Creation vs. Evolution Debate

[Runner]

You poisoned the well when, in your post #3 the very first thing you said was: "Evolutionary science "assumes" atheism. Atheism is its foundation."
That immediately casts a negative taint upon evolutionary science.

That is true.
It also has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD.

It is not a logical fallacy per se, but PRETENDING TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DON'T is a bit of a problem in argumentation.

Let's flip this around: "Creationism assumes a supernatural creator. Theism is its foundation."

Have I just "poisoned the well" for creationism? Or do those whose paradigm is creationism say, "Of course we assume a supernatural creator, stupid. Creationism is by definition theistic."

Likewise, no evolutionary scientist is going to complain if you point out the bland fact that his paradigm assumes atheism. Evolutionary science is predicated on a materialistic, naturalistic, non-supernatural explanation for both the origin of life itself and the evolution of species from common ancestors.

You stated it was a fallacy to say "evolution promotes atheism." It is not a fallacy, any more than it is a fallacy to say "creationism promotes theism."

As far as I can tell, the subject of this thread is actually NOTHING.

It was you who chose to title your thread CREATION VS. EVOLUTION DEBATE. It was you who chose to give examples of supposed logical fallacies Christians commit when debating evolution. Alas, your first example was not a logical fallacy at all. In addressing subsequent comments, you have proceeded to commit a host of logical fallacies of precisely the sort that those whose arguments are falling apart resort to when their errors have been exposed.

 

[OzSpen]

I believed how it's concerns diseases. They do need a genetic hIstory but not are going to ask the why your parents had you.

I thought I posted that.

I found this reply to be incoherent. Take the sentence you used: 'I believed how it's [it's = it is] concerns diseases'. I have not a clue what you mean.

 

[OzSpen]

Here's an interesting and helpful site for that sort of thing: http://www.logicalfallacies.info
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Papa,

One of the problems is that many Christians (and non-Christians) use the logical fallacies in the link you've given, but they don't realise they are using them.

They don't seem to understand that when any logical fallacy is used, it prevents debate or discussion about the data or narrative being discussed because it misrepresents or goes off in a different direction. They don't seem to understand the errors of logic in logical fallacies and that these prevent continuation of reasonable discussions.

I experienced a example of the use of a logical fallacy in my family a few months ago. I commented to my son (age 44) that one of Australia's leading cricketers, David Warner, had a good looking chick, Candice, as his wife. Take a look:

(source)

My son's immediate response was: My wife also is a good looking gal.

That wasn't my topic. It was about Candice Warner. My son's reply was a red herring fallacy. It diverted attention away from my topic.

Oz

 

[Papa Zoom]

Papa,

One of the problems is that many Christians (and non-Christians) use the logical fallacies in the link you've given, but they don't realise they are using them.

They don't seem to understand that when any logical fallacy is used, it prevents debate or discussion about the data or narrative being discussed because it misrepresents or goes off in a different direction. They don't seem to understand the errors of logic in logical fallacies and that these prevent continuation of reasonable discussions.

I experienced a example of the use of a logical fallacy in my family a few months ago. I commented to my son (age 44) that one of Australia's leading cricketers, David Warner, had a good looking chick, Candice, as his wife. Take a look:

(source)

My son's immediate response was: My wife also is a good looking gal.

That wasn't my topic. It was about Candice Warner. My son's reply was a red herring fallacy. It diverted attention away from my topic.

Oz

So true. And there are many fallacies to choose from. I'm sure I'm still guilty of using them although I try hard not to. Staying on topic is a learned skill I think. Address the points made and allow the previous posters to define their own meaning.

 

[Jim Parker]

Let's flip this around: "Creationism assumes a supernatural creator. Theism is its foundation."

Have I just "poisoned the well" for creationism? Or do those whose paradigm is creationism say, "Of course we assume a supernatural creator, stupid. Creationism is by definition theistic."

BY saying that science is atheistic to a Christian (creationist) audience, the well is poisoned because "atheist", to a Christian, caries a negative connotation. And, I believe, the person who wrote that science is atheistic meant to convey that negative connotation.

Likewise, no evolutionary scientist is going to complain if you point out the bland fact that his paradigm assumes atheism.

Why not? It would be a false statement that evolutionary science "assumes atheism."
The existence or non-existence of a deity is irrelevant to any field of science because, as I have repeatedly pointed out, science is the study of creation.
Science is NOT the study of the creator because science does not have the tools to carry out such a study.
Therefore, to ascribe atheism to science because science does not have the tools to investigate God, is a false conclusion.

