Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Which is why I lean to pan spermia, with the abiogenesis occuring in GMCs (giant Molecular Clouds).
Abiogenesis is the Scientific God
- Thread starter IceAgeCivilizations
- Start date
- Status
Well, I tried to follow this thread as best I could; this is what I got out of it:
Essentially, the 'proof' of ID is the lack of a complete understanding of the origins of life in scientific terms. Emphasis on complete because numerous people have pointed to large amounts of evidence in support that life could originate on earth without an almighty helping hand.
Now: I'm not too sure about where the debate is going now, but the following is an attempt to answer something along the lines of IceAgeCivillizations initial post.
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance for more info on the following.
Argument ad ignorantiam:
"-Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
-Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proved. "
In a nutshell, this means you can’t use lack of proof of someone else’s argument to support your argument.
Every argument in favor of ID that I read (so feel free to point out those that I no doubt missed) fits into one or both of those categories, making them false.
Now being somewhat objective, I will consider the other question:
Do scientific theories fit those categories? My answer: ‘No’.
Its theories and hypotheses are not based upon creationism being wrong, nor lack of any other explanation; rather they are based upon observations, data, and experiments. I'm not going to list what ones because there are plenty of examples strewn throughout the thread (no need to waste space and bandwidth.)
My conclusion is thus: the arguments in favor of ID, or a God are fallacious, and thus cannot be used in a debate, and so, there is no support for ID as anything further than an idea. Therefore, with ID having no evidence, and science having evidence, science has a better explanation, and can be said to be truer than, ID.
Now there’s a good chance I missed a crucial point or that one which was not mentioned exists, and thus wait for a rebuttal.
I reserve the right to have made mistakes in my post; please correct them. Apologies if I am repeating anything that was already said.
-Andrew
Essentially, the 'proof' of ID is the lack of a complete understanding of the origins of life in scientific terms. Emphasis on complete because numerous people have pointed to large amounts of evidence in support that life could originate on earth without an almighty helping hand.
Now: I'm not too sure about where the debate is going now, but the following is an attempt to answer something along the lines of IceAgeCivillizations initial post.
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance for more info on the following.
Argument ad ignorantiam:
"-Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
-Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proved. "
In a nutshell, this means you can’t use lack of proof of someone else’s argument to support your argument.
Every argument in favor of ID that I read (so feel free to point out those that I no doubt missed) fits into one or both of those categories, making them false.
Now being somewhat objective, I will consider the other question:
Do scientific theories fit those categories? My answer: ‘No’.
Its theories and hypotheses are not based upon creationism being wrong, nor lack of any other explanation; rather they are based upon observations, data, and experiments. I'm not going to list what ones because there are plenty of examples strewn throughout the thread (no need to waste space and bandwidth.)
My conclusion is thus: the arguments in favor of ID, or a God are fallacious, and thus cannot be used in a debate, and so, there is no support for ID as anything further than an idea. Therefore, with ID having no evidence, and science having evidence, science has a better explanation, and can be said to be truer than, ID.
Now there’s a good chance I missed a crucial point or that one which was not mentioned exists, and thus wait for a rebuttal.
I reserve the right to have made mistakes in my post; please correct them. Apologies if I am repeating anything that was already said.
-Andrew
Why; thank you Ophiolite 
By the way, is anyone else annoyed at IAC’s use of the word ‘dogma’ applied to ‘Darwinism’ (most prominently at the beginning of the post but I think I’ve seen it in a few other posts?) I think that it is a specific case of the Ad Hominem fallacy called Poisoning the Well: setting up a biased view of the argument through use of the negative connotations of the word 'dogma'.
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
This apart from it being contradictory in that science never dictates the answer; it formulates it from evidence, whereas dogma is an established belief (large difference between belief and scientific theories. The difference: proof, data and analysis) and ironically applies almost exclusively to religion and ideologies.
Though, perhaps it isnt an example, but it still bugs me
-Andrew
By the way, is anyone else annoyed at IAC’s use of the word ‘dogma’ applied to ‘Darwinism’ (most prominently at the beginning of the post but I think I’ve seen it in a few other posts?) I think that it is a specific case of the Ad Hominem fallacy called Poisoning the Well: setting up a biased view of the argument through use of the negative connotations of the word 'dogma'.
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
This apart from it being contradictory in that science never dictates the answer; it formulates it from evidence, whereas dogma is an established belief (large difference between belief and scientific theories. The difference: proof, data and analysis) and ironically applies almost exclusively to religion and ideologies.
Though, perhaps it isnt an example, but it still bugs me
-Andrew
Dogma: a system of principles or tenets.
Indeed, my good man. As you say, perhaps the use of the term "dogma" should not be applied to the beliefs of those who religiously place their faith in the dogmas of evolutionism.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to replace "dogma" with "hallucinations."
Good point.
Hey Ophi, "pan spermia and giant molecular clouds," please tell us more, sounds absolutely incredible.
Except evolution is a reasoned and fact-supported theory, not a religious dogma that requires faith.
No.
dogma: A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
Thus, for example: creationism = dogma, while evolution = science.
"A tenet is any opinion, principle, dogma, or doctrine which a person or group believes or maintains" - the wikipedia
I now know 2 synonyms of Dogma.
Care to refute my argument on dogma, or at least my on-topic post above it?
My point is that there are no dogma's of evolutionism, other than that our senses do not generally lie to us (ie. that this reality we perceive is reality, and if you say that that does merit the term dogma or faith, I then say the words are useless as everything would be dogmatic. And if that too be indeed the case, then why use it at all, other than to “poison the well”?)
But ok, I don’t believe my post has enough to do with the original debate to start a whole new debate over it: so describe Darwinism how you will, and I will only refute it if it truly makes a difference in the debate.
My sarcasm senses are tingling, but if that’s a statement that the theory is ridiculous, then it’s lacking any support. (Just because I believe something to be ridiculous doesn’t mean I don’t have to prove it.)
-Andrew
Young earth creationists believe in evolution, but not Darwinian evolution, which is known to be patently absurd.
why?
why is darwinian evolution patently absurd?
life coming from lifelessness, well now THAT'S absurd!
That swamp slime naturally changed into humans, ostensibly, is at just about the same level of absurdity as that life came naturally from non-life.
By creationists, of course, who believe the earth is flat and deny the sun is the center of the solar system.
And that's not absurd?
We don't believe those things, if you can't defeat the message, must you misrepresent the position of the messenger? Are you actually that desperate and dishonest?
No I don't, so stop dishonestly smearing the messenger, unless you want to merely appear the desperate fool.
Darwin DEDUCED HIS THEORY from about 40 years of collecting EVIDENCE.
Evolution is not a dogma but the IDer's position is, because it is "faith based" on only a book, whose various chapters were selected by a group of priests (at Nica) well before the scientific method was invented (mainly by Bacon).
Thus there is nothing scientific in the IDer's POV - it is 100% dogma, constructed on story told by priests at Nica.
Now that the history of the Earth is much better understood FROM EVIDENCE (geological, astronomical, even annual records of snow fall in ice cores, extending back much more than that book's 6000 years) it is clear that that the IDer's dogma is FALSE.
Last edited by a moderator:
swamp slime didn't naturally change into humans.
The Darwinists say that it did.
- Status