Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Creationism critique.

jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 8:52:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 8:47:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
I like the way they answer fallacies with other fallacies.

You weren't blown away by the original and enthralling video? Such unique stuff there. I don't know if I will ever be the same. LOL.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 8:53:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 8:52:01 PM, jharry wrote:
At 1/7/2011 8:47:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
I like the way they answer fallacies with other fallacies.

You weren't blown away by the original and enthralling video? Such unique stuff there. I don't know if I will ever be the same. LOL.

No, you will always be the same.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 11:59:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 8:52:06 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/7/2011 8:47:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
I like the way they answer fallacies with other fallacies.

Please elaborate.

For example, they attack the argument "scientist so and so agrees with creationism" which is a fallacy, appeal to authority. Then they respond with "93% of scientists don't agree with creationism" which is a fallacy as well (actually two), appeal to authority and appeal to majority.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 12:04:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 11:59:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/7/2011 8:52:06 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/7/2011 8:47:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
I like the way they answer fallacies with other fallacies.

Please elaborate.

For example, they attack the argument "scientist so and so agrees with creationism" which is a fallacy, appeal to authority. Then they respond with "93% of scientists don't agree with creationism" which is a fallacy as well (actually two), appeal to authority and appeal to majority.

meh. scientists aren't necessarily an unjustified authority in this case. if you said "brad pitt believes in creationism" that would be another thing, but scientists have presumably studied these things more carefully than the average person. maybe if they said "biologists" the argument would be stronger... but anyways i think they were trying to attack the hasty generalization aspect of the "scientist so and so" thing not the appeal to authority. creationists try to make it seem like they have a scientific theory by presenting one or two scientists that endorse it. by presenting plenty of scientists who oppose it, they help dispel that illusion.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 9:20:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/8/2011 12:04:19 AM, belle wrote:
At 1/7/2011 11:59:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/7/2011 8:52:06 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/7/2011 8:47:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
I like the way they answer fallacies with other fallacies.

Please elaborate.

For example, they attack the argument "scientist so and so agrees with creationism" which is a fallacy, appeal to authority. Then they respond with "93% of scientists don't agree with creationism" which is a fallacy as well (actually two), appeal to authority and appeal to majority.

meh. scientists aren't necessarily an unjustified authority in this case. if you said "brad pitt believes in creationism" that would be another thing, but scientists have presumably studied these things more carefully than the average person. maybe if they said "biologists" the argument would be stronger... but anyways i think they were trying to attack the hasty generalization aspect of the "scientist so and so" thing not the appeal to authority. creationists try to make it seem like they have a scientific theory by presenting one or two scientists that endorse it. by presenting plenty of scientists who oppose it, they help dispel that illusion.

Rrriiiiigghht...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 1:46:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/8/2011 12:04:19 AM, belle wrote:
At 1/7/2011 11:59:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/7/2011 8:52:06 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/7/2011 8:47:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
I like the way they answer fallacies with other fallacies.

Please elaborate.

For example, they attack the argument "scientist so and so agrees with creationism" which is a fallacy, appeal to authority. Then they respond with "93% of scientists don't agree with creationism" which is a fallacy as well (actually two), appeal to authority and appeal to majority.

meh. scientists aren't necessarily an unjustified authority in this case. if you said "brad pitt believes in creationism" that would be another thing, but scientists have presumably studied these things more carefully than the average person. maybe if they said "biologists" the argument would be stronger... but anyways i think they were trying to attack the hasty generalization aspect of the "scientist so and so" thing not the appeal to authority. creationists try to make it seem like they have a scientific theory by presenting one or two scientists that endorse it. by presenting plenty of scientists who oppose it, they help dispel that illusion.

If used to support an argument, they are not unjustified. If used as the argument they are unjustified. An appeal to authority is a fallacy. Even if I were to say general relativity is true because Einstein says so, that is a fallacy, even though Einstein was one of the greatest physicists who ever lived.

Things are only true/not true because of observable evidence and logical evidence, not because some one (no matter how much of an expert they are) says so.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 5:25:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/8/2011 1:46:00 PM, OreEle wrote:

Things are only true/not true because of observable evidence and logical evidence...

I've seen several people make this claim recently on this website but for the life of me can't get this to make any sense at all.

