Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion

reply to post by peter vlar

Ok, so 100 years ago 1 dishonest individual perpetrated a hoax. Once we discovered fluorine absorption test the "fossil" was discredited by other scientists. Doesn't seem like all scientists are in cahoots in that context does it? Why are modern scientists called to task for the errors and frauds perpetrated a century ago? That would bethesame as me deciding that all religions act like the Branch Davidians or the Moonies or Heavens Gate when I know they aren't all that way.

I know damn well this doesn't reflect on all scientists in any way. I would never say anything like that.
At least not without the same size paint brush OP is using.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Take a few moments to overlook what you've typed and see if you can find an example for yourself. If you cant then there's no reason in attempting to educate you is there? You have the entire internet at your finger tips, with all the time in the world to educate yourself. Argument from ignorance and begging the question would be a good start.

Wertdagf
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Take a few moments to overlook what you've typed and see if you can find an example for yourself. If you cant then there's no reason in attempting to educate you is there? You have the entire internet at your finger tips, with all the time in the world to educate yourself. Argument from ignorance and begging the question would be a good start.

Again could you provide an example of one such logical fallacy? If they abound then certainly this is no arduous request. The onus is squarely in your lap my friend. Argument from ignorance? When did I resort to circular logic?

reply to post by mrphilosophias

I find that despite the verbosity these are your two main points. Both fallacies.

Here you are begging the question (providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise):

This implicit rejection, by science, of that which is metaphysical, or beyond that which is physical, may prove it's greatest short sight, and its most glaring fundamental flaw.

Appeal to probability:

Contrary to what one would expect in light of prevailing scientific consensus, integrating critical science and statistical reasoning, leads to a conclusion that the existence of a Universe hospitable to life, the emergence of life, and thriving of life is fantastically improbable in a Universe with no intervening Creative Principle.

Ok, I try to avoid these types of threads these days but I just have to point out:

Creationists can be ABSOLUTELY without religion. For example, the ones who think our species were created by aliens. That's all I wanted to say. Enjoy your fight club.

reply to post by Malynn


Your right, believing things for bad reasons is very common.

People can also believe there are teapots in orbit around the earth or that undetectable trans dimensional purple unicorns steal their nose hairs.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


I usually don't do this. But for something that long-winded (and it really is).. I mean, I don't mind a read but that's just ridiculous.

Cool story bro...

reply to post by Wertdagf


In no way did what I say relate at all to your rude comment.

daskakik
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

I find that despite the verbosity these are your two main points. Both fallacies.

Here you are begging the question (providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise):

This implicit rejection, by science, of that which is metaphysical, or beyond that which is physical, may prove it's greatest short sight, and its most glaring fundamental flaw.

Appeal to probability:

Contrary to what one would expect in light of prevailing scientific consensus, integrating critical science and statistical reasoning, leads to a conclusion that the existence of a Universe hospitable to life, the emergence of life, and thriving of life is fantastically improbable in a Universe with no intervening Creative Principle.

The first quote you cited is from one of my introductory paragraphs and is comprised of notions that I will be exploring and establishing throughout the work of the essay, which I do. There is no circular logic. My introduction ends two paragraphs later:

"It is the intention of this essay to attempt to do just that, to understand and communicate the world view science paints for us, and by this picture highlight criticisms of science, to demonstrate that the Universe which science teaches about, is abounding with phenomenon that is better understood if it existed in a Universe intelligently designed by the inconceivable genius, and efficacious power of a Creator God."

I go on to establish the point in many ways. First by showing that in an attempt to avoid appealing to that which is unobservable and immeasurable science has done just that in its accepted theory of cosmological genesis. I proceed to highlight this hypocrisy:

The singularity that preceded the Universe, its rapid expansion, and inflation into the Universe that we wonder upon today is not able to be observed, and therefore these scientific theories are highly speculative to say the least. Even still science does offer us a story about where the Universe came from and how it unfolded and developed over time, and it does so with an air of confidence unfitting to mortal creatures. Science makes the argument that upon a framework of accepted laws and theorems derived from what we can observe, it is possible to extrapolate to that which can not be directly observed, and as such it is possible to test hypothesis and reach conclusions.

I would challenge this premise on the grounds that it is impossible to extrapolate with any degree of certainty from what we know about the Universe here and now, as if it is necessarily applicable to the Universe there and then. It would seem that esteemed theoretical astrophysicist, and world renown expert on the matter, Professor Steven Hawking, is in agreement:


“At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang.

...Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.” (Lecture by Professor Steven Hawking, “The Beginning of Time”. Hawking, S.W., www.hawking.org.uk...)

The point here is that for all intents and purposes the events that unfolded in the moments surrounding spontaneity (rapid expansion & inflation), as described in this theory of cosmological genesis, are of a metaphysical sort for the very reason that they can not be observed or measured. Please understand that the Universe described by this theory of cosmogenesis does not even exist, except as an abstract notion in our imagination, or as a digital model in a computer simulation.

In spite of these serious criticisms I nevertheless allow the theory as possible, and subsequently proceed to demonstrate that there is more than enough corroborating evidence gleaned from the theory, when viewed through the lens of applied statistical criticism, to reject the null hypothesis (the anthropic principle) that the Universe is best explained as the product of unintending and purely naturalistic causes, and to accept the alternative that it is the result of intent, genius, and efficacy such as the intelligent design of a transcendent Creator.

This position is further supported by the argument that it is self-evident that the appearance of design is pervasive at all levels of the Universe, and those characteristics one would expect to find about some thing that was intelligently designed defined.

The crux of the argument, which uses applied statistical analysis to test a null hypothesis that there is a high degree of probability, with a high degree of certainty, that a Universe hospitable to life should come about, is a testable hypothesis. The method is to identify the critical variables implicit in the scientific theory of cosmogenesis, estimate the probability of their co-occurance and a degree of uncertainty, and compare the results with the null hypothesis that it is highly probable for a Universe hospitable to life to emerge from the events described by Sciences cosmogenesis:

In this scientific cosmology, just moments after spontaneity the Universe began to cool down as it expanded, which is when it believed the laws of physics and the unfolding Universe reached some sort of stasis. This stasis is assumed to have disintegrated from a hypothetical unified state prior to spontaneity which existed in the high energy vacuum called the singularity. Due to the equilibrium arrived at in the first few minutes of the Universe by 'universal forces', quantum particles, matter and anti-matter, a proportional resolution of protons and electrons, the cosmological constant, etc. it was possible for lighter elements like H and He to appear, and later for the first stars to forge in whose furnace the light elements would be transmuted into heavier elements.

Within the framework of this theory it is also accepted that the timely and precise resolution of these cosmological quantum variables constitute critical factors in what would later become a Universe hospitable to life. It is not unreasonable to wonder if the number of such critical factors are as numerous as the quantum particles potentially bound up in the singularity. In light of the stark unlikelihood of this fortuitous coinciding of variables critical to life, and the observation in hindsight that this Universe is hospitable to life, it seems a peculiar thing for a Universe hospitable to life to burst forth in an instant without cause; that the unintending tumult of a lifeless singularity would, and in a spontaneous moment, be ordered precisely such that this unpredictable and hostile universe gives birth to the nurturing environment necessary for life, such as that on Earth, to be possible.

Please demonstrate my use of fallacy, or rescind. The onus is yours

ReturnoftheSonofNothing
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

I usually don't do this. But for something that long-winded (and it really is).. I mean, I don't mind a read but that's just ridiculous.

Cool story bro...

"We shouldn't expect childish answers to adult questions." C.S. Lewis

mrphilosophias
I usually don't do this. But for something that long-winded (and it really is).. I mean, I don't mind a read but that's just ridiculous.

Cool story bro...

"We shouldn't expect childish answers to adult questions." C.S. Lewis

Quite agree. It's just a shame the question was War and Peace..

ReturnoftheSonofNothing

mrphilosophias

"We shouldn't expect childish answers to adult questions." C.S. Lewis

Quite agree. It's just a shame the question was War and Peace..

It's only 7 pages in doc form, which is nothing. I tried to balance being thorough with being succinct.

Maybe I should have just quoted St. Paul who made the same argument 2000 years ago, while at the same time prophesying the idol of Darwinian evolution:

Romans 1

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

The crux of the argument, which uses applied statistical analysis to test a null hypothesis that there is a high degree of probability, with a high degree of certainty, that a Universe hospitable to life should come about, is a testable hypothesis. The method is to identify the critical variables implicit in the scientific theory of cosmogenesis, estimate the probability of their co-occurance and a degree of uncertainty, and compare the results with the null hypothesis that it is highly probable for a Universe hospitable to life to emerge from the events described by Sciences cosmogenesis

You cannot make claims about probability until you have another example of a universe to work with. Simply stating "We don't know the probability, therefore god" gets us no closer to any answers and claiming the universe needs a beginning and your god doesn't is dishonest at best.

