If you really didn’t want to start the debate, you wouldn’t have brought up IC. Once you bring up IC as evidence for your point, then in GREAT DEBATES you’re expected to back up your claims. Otherwise, you’re effectively stating that it’s ok for you to provide evidence for your point of view, but it’s inappropriate of us to examine whether that evidence holds up.
**
Like I said, the argument from ignorance is a well-known fallacy. Even if we didn’t know how RNA can be produced in nature, that wouldn’t provide one shred of support for your position.
**
What do you know of it? I dare you to define the term “ad hominem fallacy,” because I have done no such thing. The obvious fact of the matter is that if you present ignorance as being evidence, then you’re committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
**
I’ve already disproven your idea, several times. But like I said, it’s not my job to provide one-on-one tutoring.
dreadnougat, around here we have debates on evolution, oh, about every 6 weeks or so. Please, do a search using evolution, or even RNA for your search terms, set the forum to Great Debates, and the time frame to “the past 6 months”, and you’ll see a lot of them. If you want to start questioning credentials, face it, I have no way of knowing you’re a Christian. It’s not that I don’t find debates on evolution fascinating, althought I still find it difficult to wrap my mind around the notion some people appear to have that acceptance of evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive; it’s just that I also find this question fascinating, and I’d prefer not to have it hijacked. As someone who’s spent far too much time hanging around GD over the past 3 years, I’ll vouch for Ben’s credentials, along with Darwin’s Finch, and others, but then again, since you don’t know me from Adam, that’s of no use to you whatsoever.
Also, please be aware that disagreement and difference are not insults.
True, it’s also the best forum on the internet, IMO.
I think you misread Ben, because I can’t see where he slandered you. If you think the “Jesus-science” thing was intentionally slanderous then I think you misread his intention. Creationists, as well as IDists, are Christians for the most part (or Muslim), who (no offense to them) let their religion get in the way of facts.
Let’s assume that you are 100 percent correct-scientists don’t currently know how RNA can be produced in nature. All this is, is evidence of not knowing-it’s not evidence that we can not know. That’s the primary problem with ID/IC, it’s all just one big argument from ignorance. We do not know, currently, how something happens. So ID/ICers assume that we will never know and we can not ever explain what we don’t know.
Christianity requires that you believe some rather far fetched claims, extraordinary claims, if you will. Stuff like healing the blind, walking on water, donkeys speaking with a mans voice, dead rising from their graves and people living in eternal paradise without becoming extremely bored by the whole thing. As any dopers know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you agree with me thus far Siege?
Now the only evidence we have of the above claims is several thousand years old written in the bible by folks none of us have ever met to be able to judge either their sanity or honesty. If however their text was found to be without internal contradiction, and modern day scientific method continually found that what those sheepherders wrote thousands of years ago was always correct, then it might be reasonable to assume that divine inspiration took place in the writing of the bible and we could actually have some confidence that the reported miracles took place and that heaven, and unfortunately hell awaits. If however science continually found that those sheepherders only knew what we would expect sheepherders at that time to know, then the theory of divine inspiration is seriously eroded as is your chances at eternal paradise. As creationist Ken Ham put it, if the bible got it wrong on astronomy, geology and biology, why should we trust it when it talks of redemption and salvation? Still with me?
Thus since the bible clearly writes that the creation story is exclusive of evolution, true Christians are kind of forced into believing in creation over evolution, otherwise they undermine the source of their faith. Unreasonable if you ask me considering the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution, but it’s the best idea they have. Liberal Christians like yourself want to have their cake and eat it too. You want to believe in the extraordinary claim of Jesus rising from the grave to give you eternal paradise based on evidence you already concede to be rather suspect. The latter makes you Siege every bit as unreasonable as the fundamentalists you argue against. Do you have a problem with that assessment?
Ok, so I changed my mind and came back. What can I say? I’m weak willed.
"Like I said, the argument from ignorance is a well-known fallacy. Even if we didn’t know how RNA can be produced in nature, that wouldn’t provide one shred of support for your position. "
Evidence adds to or subtracts from an argument. Evidence does not necessarily prove something one way or the other.
Now, if our current efforts to find a way that nature could produce RNA come up completely empty, I’d say that would suggest that it might not be possible. At least a “shred” of evidence. Note that I didn’t claim it proved it.
“What do you know of it? I dare you to define the term “ad hominem fallacy,” because I have done no such thing. The obvious fact of the matter is that if you present ignorance as being evidence, then you’re committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance.”
In short, you attack the holder of the position instead of the position itself.
Such as labelling me a “Jesus science” person. Although perhaps you didn’t mean that as an attack on credibility. How about “remedial lessons?” That’s not an attack?
“I’ve already disproven your idea, several times. But like I said, it’s not my job to provide one-on-one tutoring.”
Let’s see…
And that would be all of your postings after my original post in this thread. Where did you prove it wrong?
You’re abusing the argument from ignorance fallacy. I never claimed it was solid proof – iirc I said something about how hard it was to prove a negative? OTOH, looking hard and not finding something is evidence it’s not there – it’s just not proof. And people have looked hard for that mechanism.
I haven’t seen any dodo’s in a while, but I dare not suggest they’re probably extinct; that would be an argument from ignorance!
“I think you misread Ben, because I can’t see where he slandered you. If you think the “Jesus-science” thing was intentionally slanderous then I think you misread his intention. Creationists, as well as IDists, are Christians for the most part (or Muslim), who (no offense to them) let their religion get in the way of facts.”
