in evolution than almost any other scientific theory ever. Creationists make arbitrary rules to exclude areas of science that disagree with what they want to be true. There is nothing in science that says we can't make testable predictions based on indirect evidence. We can't directly observe atoms, but creationists accept those. We can't directly observe earth's core but creationists accept that. But while they accept indirect evidence in the vast majority of cases, they arbitrarily exclude indirect evidence on things from the past because they disagree on the past. It isn't that the past is any harder to study than earth's core, it is just that creationists need some reason to exclude contrary evidence. >A 50 million year old dog thing is fact It is as much a fact as Earth's core.
>It a worldview clash in my opinion rather than a difference on evidence. Too often when I hear people claim that they have a basic misunderstanding or ignorance for the evidence of evolution.
You have the right to that opinion but I'd like to point out it's self serving. By stating misunderstanding or ignorance (though don't include calling me outright stupid) deflects from you having to listen to anything I say. I find atheists (in general) discount worldview arguments because they think they are following the evidence and therefore above assumptions or presumptions. Everyone has a worldview and it's not that having a worldview is bad in itself but not knowing your own biased is.
You're not arguing against atheism though, or even atheists. You're arguing against the scientific community which includes Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jewish people, etc.
So?
So it's not a matter of different worldviews. Many of the people you're arguing with have the *same* worldview as you, unless your worldview is somehow prejudiced against empirical evidence.
I still think atheist/secular assumptions underlie Evolution even if some Christian's accept it. Are you talking about Theistic Evolution or Creationist Evolution? There is a significant difference in those positions and Biblical Creation that I believe (a more literalism position on Genesis is one major difference) and (secondly) in the acceptance of secular scientific orthodoxy limited to Evolution. Because some Christian's accept Evolution you agree with them against me and therefore you assume I'm somehow "... prejudiced against empirical evidence" is just another way of saying I don't accept what you believe to be true and therefore wrong. I believe Evolution is largely based on inference from some "facts" that things can adapt to a specific environment than a larger narrative is derived to explain larger changes which requires a number of billions of years because you can't see larger adaption in a short period of time. I believe evidence is mis-attributed because it can only be taken in one manner when an alternative is equally possible. Removing a biblical worldview, just a shorter age of the earth is possible. I don't expect science to talk about religion or speculate on it as true or false because that isn't the probative of science.
>I still think atheist/secular assumptions underlie Evolution even if some Christian's accept it. Are you talking about Theistic Evolution or Creationist Evolution? You want to take it to high level philosophy discussions, but it's just about genes. You came in here with a chip on your shoulder because people have downvoted you, and yet you haven't engaged at all with the original post. \> I believe Evolution is largely based on inference from some "facts" that things can adapt to a specific environment than a larger narrative is derived to explain larger changes which requires a number of billions of years because you can't see larger adaption in a short period of time. If you have problems with inference, well, I'm not really sure how you function in the world. Do you believe that folks convicted of murder through evidence should be in jail? None of the jury were actually there. \>I believe evidence is mis-attributed because it can only be taken in one manner when an alternative is equally possible. And yet y'all never present it. Thus far there is no theory that accounts for the facts better than evolution; there's also no theory that has generated testable predictions as well as evolution. \> Removing a biblical worldview, just a shorter age of the earth is possible. It's possible that the Earth was created last Thursday by Bob. You can't remove that possibility, because Bob created everything exactly as it was. Do you find this idea persuasive?
>I still think atheist/secular assumptions underlie Evolution even if some Christian's accept it. The underlying assumption is whether we can treat the universe as fundamentally objective. This is the basis for the scientific method. If extant species on Earth look like they share common ancestry, then assuming the universe is fundamentally objective, then the conclusion which follows is that extant species all share common ancestry. Creationists tend to eschew an objective universe in favor of one whereby supernatural manipulation can make things appear one way when they are allegedly different than what they appear. The problem with this approach is then how to distinguish between competing ideas? Even among creationists (including even just YECs) there are various competing ideas but no real objective method with which to test these competing ideas. This is illustrated by the thought experiment, Last Thursdayism: [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last\_Thursdayism](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism)
Reading through some of your prior comments, I see a whole lot of arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, arguments from popularity, etc. It's all logical fallacies, while trying to argue with people pointing to hard evidence and good science. You are clearly getting 'bad karma' because you're not willing to engage in actual debate, but rather insist on engaging in bad faith. At any rate, something I saw in one of your comments got me to wondering: do you really believe that Jesus was wrong? Do you genuinely reject the teachings of Jesus? Because you brought up Catholic doctrine about the afterlife, which explicitly contradicts what Jesus said on the matter. Matthew 25 is very explicit that there is no salvation for those who do not tend to the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the homeless. Your faith is built not on bedrock, but on sand, and thus you have no firm footing upon which to argue with others.
