Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[general_re]

Brower proprosed replacing (A or Not A) with Not(Not(Not A)=> Not A. This is a consistent system deductively.

I think I'll stick with the usual definition of the law of the excluded middle. ;)

Mostly, I wanted to make it clear in my follow-up to myself that I was talking about the informal fallacy of the excluded middle, and not the law of the excluded middle. For the lurkers, the law of the excluded middle says that all propositional statements are either true or false; that is, the statement "P or ~P" is always true, and tautologous. As in "either animals evolved, or animals did not evolve". "Either Santa Claus exists, or Santa Claus does not exist". And so forth...

[SwordofTruth]

God will not be mocked.

[SwordofTruth]

If you want to refute evidence, you have to prove its invalidity.

But there is no evidence for evolution.

[B. Rabbit]

Just to let you know, that it is going to take a Herculean effort for me to read all of your links, but I'm going to try. It is very interesting reading so far, and you have a lot of intelligent thought and obviously an incredible work ethic. I will say that I don't follow much of it as my Bible knowledge has faded since I parted ways with the Church, but again, it is interesting. Thanks.

[music_code]

There is NOTHING dogmatic about evolution, it is a theory that says, this is here, so somewhere down the line we should find one of these, and low and behold, down the line, we find one. What a concept.

This is a disingenuous statement. Evolution is presented as dogma in high school textbooks, colleges, universities, the major media, in our entertainment, everywhere. The links you speak of are entirely fabricated.

To say that if you believe in evolution, you cannot be religious, is not only ridiculous, but assinine.

Evolution is itself a religious worldview, for it concerns itself with man's origin. And by the way, it (both the spelling and the theory) is asinine.

Now onto the question of if you believe that it all came about as a huge accident, why shoudl you care? This belief would tell me that life is WORTH MUCH more then if goddidit because if goddidit then he can do it again, but if it is all indeed a cosmic accident, then life is worth a heck of a lot more, because we have one shot here, and that's it, the chances of it happening again are miniscule, whereas if goddidit then who cares, he'll just do it again.

There is a kind of twisted way in which this may seem to make sense, but only if one is willing to make the major league assumption that God would, indeed, 'Do It Again'. Since by definition your worldview excludes God, such an assumption is prohibited and therefore unavailable for the illegitimate usage you have employed here.

If there is no God, life is indeed a meaningless charade which no one can fathom. If evolution is true, then... that a person only gets 'one shot at it' merely serves to increase the sense of urgency felt by those who wish to infuse life with meaning through deeds undertaken with the desire for lasting results that benefit others, and conversely, to increase the sense of despair felt by those who conclude that it is not worth the effort since we are all going to die anyway. Neither of those options is remotely the same as having the real meaning and purpose derived from the correct understanding of man's origin, identity, purpose, morality, and destiny. Such needs require a self-sufficient source of power and goodness that is found only in a Creator.

[Aric2000]

And are you the one that will bring his wrath?

For some reason, I don't think so.

Guess Physicist will have to wait until he dies, huh?

Then we won't be able to tell you whether you were right or wrong, convenient that.

[SwordofTruth]

I do think, that's why I believe in evolution, not some book with lots of good myths and a little history in it.

The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

A thinker your not, you follow your heart.

[whattajoke]

would you run amuck and fulfill your wildest personal-power fantasies with your gun or your M-16?

I ask them this question all the time (it never gets answered). It will continue to amaze me that these people are so scared/guilty/whatever of a world without their version of god, and that somehow suddenly all laws cease to exist. It is my intention in life to show the world that yes, an atheist can be just as "moral" and law abiding as the best christian. The egos involved are just sickening.

[whattajoke]

Your time on Earth is but a vapor. Your body will die and you will meet your maker.

Ooogity boogity. I thought the fire and brimstone silliness had finally abated. Or that it had become the province of islamic fanatics. Guess I'm mistaken.

[Nebullis]

It's useful to talk about procedures, algorithms, or any other way of referring to laws of nature, only after the beginning of time. Any discussion of "at" the beginning (during singularity?) or before is rather quite meaningless. Perhaps, the existence of natural laws implies an "intelligence" of some sort, but, at most, the attributes of that "intelligence" are inferred from what we can find out about nature. So, we're back to looking at nature the only way we know how: via science. I don't think that implications about a possible intelligence change the way I do science or that I do science at all; it certainly doesn't change what we find out about evolution.