If I accept that the Jesus-science comment wasn’t slanderous, there’s still the “remedial lessons” comment.
“Let’s assume that you are 100 percent correct-scientists don’t currently know how RNA can be produced in nature. All this is, is evidence of not knowing-it’s not evidence that we can not know. That’s the primary problem with ID/IC, it’s all just one big argument from ignorance. We do not know, currently, how something happens. So ID/ICers assume that we will never know and we can not ever explain what we don’t know.
To me, it sounds like wishful thinking.”
I’ve already dealt with that one, that fallacy is rather narrower than some people would have you believe.
“What fallacy have you been wrongly accused of?”
Argument from ignorance, as well as appeal to popularity (by a different poster).
Not true. Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I can give you links to many sites that have experienced this, one I know personally. They have video’s, they have testimonies, but I’d tend to think that most who don’t want to believe it without caring what the facts are. There were more testimonies closer to home, John G. Lake comes right off the top of my head, where there are still reports of the miracles. So what do you consider extraordinary evidence?
Yes, although again I disagree. You are reading eye witness testimonies, and yet they are not good enough. As for the contradictions, how many times do they need to be looked at? For instance, there is one in Acts with the conversion of Paul, but when it can clearly be shown not to be a contradiction, those wishing to stand by their belief and ignore the facts do so as well. As for sheepherders, you will then have to not read books by Solomon, David (granted he was until he became King), Daniel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John…need I go on? to know that they weren’t sheepherders, but this may be a minor issue. And last, did the Bible get it wrong with astronomy, geology and biology? I don’t believe it so, and I’ve read a lot of apologetics in my time. But the thing with apologetics, is I go looking for answers, and I don’t agree with all I find, so I keep going. I have yet to find something that is in error. My favorite source is actually in Jewish history and culture documents, as the Bible is a Jewish book. The english version is not the perfect translation, and the KJV is not the one Jesus used.
Ok, now you take the extraordinary claims of evolution, and there is very little to back it up. Now I know this will open a can of worms, but when claims are made that most will agree with, there is little chance anyone will call them on it. For instance, I read that we Christians have a problem with fossils. We say that there is A and B, but no step in between. An evolutionist will say ‘oh but they’ve found all the steps in between’ which is not true. The missing link is still missing. Show me one reliable site that shows macroevolution, and I may change my mind, but I’ve never seen one. I’ve seen claims made that change, since those who hide behind science can use the cop out of ‘Science is always changing.’ but that to me is the same as a Christian saying “God did it, and He works in mysterious ways.”
There is one minor point that I should comment on as well, and that’s the line of reasoning that says ‘If this happened, you’d have to not believe in God’ like if the missing link was found, if aliens came to earth, etc. This is true. If the earth was destroyed by a flood, and we had to live on the moon, I would have to conclude the Bible isn’t true. If Zeus came to me and showed me Heracles and Atlas, I’d have to conclude that what I believed may not be true. But these are things that I believe will never happen. My belief in evolution is not based on ignoring evidence, as I’ve seen a lot of it, it’s based on the fact that the true scientific evidence doesn’t go against the Bible.
" My belief in evolution is not based on ignoring evidence, as I’ve seen a lot of it, it’s based on the fact that the true scientific evidence doesn’t go against the Bible."
Agreed. I’m not sure why so many people insist that a literal translation is the only Christian one.
OTOH, I don’t know how everything happened, and frankly, how it was done isn’t all that important to me.
Sleep is good; caffeine is not so good on an empty stomach. Espresso machines are just Generally Good Things.
Although I seriously do not want to hijack Ben’s post any further (and I suggest that you open up a new thread so that we can address the matter there if you’d like) I had to object here: Evolution doesn’t actually make any extraordinary claims-if you look at what it actually is.
Evolution does not depend on “missing links”, and as a matter of fact, it’s just one piece of the evidence puzzle. Fossils, as I hope you know, are extremely hard to find-we are lucky we have any. In addition, isn’t one transitional too many?
I’d like you to answer me a question, if you would, what’s the biological difference between macroevolution and microevolution?
On another note, science IS always adding new information, that’s the nature of the beast. It doesn’t rely on what one person says, in addition it constantly incorporates new findings. This isn’t to say that anything about it’s validity-other then it’s reliable because of all the checking measures. For example, if you don’t agree with something in science, you are more then welcomed to run the tests and verify the results.
Whatever looks to be an obvious metaphor. Does it matter if Jonah and the whale is true? It is, after all, the message that counts.
You see, I don’t know, I wasn’t there. And seeing as you weren’t either, neither do you. There are no absolutes, and you’ll just have to accept that. Or don’t, I don’t really care.
I don’t give a shit about your opinion, as your reason d’etre seems to be for you to be a jerk to anyone with a different belief system. Not merely to disagree with them, but to be offensive about it.
" If you aren’t interested in intellectual honesty, why are you here?"
Who the fuck are you to judge whether or not someone is being intellectually honest with themselves?
Whatever looks to be an obvious metaphor. Does it matter if Jonah and the whale is true? It is, after all, the message that counts.
You see, I don’t know, I wasn’t there. And seeing as you weren’t either, neither do you. There are no absolutes, and you’ll just have to accept that. Or don’t, I don’t really care.
I don’t give a shit about your opinion, as your reason d’etre seems to be for you to be a jerk to anyone with a different belief system. Not merely to disagree with them, but to be offensive about it.
" If you aren’t interested in intellectual honesty, why are you here?"
Who the fuck are you to judge whether or not someone is being intellectually honest with themself?