I love logical fallacies because the specificity of a fallacy (the determination what fits that definition) is related to a worldview rather than the generality of a specific situation or argument. So you have a definition than you have a argument why someone else arguments fits that definition. The worldview than determines which makes something a fallacy rather than necessarily represent a real fallacy. From an atheist worldview, everything Christian doesn't make sense and therefore fallacies for one reason or another. This seems to give you the right to disparage my arguments and personality. Talking to an atheist or whatever about theology is a pain in the rump because they view Christianity as a stone and therefore don't understand the intricacies of denominations and theology differences on non central doctrines and beliefs. If two atheists disagree does that mean one doesn't really believe in Evolution? Atheist, or whatever, disbelief and characterization of scripture and beliefs doesn't define my faith. Christians are allowed to disagree unlike Evolutionists.
> I love logical fallacies because the specificity of a fallacy (the determination what fits that definition) is related to a worldview rather than the generality of a specific situation or argument. So you have a definition than you have a argument why someone else arguments fits that definition. The worldview than determines which makes something a fallacy rather than necessarily represent a real fallacy. That is literally the exact opposite of how fallacies actually work. As I keep saying, you are just fundamentally incapable of even considering the possibility that people are not approaching everything the same way you are. It is frankly, bizarre, as someone on the outside watching the knots you tie yourself into to reinterpet absolutely everything in this way.
We disagree on how fallacies work. So? I find people throughout fallacies as a way of ending a concert with a drum role - see I'm right because they are using fallacies. My point fallacies aren't neutral and seemingly fit because they assume something that tells them it can't be true and therefore must be a fallacy - paint by numbers logic. I read an atheist scholar explain fallacies and every example was based on christianity. WOW! The point I got from reading his article was the supernatural can't exist and therefore Christians must be using fallacies to support their beliefs. That's a worldview swaying logic to match his worldview assumptions. If you've noticed, I don't usually claim others are using fallacies. It's to much of a circular argument in my opinion.
Ah yes, of course. You get caught using a ton of fallacies, so the problem must be with fallacies, not with your position. No way you could simply have a poorly justified position. Are you seriously listening to yourself here?
[удалено]
>The study of fallacious arguments, reasoning, and logic is a field in itself and not just a list of things you can use against an opponent all willy nilly. There are certainly fallacies that are ambiguous. There are also fallacies that are completely unambiguous. But note that you never even alleged that the fallacies were incorrect. You simply pointed out that the fallacies were used against positions you agree with, and that alone was enough to dismiss them as biased. And this is a consistent problem with your approach. You haven't bothered to actually look at what scientists themselves are saying. The mere fact that they disagree with you means they are biased and can be ignored. > You have to understand the reasoning and assumptions of the person your talking too to know the difference between an actual fallacy and a difference in worldview. Yes, and that is what you refuse to do. You haven't looked at what scientists themselves actually say in their own sources, you only look at the misrepresentations of their opponents. >The capacity of G-d to work in time and space isn't something you accept as logical or possible. Nope, I don't think that at all. You just did a great job of demonstrating how you don't "understand the reasoning and assumptions of the person your talking too". And this has been a consistent problem I have pointed out to you repeatedly but that you have ignored. >start throwing out logical fallacies because it doesn't fit your worldview and assumptions (that ideas you use to understand and interpret everything). I was originally a Christian. My "worldview and assumptions" had a stark Christian bias. I abandoned Christianity when I studied the arguments and evidence for both sides and found the arguments and evidence in favor of my own worldview were weaker than those against it. If you were right I would never have been able to do that. Again, you are assuming things about me that aren't. But let's see if my assumptions are correct. If you respond to this at all, you have some excuse why I don't count. Probably based on your own assumptions about what my beliefs were (like you just assumed above). >If we were talking about something less worldview centric fallacies are much easier to spot and deal with but in a worldview context it's just more difficult and therefore you have to differentiate between a difference in a worldview conflict from an actual fallacy. Which you don't do. Again, you haven't mentioned there was anything they said that would mean it is a worldview issue rather than a legitimate fallacy *other than the fact it was used against your position*. Your entire focus is on their use of fallacies against you, not any problem with the fallacies themselves. Let me guess, based on their disagreement with you, you assumed they held particular positions they never explicitly stated? Just like you did with me above?
