The Scientific Case Against Evolution

michel said:

Ah, but I don't suppose he has the benefit of all that guiness!:biglaugh:

Click to expand...

I'd be happy to let him have a sup from my pint I'm nothing if not charitable

At the risk of going off-topic, but I'm not sure where else to air this:

AV1611 said:

Well perhaps here's the difference then:

You have documentation to assert an opinion; I have Documentation to prove my point.

Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to interact with what I've said at all. Are you going to support your claim that I used circular logic in my post? You've made a lot of slanderous remarks about me and don't back them up. When I ask you to explain them you just move on to another piece of rhetoric. This post is an excellent example. You not only accused me of using circular logic, you did so in a personal way ("That's real cute, Jerry. Talk about circular logic" as opposed to "your argument is circular"). You didn't explain it, and when I asked you to explain it you ignored me.

Here you made a straw-man of what I had said (I didn't assert that God was for or against evolution, nor did I assert there was or was not a God. I asserted that your statement was opinion which was contested by many, and that I have a different belief). You've responded with rhetoric, have failed to address the actual point of dispute, and have failed to provide any support for your claim that I made a statement of circular logic.

Please tell me how I was circular or retract your claim.

JerryL said:

Here you made a straw-man of what I had said (I didn't assert that God was for or against evolution, nor did I assert there was or was not a God. I asserted that your statement was opinion which was contested by many, and that I have a different belief). You've responded with rhetoric, have failed to address the actual point of dispute, and have failed to provide any support for your claim that I made a statement of circular logic.

Please tell me how I was circular or retract your claim.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the glaringly obvious/ironic fact that HE is the one using circular logic.

Documented proof for claims that come directly from said document...I mean come on!!

JerryL said:

At the risk of going off-topic, but I'm not sure where else to air this:

That doesn't seem to interact with what I've said at all. Are you going to support your claim that I used circular logic in my post? You've made a lot of slanderous remarks about me and don't back them up. When I ask you to explain them you just move on to another piece of rhetoric. This post is an excellent example. You not only accused me of using circular logic, you did so in a personal way ("That's real cute, Jerry. Talk about circular logic" as opposed to "your argument is circular"). You didn't explain it, and when I asked you to explain it you ignored me.

Here you made a straw-man of what I had said (I didn't assert that God was for or against evolution, nor did I assert there was or was not a God. I asserted that your statement was opinion which was contested by many, and that I have a different belief). You've responded with rhetoric, have failed to address the actual point of dispute, and have failed to provide any support for your claim that I made a statement of circular logic.

Please tell me how I was circular or retract your claim.

Click to expand...

Read my post, Jerry. I put it in there where you used circular logic. And if you disagree with anything I say, or don't say, when I'm trying my best to answer, tough. Go debate someone else.

JerryL said:

Please tell me how I was circular or retract your claim.

Click to expand...

Jerry, qv Post 66

IMHO you're being as circular as the ring on my finger.

I may have a different definition of circular logic than you do, but nevertheless, IMHO it's circular.

Deal with it.

Fade said:

Documented proof for claims that come directly from said document...I mean come on!!

Click to expand...

Cry me a river, Fade; but as I said before:

What really bothers slientists is that all they do is sit around and contradict each other. So they want us Christians to contradict ourselves too (in the area of how we got here), and it's not working.

And personally, I think it's funny.

Fade said:

It is funny, but we ain't laughing with you.
You think Christians don't contradict themselves? Or do you think non-fundamentalist Christians aren't real Christians?

Click to expand...

I'm not here to bash non-fundamentalist Christians. I do believe Christians contradict each other all the time. I once had a guy ask me why that was, and I said it's natural to do so, and gave this example.

Put two people together. Give them each a Bible and tell them to read it. Later, after they have done so, ask them very basic questions about God and watch them give two different answers. BUT, the more and more they read their Bibles, the more and more they'll come together and start agreeing with each other. They probably will never meet and agree perfectly on everything, but they'll come close.

The Bible was meant to be read more than once.

You can usually tell who is using the 'milk' of the Word, and who is using the 'meat'.

Hebrews 5:12-14 says it all.

Read my post, Jerry. I put it in there where you used circular logic. And if you disagree with anything I say, or don't say, when I'm trying my best to answer, tough. Go debate someone else.

Click to expand...

I don't see it. Perhaps you can explain it to me again? Cut-n-paste if it helps.

IMHO you're being as circular as the ring on my finger.

Click to expand...

Again you are not explaining how. What did I say taht was circular and how was it circular?

AV1611 said:

Put two people together. Give them each a Bible and tell them to read it. Later, after they have done so, ask them very basic questions about God and watch them give two different answers. BUT, the more and more they read their Bibles, the more and more they'll come together and start agreeing with each other. They probably will never meet and agree perfectly on everything, but they'll come close.

Click to expand...

And why should Science be any different? In fact this is exactly what has happened with Science in terms of Evolution. The more the evidence is examined and the more evidence is uncovered, the more scientists agree that evolution is the logical answer.
To date there is NO scientific case against evolution. There is NO controversy, at least within the scientific community. From a theological perspective maybe but that has nothing to do with science anyway.

JerryL said:

Again you are not explaining how. What did I say taht was circular and how was it circular?

Click to expand...

Try answering the question I put in that post (which can't be answered), and then you'll see.

AV1611 said:

Try answering the question I put in that post (which can't be answered), and then you'll see.

Click to expand...

Umm. OK

"So you're saying then, Jerry, that God is for Evolution?"
No. I'm not saying that.

Now that I've answered the (supposedly) unanswerable question; please tell me how I was being circular.

JerryL said:

Umm. OK

"So you're saying then, Jerry, that God is for Evolution?"
No. I'm not saying that.