You stated it was a fallacy to say "evolution promotes atheism." It is not a fallacy, any more than it is a fallacy to say "creationism promotes theism."

That is a false statement.
Evolution is not atheistic because it does not attempt to investigate the Creator any more than mathematics is atheistic because it does not attempt to investigate the Creator.
Creationism, on the other hand, assumes that there is a Creator as its foundational tenet.

As far as I can tell, the subject of this thread is actually NOTHING.

It was you who chose to title your thread CREATION VS. EVOLUTION DEBATE. It was you who chose to give examples of supposed logical fallacies Christians commit when debating evolution.

I gave those example for the express purpose of educating people so that they could avoid those logical fallacies.

Alas, your first example was not a logical fallacy at all. In addressing subsequent comments, you have proceeded to commit a host of logical fallacies of precisely the sort that those whose arguments are falling apart resort to when their errors have been exposed.

So you say but have not demonstrated any error in what I posted.


It is unfortunate that almost no one has been able to grasp the content of the post.

Most of the responses I have received, like yours, have been very disappointing.

Oh well! I gave it a shot!

iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[jasonc]

I found this reply to be incoherent. Take the sentence you used: 'I believed how it's [it's = it is] concerns diseases'. I have not a clue what you mean.

a doctor is only concerned with a history of disease.plenty of creationist doctors do ask that but they don't go into depth about the primate of origin or adams disease history.see my point.?

I'm sure in order to fix a car I don't need to know how the model a worked,it's a bit different then even a 65 mustang.two carbs,a magenetto,twin handle brakes like a bycyle,wagon wheels for tires. Hand crank starter.

 

[OzSpen]

a doctor is only concerned with a history of disease.plenty of creationist doctors do ask that but they don't go into depth about the primate of origin or adams disease history.see my point.?

I'm sure in order to fix a car I don't need to know how the model a worked,it's a bit different then even a 65 mustang.two carbs,a magenetto,twin handle brakes like a bycyle,wagon wheels for tires. Hand crank starter.

You didn't fix the problem with your sentence, 'I believed how it's [it's = it is] concerns diseases'.

 

[Jim Parker]

 

[jasonc]

You didn't fix the problem with your sentence, 'I believed how it's [it's = it is] concerns diseases'.

all that for a grammar correction.

 

[OzSpen]

all that for a grammar correction.

You still didn't fix the problem of the sentence you created.

 

[jasonc]

You still didn't fix the problem of the sentence you created.

I'm not going to.Do you after sermons like that one person to correct your theology?
Be satisfied that i did clarify.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Mod Hat On

Mod Hat Off

 

[misbehaved11]

It's the belief of the arrogant that people disagree with them only because those people are ignorant and unenlightened. But, it doesn't take any intelligence to accept Evolution, to believe what you're told to believe.

Can Creationism and Evolution be joined? God created in the beginning, and man evolved after he was driven from the Garden?

 

[OzSpen]

Can Creationism and Evolution be joined? God created in the beginning, and man evolved with time...

From where did you gain the information for your 2nd sentence?

 

[Jim Parker]

It's the belief of the arrogant that people disagree with them only because those people are ignorant and unenlightened.

I find that a great many people who reject evolution do so from a base of ignorance.

 

[OzSpen]

I find that a great many people who reject evolution do so from a base of ignorance.

I find that a great many people who accept macro-evolution do so from ignorance of its scientific validity.

 

[Jim Parker]

I find that a great many people who accept macro-evolution do so from ignorance of its scientific validity.

I don't understand....

jim

 

[OzSpen]

I don't understand....

jim

Jim,

Evolution is a theory that needs testing through formulated hypotheses.

Empirical science tests theories through observation and experimentation.

Because of this, Darwinian evolution cannot be tested by these scientific methods.

Oz
.

 

[Jim Parker]

Darwinian evolution cannot be tested by these scientific methods.

OK.
No you can't test it unless you have eons and eons of time to wait for results.
And setting up a test invalidates the experiment to prove natural selection because setting up the test is an act of intelligent design.

jim

 

[OzSpen]

OK.
No you can't test it unless you have eons and eons of time to wait for results.
And setting up a test invalidates the experiment to prove natural selection because setting up the test is an act of intelligent design.

jim

Jim,

So are you saying the theory of macro-evolution is unscientific?

Oz