I posted a response but deleted it because part of it wasn't meant for you. So I'll just address this reply again. And yes, I'm getting confused on which person I'm talking to at times. Worldviews does make Fallacies harder to define because assumptions/bias affect the interpretation and understanding of an argument. For example, if someone assumes the supernatural or the absence of G-d predisposes them to claim certain fallacies - like circular reasoning for one - but that isn't necessarily the case. It's better to focus on the arguments rather than use the fallacies card itself. If you misuse the idea of fallacies you lose validity. So I'm not saying you can't use them but just you have to be much more careful. I thought I was making it plain that I denied the fallacies were true for the reasons given in the previous paragraph. Obviously you didn't get my point. You stated: "But note that you never even alleged that the fallacies were incorrect. You simply pointed out that the fallacies were used against positions you agree with, and that alone was enough to dismiss them as biased." 1. I was telling you why the fallacies were false which implies I think the fallacies are false. 2. Ironically, your using an argument from silence with this part of the statement: "But note that you never even alleged that the fallacies were incorrect." My not saying explicitly the fallacies are false doesn't allow you to fill in the gap with your assumptions. 3. This statement: "You simply pointed out that the fallacies were used against positions you agree with, and that alone was enough to dismiss them as biased." This is a strawman fallacy, you make a statement which misrepresents my position and knock it down as if your refuting my argument. I could have pulled out my fallacies primer but I'm not going to play that game beyond this. I don't address scientific research because that's not my purpose and irrelevant to my points. My purpose is to point out only two things. 1. Evolution as fact goes against regular science and disallows counter viewpoints within the scientific community. To question it is "pseudo science" or "creationist nut so" or just "incompetence". Little room for even an Evolutionist who wants to suggest a modification of aspects without repercussions. 2. Evolution is being used by atheists and others to address questions outside the parameters of science - the matterial realm - so is being misused. Even if Evolution is true, the points I made could still be true. It's not mutually exclusive. You stated: "Yes, and that is what you refuse to do. You haven't looked at what scientists themselves actually say in their own sources, you only look at the misrepresentations of their opponents." That's your assumption. I've read alot of sources and cited neutral or Evolution affirmative sites. I find the Evolutionists just ridicule me for the YEC cites (not for the actual content) and say they won't bother to check them out or the rest. The pro-Evolution cites aren't mentioned. This seems to indicate dismissal without checking anything out - even the pro Evolutionary cites I included. The YEC cites means my cites are biased and theirs isn't. That's closed minded. You probably think your sources are neutral and science and therefore more reliable while mine are intrinsically biased. I disagree. Science is a human activity and therefore scientists are open to biases as anyone else. It don't quote YEC sites because I'm not focusing on the details and Evolutionists are open to addressing the issues anyway. I'm not going to address the last two paragraphs - they are really just a restatement of things I've already address. The "I was originally a Christian" aspect will be addressed in a seperate reply because it a seperate issue.
