idabod responds to me:
quote:
thank you for a perfect example of you debating style .. you avoid all the questions
Nice try, but that's my complaint to you.
quote:
you claim sole usage of the english language
Incorrect. Instead, I refuse to allow equivocation as that is a logical error.
quote:
clearly to you evolution is the sacred cow
Incorrect. I could abandon evolution right now if you could show the evidence against it. Show me a fossilized rabbit from Pre-Cambrian strata. Show me an ostrich hatching from an alligator's egg. Show me that all species are genetically equidistant from each other. I can give you at least half a dozen pieces of evidence that would make me drop evolution like a hot potato.
The reason I advocate for evolution isn't that it's a "sacred cow" but that every single piece of evidence we have points to it. As Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
So have at it. Where is the brighter light?
quote:
Why are you so defensive , did a theist once bite you ??
Last refuge of those who have no argument: "Why are you so defensive?" as if I had any emotional attachment to this discussion. By personalizing, by trying to make me out to be some sort of hysterical lunatic, you get to maintain your own personal world. No, you didn't make a mistake...I must be crazy.
Can you try arguing without the ad hominem?
quote:
you E.Coli experioments is genetics in action , it shows change with in the gene pool , it shows selection by imunity , it show many things , BUT that is not the ToE , the ToE is much more ..
(*blink*)
You did not just say that, did you? I show you evolution right in front of your eyes and you claim that it isn't sufficient?
You did exactly what I predicted you would: "Oh, that's only
microevolution. I meant
macroevolution," as if there were any difference between evolutionary changes below the species level and evolutionary changes above the species level.
And notice, you've engaged in yet another logical error: Moving the goalposts. All you said was that evolution was not a fact. I provide you with evolution happening right in front of your eyes, and somehow that isn't good enough. Unprepared to deal with something that you expected couldn't be shown, you move the goalposts to something else that you didn't ask for in the first place and then hope to high heaven that nobody notices.
Nice try.
quote:
i take the scientifc stance that there is still alot more to be learned
Of course. Just because we have established the objective fact of evolution doesn't mean we know absolutely everything about it. If we did, it would be a dead field and nobody would study it since there would be nothing to learn. But, you're engaging in yet another logical fallacy: Because we don't know
everything, that means we don't know
anything.
Again, back to gravity. We know quite a bit about it. We can measure it, predict it, model it, use it to our advantage, etc. But we still have absolutely no idea what it is, how to manipulate it, where it comes from, or why it even exists. All of those things we do know for evolution. Not everything, no, but we do know a fair amount.
And yet, nobody seems to think that gravity is some sort of nebulous concept that still needs further justification. If I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. Since we haven't managed to perfect that telepathy thing just yet, we use language to describe what just happened and the word we have chosen to represent the force that pulled the ball down is "gravity." There is no question that gravity is a fact since we just showed it to exist, right in front of our very eyes.
So why does evolution get the short shrift? If we observe populations over time, their genetic frequencies change. Since we haven't managed to perfect that telepathy thing just yet, we use language to describe what just happened and the word we have chose to represent the shift of genetic frequencies is "evolution." There is no question that evolution is a fact since we just showed it to exist, right in front of our very eyes.
But somehow, that doesn't seem to be good enough.
quote:
Santa ,the Tooth Fairy , freedom ,justice are not real
Do you truly not see the difference between things like "Santa" and the "Tooth Fairy" and things like "freedom" and "justice"? Here's a hint: Why do we capitalize "Santa" but not "freedom"?
quote:
However if they do belive in Santa ,the Tooth Fairy , freedom ,justice .. they COULD belive in god/gods BUT they make a choice NOT to
Incorrect. Do you believe in Santa? Why not? If you ask the average person why not, they'll give a whole host of reasons, based upon evidence such as the fact that we've been to the North Pole: There's no workshop there. And even more damning, your parents admit that it was them.
And once again, you have conflated things like "Santa" and the "Tooth Fairy" with things like "freedom" and "justice." And once again, you have equivocated "belief" to be a meaningless word. That atheists acknowledge concepts like "freedom" and "justice," doesn't mean they "believe" in them the way theists "believe" in god.
quote:
these poeple belive in god/gods .. these dont belive in god/gods...... which is correct .. ie equal burden of proof
Incorrect. False equivalency, shifting of burden of proof. Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. Those who believe in god are burdened with providing proof of god's existence. Those without belief have no such burden for they are the default position.
Once again, a direct question which you have yet to answer:
If there were no theists, would there be anybody who actively said, "I don't believe in god"?
There are an infinite numbers of things you don't believe in, many due to the fact that you simply haven't heard of the thing you don't believe. For example, what about the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Horn)? Do you have an opinion about that? Does the fact that you've now heard of the IPU (BBHN) mean you've suddenly acquired yet another religion?
See, this is why your definitions of "religion" and "belief" are worthless.
Everything becomes a "belief,"
everything is a "religion." And since it applies to everything, it actually describes nothing.
quote:
if you had never been exposed to the concept of god/gods you wouldd not be a atheist , you would have no stance .
How is that any different from current atheists? They don't go around declaring their atheism in some sort of attempt to reinforce their beliefs. They only time it even comes to mind is because somebody else has brought it up. So if there were nobody to bring it up, how on earth could you tell?
quote:
if you had been raised in a world where every one else belived in a god /gods ..you would have to prove to you self god did not exsist to become a atheist
Incorrect. You simply do what an amazing number of atheists do: Simply realize that those who claim that god exists haven't met their burden of proof: Go to the North Pole and see there's no workshop there.
I don't have to prove 2 + 2 = 4 to show that 2 + 2 <> 5.
quote:
with out absolutes .. what is the right question ?...
Non sequitur. Please rephrase.
quote:
if every thing is dependant on the circumumstances , how do you know when to ask the question .. "is this moral?"
Because morality is a construct of social interaction. If the action is not a social one, what on earth is the point in asking if it is "moral"?
quote:
and to which parts of the event do you aim the question at.. the act , the motive , the out come , the value , the limits .
Why limit it? Surely you've heard the concepts of "short term" and "long term," yes?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