You remind me of William Lane Craig if your interested you should check out his debate with Sam Harris.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight

 

Associating Eugenics and Nazism with Evolution (or in your case Science) is another dishonest (and in my view quite despicable) tactic.

Claim CA006:

Evolution promotes eugenics.

Claim CA006.1:

Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide.

edit on 17-9-2013 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: I've removed all moral boundaries.. Mwahahahaahahha..

To deny that there is a direct link between the work of Charles Darwin and the work of contemporaries like Karl Marx, Thomas Huxley ("Darwins' bulldog"), or Sigmund Freud, or that the diffusion of notions like materialism and nihlism in the 20th century were inextricably connected to Origin of Species in the 19th century, is either the result of ignorance, or bias. Please do some research.

Consider that Thomas Huxley was the Grandfather of Sir Julian Huxley. Sir Julian Huxley was a pioneering member of Britains' Eugenics Society, and the influential author of many works on the subject including an essay presented to the United Nations called "The coming human population problem."

consider Aldus Huxley's lecture at U.C. Berkeley sometimes called "The coming scientific dictatorship." It is dry, but this video hits the nail on the head I believe.

mrphilosophias

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight

 

Associating Eugenics and Nazism with Evolution (or in your case Science) is another dishonest (and in my view quite despicable) tactic.

Claim CA006:

Evolution promotes eugenics.

Claim CA006.1:

Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide.

edit on 17-9-2013 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: I've removed all moral boundaries.. Mwahahahaahahha..

To deny that there is a direct link between the work of Charles Darwin and the work of contemporaries like Karl Marx, Thomas Huxley ("Darwins' bulldog"), or Sigmund Freud, or that the diffusion of notions like materialism and nihlism in the 20th century were inextricably connected to Origin of Species in the 19th century, is either the result of ignorance, or bias. Please do some research.

Consider that Thomas Huxley was the Grandfather of Sir Julian Huxley. Sir Julian Huxley was a pioneering member of Britains' Eugenics Society, and the influential author of many works on the subject including an essay presented to the United Nations called "The coming human population problem."

consider Aldus Huxley's lecture at U.C. Berkeley sometimes called "The coming scientific dictatorship." It is dry, but this video hits the nail on the head I believe.

Equating evolutionary theory with eugenics is about as logical as equating Jim Jones and the kool aid gang with whichever church you may attend or perhaps it would be like me claiming that because there was rampant pedophilia in many Christian denominations then god himself must be a bugger for young lads. Certainly there were some who saw the theory as an in and bastardized it for their own purposes much like Henry VIII bastardized Catholicism to create the Church of England because it suited his purposes. In this case correlation is very definitely NOT equitable with causation.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Id say an even greater supporter of eugenics is the Judeo-Christian god.

Maybe they got those ideas from a book filled with direct commands to kill people for being inferior or evil.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


So, instead of refuting the claims of dishonesty this thread is meant to discuss . . . we've now devolved to proselytizing and claiming Paul prophesized the coming of evolutionary theory . . . ?

And here, I believe, it was you that was discussing "adult" comments . . . yet, provide evidence from a book which might as well equate to the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm, as far as non-Christians are concerned.

Since you like providing quotes as evidence . . . I've always enjoyed this one, in regards to Paul's thoughts.

The concept of a Supreme Being who childishly demands to be constantly placated by prayers and sacrifice and dispenses justice like some corrupt petty judge whose decisions may be swayed by a bit of well-timed flattery should be relegated to the trash bin of history, along with the belief in a flat earth and the notion that diseases are caused by demonic possession. Ironically, the case for the involuntary retirement of God may have been best stated by one Saul or Paul of Tarsus, a first-century tentmaker and Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin, who wrote, 'When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things' (I Corinthians 13:11). Those words are no less relevant today than they were two thousand years ago.
- John J. Dunphy

reply to post by mrphilosophias


The ever-tiresome "eugenics from evolution" claim . . . yawn and refuted many times over and long ago.

Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding (Numbers 1992, 222-223).

Darwin has no link to Marx . . .
As far as Huxley is concerned, Evolutionary Theory is based on evidence, not the opinions of men. After all most white supremacists claim to be "good Christians" . . . what does that say about your Christ?

Your claims are decades old and tiresome:
Evolution and Ethics

reply to post by greavsie1971


I believe most people are actually reptiles bent on destroying Earth. I think I should start killing them but I am waiting for you to support my belief.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


But...but...they are still full of logical fallacies. No matter how much time you try explaining why.