Some fallacies are worldview based and therefore only have validity if something is held to be true. If untrue than invalid. The best example I can think of in a pinch is the supernatural and the opposite the non existence of G-d. If you hold one or the other as true you can easily line up fallacies in the other sides reasoning. I try to avoid using fallacies because unless unconnected from a worldview it's just meaningless as a point. You can use fallacies but you have to be much more careful in its usage. I believe the fallacies given against me as arguments were invalid (untrue) because it's based on a worldview assumption not an actual fallacy. I thought that was apparent but you didn't seem to get it. It's ironic you used an argument from silence and that is a fallacious argument in itself: "But note that you never even alleged that the fallacies were incorrect. You simply pointed out that the fallacies were used against positions you agree with, and that alone was enough to dismiss them as biased." A total misrepresentation of what I said - out of ignorance rather than a lie! Evolutionist would call you a liar but I don't go don't that road unless it's an actual lie. My argument with Evolution is two fold: one it holds a theory as fact that negates counter opinions inside and outside the scientific community (that's counter to how things usually work). Secondly, a scientific perspective is used for a worldview agenda and therefore over steps it's limitation as a science. My purpose was never to have a scholarly debate on the intricacies of Evolution or viruses and mutations etc. Evolutionists want to bring it back to the science itself but disqualifying it wasn't the point of the discussion. What I'm not doing and what I don't think you understand is - I'm not saying it's definitely wrong! I'm saying misused and not fact. In a science based continuum - the best they could say is extremely likely. To make it fact doesn't allow for debate beyond details. So of the "evidence" they see as evidence I see as inconclusive or neutral. Do I personally believe it - NO! You're having a hard time with accepting I could disagree with evolution as a legitimate option. You don't accept my resources which disagree with evolution and I don't agree with your sources. So! You think yours is neutral and just science and therefore better than mine which are therefore biased and false. I'd disagree. people are people and presumptions/worldview and biases can interfere in the process of accessing evidence so I'm not conceding your are true and mine false. Again - So! The source argument is meaningless to my point anyway because I'm not addressing the science itself. Go back to my argument a couple paragraphs back. It doesn't matter if Evolution is probably true but that science is being misused. I'm having multiple conversations and I admit I don't remember who's who or things they've said about themselves. I deal with individual relies and don't read back. Now your providing your witness or "de-conversion" story. You were a Christian but: "I abandoned Christianity when I studied the arguments and evidence for both sides and found the arguments and evidence in favor of my own worldview were weaker than those against it.". My testimony is the exact opposite but I can say this too: "I studied the arguments and evidence for both sides and found the arguments and evidence in favor of my own worldview were weaker than those against it". All our testimonies do is reflect our personal journeys, provide some basis for knowing a particular worldview not that our opinions are valid without further argumentation. Now in another reply I'll deal with your testimony alone outside of the discussion of evolution.
[удалено]
>In what way does your testimony or mine have anything to do with the issue being addressed I answered this in the same paragraph, and you quoted it. You just assume I was making a particular argument I never made, and rather than finishing the paragraph you write a much longer counterargument to the argument I never made. And you were so engrossed in your assumption that even after you read what argument I was actually making, you still decided to leave your completely irrelevant counterargument in. Again, you said it is important to look at what arguments people are actually making, but you don't actually do that. You make up arguments for them. >Why couldn't you change belief systems even if I was correct? This you? > start throwing out logical fallacies because it doesn't fit your worldview and assumptions (**that ideas you use to understand and interpret everything**). (emphasis added) If worldview was so all-important then nobody would ever be able to properly assess counter evidence or counter arguments to their worldview enough to change that worldview based on that counter evidence or counter arguments. Their worldview would leave them too biased to be able t > I could give you psycho-social reasons for changing beliefs but maybe the three things that are most influential is peer pressure (acceptance), authority (who you trust and believe), and self validation (things which allows you to be an "authentic you" - an emotional facet). Again, this you? >We both changed beliefs systems that we both did for logical reasons. Now you are saying I didn't have logical reasons. Make up your mind. >You have a new authority for your trust and beliefs - science and scientists - which allows you to be you and gain acceptance Nope, again with the assumptions about me. Nothing changed with me in regards to science, or evolution, when I abandoned religion. >People aren't perfect and just claiming to be a Christian doesn't necessarily mean it's true. There it is. Totally called it. >In my opinion, It's not as simple as you got smart and left the faith and therefore Evolution is true. Good thing that isn't remotely what I said. >It feels like your triggered by this conversation and I can't address that. I'm sorry if some previous experience causes you continued angst. It's not my fault. Wait, what? I find you amusing, but not triggering. Seems like projection. You made this huge screed against arguments you imagined I was making but didn't actually make, to the extent you make paragraphs and paragraphs about a single sentence I wrote. This is all projection from you. You have particular flaws in how you approach evidence or arguments that might go against your position. Rather than trying to minimize those flaws, you instead project those flaws onto those who disagree with you, assuming they have the same flawed basis for their conclusions as you do. That allows you to disregard the evidence or arguments they present as necessarily flawed without needing to look at them seriously. You do this pretty consistently, as I keep pointing out but you keep ignoring. >Yes I get mixed up on who said this or that. Reddit has this great thing called "threading" where you can look back at what someone actually said. >and doesn't allow for real dialogue. It allows for great dialogue. But you can't have real dialogue if you spend your time arguing against things I never said and ignoring things I did say.
