What Are Creationists Afraid Of?

The New Individualist ^ | 1/2006 | Ed Hudgins

[Torie]

One must look at the habitat. Then introduced species appear, often courtesy of our species (like rats or cats), and the habitat changes, or climate changes, and yes, sometimes the skill lost, sometimes becomes the skill needed.

[BMCDA]

We, the enlightened, can surely discuss things in such terms - how Straussian of us :) - but won't the religious be a bit dismayed at the idea?

Well, then simply don't tell them ;-)

[b_sharp]

"Examine my statement for logic (categorical or propositional). It will test true as a syllogism or true if tested in a Venn diagram using Aristotle's logic.

Sorry but the validity of a syllogism does not rely solely on correct form. If the either of the premises are incorrect, a correctly formed syllogism does nothing but guarantee an incorrect conclusion.

Your premise is incorrect.

"Objectivists don't know how to use it.

'It' being what?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"and somehow putting it off to give logical responses to someone whose argument starts with a sheer ad hominem for the second time in a row (and not even an original one, just a, "You are too!" from your earlier post) just doesn't seem to be all that appealing."

Your intellectual retreat is noted. I didn't think you had an answer anyway. :)

[Coyoteman]

Thanks. From posts by others I have learned part of what you posted; yours is the most complete story however.

I have stayed out of the ensuing fray. Science is more my thing.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The limits are unknowable while setting upper and lower limits necessarily limits what can be known."

Unobservable, untestable claims do not advance knowledge. That will always be the case.

[jwalsh07]

The common distinguishing feature is that science requires the scientific method.

No it isn't. The lcd is the search for knowledge. Junk scientists, social scientists and the natural scientists all use different methods so your statement can not be true.

[Oztrich Boy]

Funny position for a professed atheist to take

I'm stiil trying to get around him making one (1) propostional statement, then saying "Examine my statement for logic"

[jwalsh07]

Unobservable, untestable claims do not advance knowledge

Ever seen a penguin fly? Or know of anybody that has?

[Muleteam1]

Wow! Nearly 500 posts and no solution yet? I'll be back tomorrow for the answer.

[jwalsh07]

Very good. I threw you a hanger! :-}

[b_sharp]

"Objectivists don't know how to use logic.

Actually from what I can see, you are the one having trouble with logic.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Tendentious, or just stripping it down to the bare essentials? ;)

No, I don't think they're knuckle-draggers either, but we are talking about beliefs people hold because they hold them to be true, not merely useful. The claim is being advanced, more or less, that we, the enlightened, have no need of such illusions, but that it's useful for others to continue to believe in them, despite the fact that we, the enlightened, know those beliefs to be false. I think it's not too hard to see why some might find that claim rather offensive - it's good for you to believe in this lie, as one of the unenlightened, so just go ahead and carry on there, Charlie Church. I mean, the wording may be deliberately provocative, but isn't that what we're talking about, when you get right down to it?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Ever seen a penguin fly? Or know of anybody that has?"

Is there a point to this question? Nobody has said they do; only that there is excellent evidence their ancestors did.

[Torie]

Awareness of what we are unlikely to learn from research using the scientific method advances knowledge. Awareness of what we don't know advances knowledge. In short awareness of ignorance both in the present, as well as the smaller subset of what will likely remain beyond our understanding, in the sense of being resolved or even addressed with useful effect by the scientific method, advances knowledge. JMO.

[Wormwood]

I'm stiil trying to get around him making one (1) propostional statement, then saying "Examine my statement for logic"

The spamming was cool, though.

[Jorge]

"I haven't seen China either but have enough evidence to believe it is a real place."

That's the worst argument made in this thread thus far.

Really? You actually want to argue that we cannot believe in something unless we've actually seen it first hand with our own eyes?

YOURS is the worst and WEAKEST argument.

[jwalsh07]

Yes, but I have to run. I'll get back you on penguins. Adios all.

[b_sharp]

"I admire a faith which depends on a 1 in 10^300 chance (or whatever you want to calculate the odds of random abiogenesis at). I just wish you guys were honest enough to admit your faith for what it is, and cease teaching such religious ideals in our science classes. "

Come up with an accurate probability calculation of abiogenesis and you might be taken seriously.

[Torie]

Maybe, but it is to some extent semantics. We ALL, if we are other than sociopaths, make a priori leaps of faith about morality. We can and must.