Now that I've answered the (supposedly) unanswerable question; please tell me how I was being circular.

Click to expand...

No, thanks, Jerry, this is way beyond me already, and getting farther out of hand. I've put up with enough of your foolishness, as I'm sure you have with mine.

No, thanks, Jerry, this is way beyond me already, and getting farther out of hand. I've put up with enough of your foolishness, as I'm sure you have with mine.

Click to expand...

Yes, which is why I called you out on an accusation. I've allowed you to drop an awful lot of snyde comments about me, and spew a lot of rhetoric and then not respond when challeneged on them. I had hoped that you would tone it down and come to an actual disucssion.

To be short: You are wrong in your accusation that I made a circular argument. Had this been made matter-of-factly "your argument is circular", I might be a little less dogged on this, but after you (and at least one other poster) taking one cheap shot after another without support, I'm going to make you either prove your case, or admit you are wrong, (or, I suppose, keep trying without response).

I've done my best to avoide snyde comments and personal remarks, and I do not desrve them back. I've supported my statements, and I deserve that you support yours. So does the rest of the board. This is a discussion board, not a personal soapbox.

Now tell me how I was circular or admit that your comment was wrong.

AV1611 said:

You're not dense, Michel. You may have a little reading comprehension problem, but definately not dense.

IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED...

Click to expand...

Firstly, dont insult Michael.. he maybe a Theist, but he's cool in my book.

Secondly, your answer indicates to me that you may be making the common mistake of confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution doesnt say how things BEGAN, just how things DEVELOPED. Evolutionists usually believe in abiogenesis - but its not always the case. Michael's question is perfectly valid.

Ok, so we can put to rest the bickering and get back on topic...

JerryL said:

I ment what I said. If you would like a more elaborate response try "it's what you believe God does, but other people thing God does differently and others still think there is no God to do at all".

Obviously, since I'm an evolutionist, I think you are wrong. You think you are right. There's no surprise there. I put "you think" in because you were claiming facts not in evidence. It's fine to assert factually things which are agreed upon, or which can be proven within a shared framework; but yours cannot (and an attept to prove it would be off-topic).

Click to expand...

AV1611 said:

That's real cute, Jerry. Talk about circular logic.

AV: God is against Evolution.
Jerry: Obviously, since I'm an evolutionist, I think you are wrong.

So you're saying then, Jerry, that God is for Evolution?

Click to expand...

Circular Logic: a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"

IE: Jerry says that paper A is true, why? Because paper B says it is true. Who says paper B is true? Why paper A does!

Jerry's origional statement in other words... "The reason I say "i think" your position is wrong is because I respect your opinion and the opinion of others. You are posting that others positions are wrong and then posting "facts" to back up your reasoning that are not agreed on by all. When something is called a fact everyone should be in agreement with it. Therefore, because your position is not supported by facts (IE: everyone is not in agreement that this is a fact) please do not state that it is true, and please just say "i think"."

This is not an example of circular logic at all. I hope this cleared up everything for you two, now back on to the topic at hand... I will start a thread to educate people on how to spot certain fallicies in debate.

AV1611 said:

That's real cute, Jerry. Talk about circular logic.

AV: God is against Evolution.
Jerry: Obviously, since I'm an evolutionist, I think you are wrong.

So you're saying then, Jerry, that God is for Evolution?

Click to expand...

Okay, Jerry, take your pick:

AV = God is against Evolution.
Jerry = I think you are wrong.
AV = God is for Evolution then?
Jerry = Yes
Conclusion: LET GOD BE TRUE, BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR - Romans 3:4

AV = God is against Evolution.
Jerry = I think you are wrong.
AV = There is no God?
Jerry = Yes.
Conclusion: LET GOD BE TRUE, BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR - Romans 3:4

So which do you want:

1. Circular logic and you're right?
2. Linear logic and you're a liar?

AV1611 said:

What really bothers slientists is that all they do is sit around and contradict each other. So they want us Christians to contradict ourselves too (in the area of how we got here), and it's not working.

And personally, I think it's funny.

Click to expand...

Sorry I must have missed something. How exactly do you think scientists are trying to get Christians to contradict one another about origins? The only hypotheses I am aware of are Creationism and Abiogenesis, but belief in abiogenesis would surely require a rejection of God? Could you clear this up for me?

Fade said:

And why should Science be any different? In fact this is exactly what has happened with Science in terms of Evolution. The more the evidence is examined and the more evidence is uncovered, the more scientists agree that evolution is the logical answer.

Click to expand...

This is in fact a fundamental aspect of Science. The continual retesting of hypotheses.

To date there is NO scientific case against evolution. There is NO controversy, at least within the scientific community. From a theological perspective maybe but that has nothing to do with science anyway.

Click to expand...

Not QUITE true.

Most objections to evolution come from a theological perspective.. but it is possible for non-theists to disagree with evolution. however, these objections are all (as far as im aware) subjective rather than objective assessments.

AV1611 said:

AV = God is against Evolution.
Jerry = I think you are wrong.
AV = God is for Evolution then?
Jerry = Yes
Conclusion: LET GOD BE TRUE, BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR - Romans 3:4

AV = God is against Evolution.
Jerry = I think you are wrong.
AV = There is no God?
Jerry = Yes.
Conclusion: LET GOD BE TRUE, BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR - Romans 3:4

So which do you want:

1. Circular logic and you're right?
2. Linear logic and you're a liar?

Click to expand...

This makes no sense at all.. what exactly do you think circular logic is?
The second example is actually circular because if Jerry is right about there being no God then quoting scripture is meaningless.
I really think you should respond directly to Jerrys questions.. this is not making you look good AV.. and I thought we had an interesting debate to begin with.