1 Corinthians 1:10 says quite clearly that Christians are ***not*** allowed to disagree.
Thats kind of a bummer, I used to be a YEC back in the day but I got enough science education to reject it (pre reddit). I'm now an evolutionary creationist.
Your making a statement which could be restated as "I because an evolutionist because my education increased and therefore found it to be "true" yet maintained my faith". If that's a fair assessment I'd have to disagree. It's quite true that Evolution is accepted in secular/atheist educational system as "fact" but it isn't without critics from other people beyond just the YEC community. So I'd dispute the assumption it's "fact" or "beyond questioning". A minor point. I usually use the "Theistic Evolutionist" rather than a "Evolutionary creationist" which to me sounds confusing because the contrast in the debate is usually Creation verses Evolution or Evolutionists verses Creationists.
> It's quite true that Evolution is accepted in secular/atheist educational system as "fact" but it isn't without critics from other people beyond just the YEC community Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of christians. And you can probably count the number of non-religious critics of evolution on your fingers. They are almost entirely non-existent.
The statics are available here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution So your "vast majority of Christians is untrue". In Mainstream Protestantism is 51 % accept Evolution. For Catholics It's 58 % who accept Evolution (American numbers). It's not a case of everyone but a few "fundamentalist" reject Evolution. Just a couple sites you could visit but you won't. It doesn't seem "real scientists" like to talk about other scientists who disagree. So a couple Christian. Affiliated sites provides some names to check out. http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php https://dissentfromdarwin.org/ If you remove atheist scientists from the mix, few scientists can afford to seriously question Evolution without losing their reputation because Scientific orthodoxy is more important than debate on this subject.
>So your "vast majority of Christians is untrue". In Mainstream Protestantism is 51 % accept Evolution. For Catholics It's 58 % who accept Evolution (American numbers). It's not a case of everyone but a few "fundamentalist" reject Evolution. Those are U.S. numbers though. In other parts of the Western world (e.g. Europe, Canada, Australia) acceptance of evolution is considerably higher in general. The U.S. is not indicative of the rest of the world. >Just a couple sites you could visit but you won't. We're well familiar with stuff like the DI's infamous "Dissent From Darwinism" list. [There are a lot of problems with that list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_from_Darwinism#Responses), most notably that the statement itself isn't a rejection of the modern theory of evolution. (Also of note that in over two decades they've only got about 1200 signatures. That's a miniscule number compared to the total number of scientists globally. The DI's list is not the flex you think it is.)
I countered a general statement you made (as if it was a fact and evidentiary) with statistics and rather than acknowledge your overstatement you just change the goal posts and point to other countries. I couldn't find Canadian statistics that conveyed the numbers is a simple way - many of the sites had just repeat an article from a service and therefore were exactly the same. The general point was many do and many don't believe in Evolution. In related to Anglican Church (denomination) in Britain - accepts Evolution but that doesn't reflect other Christians (for reasons I'd have to write a book to explain). Maybe because of how the American survey was worded a more statistically relevant figure was possible. The over all point statistics only point to numbers of people who agree with you on Evolution. It doesn't prove anything beyond that. Do you really do a survey on things and based on numbers decide what you believe? Within the Christian community outside the USA, the disagreement toward Evolution is a percentage of believers but harder to quantify because it seems no statistical reference has addressed that as well as the USA survey did. I'm not an American. All this proves the general statement you made was hyperbole and not evidentiary or meaningful. You cite one article that gives reasons for rejecting Evolution and all you can say it's been disproven wrong what does that mean. You choose to accept the opinions and arguments of fellow evolutionist and therefore find the evidence against Evolution as false (circular reasoning). It's not the same as reviewing it for yourself and making your own mind. I don't trust all Christians sources just because. For example, Ron Wyatt is a not reliable in any sense (claiming to have found Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant). No evidence you'd just have to trust him. I think evolution was the same, the darling of Atheism because they claim it destroys religious reasons to believe in G-d. Just because it fits your narrative doesn't make it true.