I think people just need to read up on truthmakers:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 4:40:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Has anyone noticed how the narrator doesn't understand evolution?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
uppitynumber
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2011 11:55:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I feel like the video could have gone indepth with all of the arguments, especailly the Hitler one.
They discussed creationist calling Hitler atheist, but they just dismissed it, saying that Hitler is a RC, not arguing against the real rationale behind it. Creationists are arguing that because Hitler was an atheist, this allowed him to persecute the Jews. (And also, while they were at it, it would have been nice to talk about Stalin and Mao Ze Dong as well)
It's not enough to say that Hitler was a Roman-Catholic hence not atheist. The video should have addressed creationists' claim that atheism and immoral actions go together.
That's just giving more chance for creationist idiots to gripe about.

This really isn't the best video supporting atheism. By ignoring some of the major creationist arguments, it makes it appear as though its conceding to those points.

And example that they give for Creationist argument #3, really sucked b@lls. THeir likening of evolution of humans from monkey to evolution of America from England really sucked @ss.

The person who made this vidoe isn't an atheist proper; I should call him a religious atheist (the distinction being that these atheists believe in no-god just as much as they would in god). If his belief in atheism isn't substantiated by logical reasoning all the way through, he's no better than sacrilegious dumb@ss creationists. But as far as I could tell, that video was wrought with logical fallacies and, if I were a creationist, was not convincing at all.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 3:55:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think the arguments specifically against creationism are valid, but the question is largely independent of atheism. Which would be the greater God: (a) one who picks the fundamental laws of nature such that life evolves on its own according to the divine plan or (b) the God who cannot figure out how to do (a) and must continually intervene to keep things on plan. Many, perhaps a majority, of scientists believe in both evolution and a Creator. Technically an atheist could be a creationist, although the creator would be something other than a god, perhaps a "we are in The Matrix" scenario.

The video errs on the "why are there monkeys?" bit. No theory of evolution says mankind evolved from monkeys, so the error is the premise.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 10:46:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 3:55:56 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think the arguments specifically against creationism are valid, but the question is largely independent of atheism. Which would be the greater God: (a) one who picks the fundamental laws of nature such that life evolves on its own according to the divine plan or (b) the God who cannot figure out how to do (a) and must continually intervene to keep things on plan. Many, perhaps a majority, of scientists believe in both evolution and a Creator. Technically an atheist could be a creationist, although the creator would be something other than a god, perhaps a "we are in The Matrix" scenario.

The video errs on the "why are there monkeys?" bit. No theory of evolution says mankind evolved from monkeys, so the error is the premise.

Well, evolution does tell us that we both come from a common ancestor.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 1:05:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 10:46:03 AM, gavin.ogden wrote:

The video errs on the "why are there monkeys?" bit. No theory of evolution says mankind evolved from monkeys, so the error is the premise.

Well, evolution does tell us that we both come from a common ancestor.

So the correct analogy would be, "The US and Canada both derived from England, so asking why monkeys exist is like asking why Canada exists."
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 6:50:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think this is relevant: http://i56.tinypic.com...
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 7:12:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/8/2011 1:46:00 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/8/2011 12:04:19 AM, belle wrote:
At 1/7/2011 11:59:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/7/2011 8:52:06 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 1/7/2011 8:47:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
I like the way they answer fallacies with other fallacies.

Please elaborate.

For example, they attack the argument "scientist so and so agrees with creationism" which is a fallacy, appeal to authority. Then they respond with "93% of scientists don't agree with creationism" which is a fallacy as well (actually two), appeal to authority and appeal to majority.

meh. scientists aren't necessarily an unjustified authority in this case. if you said "brad pitt believes in creationism" that would be another thing, but scientists have presumably studied these things more carefully than the average person. maybe if they said "biologists" the argument would be stronger... but anyways i think they were trying to attack the hasty generalization aspect of the "scientist so and so" thing not the appeal to authority. creationists try to make it seem like they have a scientific theory by presenting one or two scientists that endorse it. by presenting plenty of scientists who oppose it, they help dispel that illusion.

If used to support an argument, they are not unjustified. If used as the argument they are unjustified. An appeal to authority is a fallacy. Even if I were to say general relativity is true because Einstein says so, that is a fallacy, even though Einstein was one of the greatest physicists who ever lived.

Things are only true/not true because of observable evidence and logical evidence, not because some one (no matter how much of an expert they are) says so.

Please go look up Appeal to Authority. You are wrong.

Many people tend to abuse Appeal to Authority fallacies cause they dont understand it. Not all appeals to authority are fallacious.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 7:24:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 8:05:12 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
I thought this was hilarious.



None of this can be true because Interrogator ASSURED me that he knows the Truth, and his truth was much different from this.

Sorry, Gavin, but your pesky "evidence" can't stand up to the delusions of Interrogator.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)