[Physicist]

God will not be mocked.

What an embarrassingly petty and thin-skinned cartoon you scribble of your Lord. That can't possibly please Him.

[Aric2000]

Here we go again, I have always notice that christians will do whatever they can to prostletize to the unfaithful so to speak.

I nver said that that was my worldview, I said that that is a way to look at it, if it was. You see, unlike you, I can take myself away from my religious points of view and look at something logical and based on facts.

Evolution being one of those things, yes, it is a theory, just likfe the theory of gravity, the theory of astrophysics, the theory of put your known theory here.

All science is a theory, you know why? Because at some point there may be a MAJOR breakthrough that destroys the theory and therefore it must be replaced.

When and if a better theory comes along that replaces evolution, I will be one of the first to go with it, but it MUST have a preponderance of evidence to back it up, and nothing like GODDIDIT within. Because if it says that GODDIDIT then it is NOT science, it is religion.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.... Whether you fanatics believe it or not.

I will make this easy for you, I have a religion, which explains everything to me, the beginning, the middle, the end etc, but it is religion, NOT science, so I do not bring it up in these discussions, because it is NOT science. You see, I can separate my religious beliefs from science facts.

Why don't you try it, you MIGHT actually learn something.

[B. Rabbit]

Ooogity boogity.

LOL. Seriously, a lot of people write those 3 little letters, but I seriously just lost it. But to be honest I thought SwordofTruth was a Christian rapper. Witness:

Your time on Earth is but a vapor.

Your body will die and you will meet your maker.

I sound the horn, ring the holy bell.

And sentence you to eternal hell.

[music_code]

Because your statement is an illogical negation of the original premise. The original premise made sense - ie, "If we don't know stuff, it is highly likely there is a God."

You are asking us to accept something that collapses under its own weight - ie, "If we don't know stuff, there must be no God." Do you see the problem? Why would anyone conclude that's the end of the story? The awareness of a huge lack of knowledge begs further inquiry, not less.

[BMCDA]

Yeah, especially "nation in the 1600" ;D
Time to buy new history books.

[whattajoke]

Yeah, so far a quick reading of this thread has given us creationist gems from history:
The US existed in 1600

math:
1x10 to the 40th power is 10 with 39,000 zeros

spelling:
"gaul"

not mentioning, of course, the embarrassingly severe lack of any biology, astronomy, logic, geology, anthropology, genetics, paleontology, etc, etc, etc knowledge. It's enough to give me a headache.

[B. Rabbit]

You are asking us to accept something that collapses under its own weight - ie, "If we don't know stuff, there must be no God." Do you see the problem? Why would anyone conclude that's the end of the story? The awareness of a huge lack of knowledge begs further inquiry, not less.

You misunderstood me. I stated that I was willing to admit that my knowledge is very limited on a universal scale, and that there is a possibility that a God exists. But I asked exmarine, and yourself now, to also admit that your knowledge is equally as small and that there is distinct possibility that he does not as well. I am not making the statement that "Since we don't know stuff, God MUST not exist". You two are the ones trying to make the opposite argument into fact.

[exmarine]

Okay, have it your way: they don't. More specifically, you don't. Does that idea bother you, exmarine? Would you stop going to church then? Without the threat of everlasting damnation, would you run amuck and fulfill your wildest personal-power fantasies with your gun or your M-16? And if not, then why bother with the distinction at all?

Looking beyond your sarcasm (red herring), you have just admitted that you and your family have no worth. So, why can't you live like they don't? It seems you have a problem.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Other than the denial that the scientific method is a valid method of obtaining knowledge . . . what is the purpose of Creationism?

You state the facts wrongly here. Creationism has the effect, not the purpose, of denying that evolution engages in true science. I know you're smarter than that. You've posted some great challenges to me on this thread, BTW. Thanks. Really.

[music_code]

I nver said that that was my worldview, I said that that is a way to look at it, if it was. You see, unlike you, I can take myself away from my religious points of view and look at something logical and based on facts.

There are several reasons why this opening statement rings hollow.

First, the fervor with which you cling to and defend evolution betrays your casual statement above which merely asserts 'that that is a way to look at it'.

Second, there are only two sides to this fence. The only options are evolution or Creation. Since you obviously reject Creation, you have nowhere else to go but evolution.

Third, evolution is anything but logical. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than Creation.

Fourth, evolution is undeniably a worldview.