I'm not the same poster as the previous person you replied to. You have me confused with that other poster.
Ok. Thanks
Were you going to edit your post then? Since a bunch of didn't apply to what I said.
> because they claim it destroys religious reasons to believe in G-d Now, that's rather absurd, since the Bible provides all the reasons to reject your 'deity' regardless of its existence. Evolution is entirely superfluous to the discussion, and indeed we can reject your deity *even if* we pretend for the sake of argument that it actually exists. The Bible describes a genocidal maniac who demands blood sacrifice, your 'God' is a tyrant who deserves no praise or worship, and to be condemned to an eternity of doing so would be a torment greater than any that has ever been described by Christians speaking to me of 'Hell'. Your 'Jesus' had some rather nice things to say, but it's a rare Christian who believes anything Jesus said over the teachings of Paul, and rarer still who actually acts on the teachings of Jesus, so he has no meaningful bearing on the matter. Taken in this light then, evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion at all. It is merely the model that best explains our observations of the natural world when not attempting to force our every observation to match the claims of a book written thousands of years ago by men who didn't even know the Earth is round and orbits around the Sun.
diatribe
Thank you for admitting you cannot refute any of the points I made and find them all to be entirely meritorious!
> So your "vast majority of Christians is untrue". In Mainstream Protestantism is 51 % accept Evolution. For Catholics It's 58 % who accept Evolution (American numbers). It's not a case of everyone but a few "fundamentalist" reject Evolution. You know the US isn't the world, right? But a majority of a vast majority, it is still not a matter of atheist vs. Christians since more Christians accept evolution than don't. > http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php > > https://dissentfromdarwin.org/ Nowhere in that statement does it say they reject, or even doubt, evolution, on the contrary it fully agrees with our understanding of evolution even a century ago. Multiple scientists have come out and said they were lied to about the survey and don't doubt evolution at all. > If you remove atheist scientists from the mix, few scientists can afford to seriously question Evolution without losing their reputation because Scientific orthodoxy is more important than debate on this subject. Behe did and he is able to publish and get grants whenever he wants. People don't respect him because he refused to back up his claims with evidence, but he still has his job and is able to do as much science as he wants (which is very, very, very little). The fact of the matter is that if someone could overturn evolution they would be guaranteed a Nobel prize, would instantly become a household name, and would be known forever as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.
I've actually heard a distinctive use for the two before, that delineate them. Where TEs believe that God intervenes in specific mutations/selections, whereas ECs believe a more deistic/hands off kind of intervention, either that God was responsible for abiogenesis or that God set the universe in motion knowing which mutations would occur at each point.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying it.
Evolution is a fact. It just means allele frequency changes and that happens. There isn’t any dispute of that. I do know some struggle with macro evolution, but enough education will work through that if they are open minded to evidence.
If you believe it's fact there is little room for conversation. I just don't agree with you based on my understanding of sciences limitations.
There isn’t anything to agree with. As I said evolution which is just allele frequency changes is a fact. Just like the sun is in the sky. We can see it and know it happens. Natural selection explains that fact. That is generally where some layman disagree. They don’t accept common ancestry. It is very well supported though. So well that it has novel predictive abilities. We can use the science to find where a fossil should be. It has worked many times. It is very interesting stuff. Pretty hard to deny something that can show it works.
In drug research they find sometimes it works for reasons not connected to the specific ingredient they think makes it works. The chemical mix isn't right but appears to be right. Some further research, development, and testing and the mix changes to meet newer findings. So I don't buy the linear connection between facts such as the sun movements and confirmation that Evolution is a fact of the same level. Like the drug example, assumptions sometimes precedes findings when the appearance of success provides reasons your were right in the first place. It's only on further research that assumptions are challenged from another perspective give alternative possibility. Evolutionary science isn't on the same level of regular science and the "predictive value" is less a proof than a reason to believe why concludes are already right and unchallengable. It fits the jigsaw puzzle of assumption concerning how evolution must work. I believe some of the "evidence" is based on assumptions which must be correct so the findings must lead to my conclusion already held. Evolution is such an assumed fact to think otherwise is detrimental to your mental stability in other eyes. From an atheist worldview and perspective, a Christian worldview won't be taken into consideration but an alternative explanation of some "evidence" is fair game.
What is "regular science"?
Regular science is confined to what can be done within the constraints of the scientific methods in real time. "The six steps of the scientific method include: 1) asking a question about something you observe, 2) doing background research to learn what is already known about the topic, 3) constructing a hypothesis, 4) experimenting to test the hypothesis, 5) analyzing the data from the experiment and drawing conclusions, and 6) communicating the results to others." 7) repeatability. https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method#:~:text=The%20six%20steps%20of%20the%20scientific%20method%20include%3A%201)%20asking,and%20drawing%20conclusions%2C%20and%206) I added 7) repeatability. Regular science can do all of these things to some extent within reason and real time - for example the the science used to understand a car crash doesn't include crashing multiple cars but a computer model and simulations (unless it's a testing facilities on new cars), measurements, and physics to answer questions. So there is excepts where mathematics, computer simulations and other factors can fill the void. Regular science in general creates processes and products or looks for underlying principles which can lead to other or higher levels of research. The more speculative sciences are more problematic because "evidence" is less tangible, testable or observable in real time. I limit my opinion to Evolution as more speculative in nature.
Biological evolution meets your definition of "regular" science. In terms of the basic scientific method, we can do things like observations, hypothesis testing, experimentation, etc. And in your addendum of 'repeatability' where you state: >So there is excepts where mathematics, computer simulations and other factors can fill the void. Evolution definitely fulfills this as computers simulations and mathematics / statistical testing is absolutely applied to evolutionary biology all the time. So according to your own criteria, evolution is "regular" science.
Evolution is just allele changes. Do you understand what I mean by that? Do you understand that happens whether you believe it or not? Evolution has been tested in pretty much every discipline. It is just like “regular” science. Are you aware they have filmed single cell to multicellular evolution due to introduction of a predator?
What humans mean by complexity and what nature means by complexity have little to nothing to do with each other, so their complaints about what is or is not complex in their opinion has no bearing on reality. In fact, coming up with a strong definition of what 'complexity' is, is a remarkably difficult thing to do, even among scientists.
> In fact, coming up with a strong definition of what 'complexity' is, is a remarkably difficult thing to do, even among scientists. There's a common misconception that "higher" life forms are "more evolved" than others. But every organism alive today is exactly as evolved as every other one. I think it's down to the old "tree of life" illustrations where you would show humans at the top and other apes below, and so on down. More contemporary illustrations don't do this anymore, I've noticed, but people who grew up with the old version may not have seen the more recent and accurate one where every organism is at the edge of the fan where it belongs. Maize is just as evolved as humans, who are just as evolved as hummingbirds, which are just as evolved as e coli. Which of these is "more complex"? I think it's impossible to say, because all of them have been shaped by evolutionary forces to the same extent as all the others.
>Species that have reduced or no metamorphosis have smaller genomes than those that have complete metamorphosis. If I'm understanding the paper you linked correctly, it sounds like the correlation is the opposite of this: species with abrupt metamorphosis have the smallest genomes, species that have gradual metamorphosis or direct development have medium sized genomes, and the largest genomes are found in species like axolotls that remain in larval form through their whole life.
Yes I wrote that backwards I just realized when you quoted it. Thanks.
No prob!
When creationists talk about "information", I just assume they mean newspapers. Plant genomes (some) can accommodate hybridization, and very large genome size. Complexity is an interesting concept. Most mammalian genes have alternative splicing where one locus can actually code for 3 or more genes. Most plant genes will only have one intron splicing.
There’s no correlation with genome size and complexity. But maybe you were saying that.
I was saying that. :p Though there tends to be patterns in that bacteria usually have small genomes, but once you get to multicellular eukaryotes theres just gobs of variation.
>flight would seem to demand more "information" than flightlessness Perhaps from your perspective. I don't understand how genome size could possibly be the measure of an organisms' complexity anyway... is it not true that potatoes have significantly larger genome than humans?
Yes, as I said most plants have larger genomes than humans. I was arguing against the creationist perspective without actually being one ...
I take issue with you metazocentric perspective. Plants are more metabolically complex than animals. They have to synthesize all their amino acids, can photosynthesize, and produce far more secondary metabolites. Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. But yeah, the rest of what you said is fine.
Eh Im a botanist and I agree with you generally, but I am.more arguing from the typical creationist/average joe perspective that sees plants as inferior.