3 ms·

I dismiss your "arguments" even more swiftly (you're not making any, you are merely making tired, unsupported assertions). The answers to your "questions" can

by logjam 18y ago

I dismiss your "arguments" even more swiftly (you're not making any, you are merely making tired, unsupported assertions). The answers to your "questions" can all be found here, which 30 seconds of googling would have found for you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ You're welcome.

kirse 18y ago
Thanks for the link, it's all so obvious now! How can you ever go wrong when you're the one who gets to define both the end result and then fill in the means of getting there? Of course the evidence will always point to the end result, because you're the one who made up the damn end result in the first place! Evidence can always be twisted and shaped to fit your view when you're the one who gets to define what the picture looks like. This isn't about whether the evidence points to the picture, it's about whether or not we even have the right picture in mind. It's pretty clear that since the end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action, it is a contrivance of man of which it's existence is still unknown.
- KirinDave 18y ago
  The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action. Neither can God. I do feel bad for you, kirse. 10 years ago I went through the same dilemma, debate and denial. If you want to be rational, you have to learn the evidence. If you learn the evidence and you apply rational, even-handed criterion to the subject, the conclusion that evolution exists and at least partly explains our modern world is undeniably apparent. You literally have no rational leg to stand on. Your argument that the conclusion was made up and the data forced to fit it is so obviously false that it's almost laughable (few theories are as rigorously opposed as evolution has been, if there were any significant holes the scientific community would tear it apart). This isn't about whether the evidence points to the end result, it's about whether or not we even have the right end result in mind. This is exactly 180 degrees from reality. If the evidence points to a specific conclusion and that evidence can be replicated by diverse, neutral, competent observers the conclusion is true regardless of if we like it or not. Science isn't about picking a result then gathering data to support it, although if you hang out with the ID crowd I can see why you might get that impression. If you want an example we can look again to heliocentricity. It was not a popular viewpoint, but the data forced people to accept that position, despite the fact that it went against all the contemporary common sense and religious belief (and despite the fact that it's difficult to observe contrary evidence without a lot of bookkeeping and some optics). P.S. I didn't answer your question earlier because I've already answered a very similar question in debates dozens of times. Your crowd really needs a revised playbook, because you can basically google ever question as presented and get a powerful rebuttal to your every potential argument.
  - kirse 18y ago
    The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action. Neither can God. Don't feel bad for me, because I am just as happy putting my faith in the existence of God (an entity that cannot be empirically observed), as you are putting your faith in the existence of Macro-Evolution (another process that cannot be empirically observed). As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as fact. But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're assigning our faith, I'm more content believing that the correct picture/end result is that these complex systems had a designer.
    - KirinDave 18y ago
      I feel bad for you because you've been programmed to be so radically inconsistent. You act like evolution was made up just to weaken the theistic position, but it wasn't. The model of evolution emerged from a host of speciation models that existed, ranging from "God made it that way 500 years ago" to complex and absurdly complex secular models involving generative forces. History is full of examples where a model emerged from lots of separate data and turned out to be correct. Another great example is Atoms. For a long time, people thought that an atomic model of matter wasn't science because you couldn't directly observe such tiny things. Turns out that was wrong. Then along comes quantum mechanics, and now we're on even more bizarre and even thinner ice trying to map out effects which observation actually destroys. And yet we're making progress, just like we have in Biology. The ONLY difference that is relevant to our discussion between quantum mechanics and evolutionary theory is that your holy text has something to say about one and not the other. You're deliberately throwing out the evidence because you don't like the conclusion. You're making a special exception for Evolution that no other scientific theory has to make it through just because your religion tells you to. As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as fact. No you won't. When I was younger I had heated debates that ended with, "As soon as we can see evidence of flagellum evoling I will accept [evolution] as fact." They didn't, and you won't. You will move the goalpost, draw new false dichotomies, and struggle to preserve your world-view. But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're assigning our faith Quite the opposite. You have decided to have faith, and I reject that notion. Evolution is a useful model for biology, nothing more. If we can provide a better model with excellent evidence involving invisible winged greyhounds, I think that'd be way more entertaining. You've admitted your position is based in faith, and that's why all the logic, evidence, and reason that I can muster cannot unseat your position. Logic, evidence and reason can only act on rational people, and your faith is–at its core–inherently irrational.

by logjam 18y ago

kirse 18y ago

Thanks for the link, it's all so obvious now! How can you ever go wrong when you're the one who gets to define both the end result and then fill in the means of getting there? Of course the evidence will always point to the end result, because you're the one who made up the damn end result in the first place! Evidence can always be twisted and shaped to fit your view when you're the one who gets to define what the picture looks like. This isn't about whether the evidence points to the picture, it's about whether or not we even have the right picture in mind. It's pretty clear that since the end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action, it is a contrivance of man of which it's existence is still unknown.

KirinDave 18y ago
The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action. Neither can God. I do feel bad for you, kirse. 10 years ago I went through the same dilemma, debate and denial. If you want to be rational, you have to learn the evidence. If you learn the evidence and you apply rational, even-handed criterion to the subject, the conclusion that evolution exists and at least partly explains our modern world is undeniably apparent. You literally have no rational leg to stand on. Your argument that the conclusion was made up and the data forced to fit it is so obviously false that it's almost laughable (few theories are as rigorously opposed as evolution has been, if there were any significant holes the scientific community would tear it apart). This isn't about whether the evidence points to the end result, it's about whether or not we even have the right end result in mind. This is exactly 180 degrees from reality. If the evidence points to a specific conclusion and that evidence can be replicated by diverse, neutral, competent observers the conclusion is true regardless of if we like it or not. Science isn't about picking a result then gathering data to support it, although if you hang out with the ID crowd I can see why you might get that impression. If you want an example we can look again to heliocentricity. It was not a popular viewpoint, but the data forced people to accept that position, despite the fact that it went against all the contemporary common sense and religious belief (and despite the fact that it's difficult to observe contrary evidence without a lot of bookkeeping and some optics). P.S. I didn't answer your question earlier because I've already answered a very similar question in debates dozens of times. Your crowd really needs a revised playbook, because you can basically google ever question as presented and get a powerful rebuttal to your every potential argument.
- kirse 18y ago
  The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action. Neither can God. Don't feel bad for me, because I am just as happy putting my faith in the existence of God (an entity that cannot be empirically observed), as you are putting your faith in the existence of Macro-Evolution (another process that cannot be empirically observed). As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as fact. But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're assigning our faith, I'm more content believing that the correct picture/end result is that these complex systems had a designer.
  - KirinDave 18y ago
    I feel bad for you because you've been programmed to be so radically inconsistent. You act like evolution was made up just to weaken the theistic position, but it wasn't. The model of evolution emerged from a host of speciation models that existed, ranging from "God made it that way 500 years ago" to complex and absurdly complex secular models involving generative forces. History is full of examples where a model emerged from lots of separate data and turned out to be correct. Another great example is Atoms. For a long time, people thought that an atomic model of matter wasn't science because you couldn't directly observe such tiny things. Turns out that was wrong. Then along comes quantum mechanics, and now we're on even more bizarre and even thinner ice trying to map out effects which observation actually destroys. And yet we're making progress, just like we have in Biology. The ONLY difference that is relevant to our discussion between quantum mechanics and evolutionary theory is that your holy text has something to say about one and not the other. You're deliberately throwing out the evidence because you don't like the conclusion. You're making a special exception for Evolution that no other scientific theory has to make it through just because your religion tells you to. As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as fact. No you won't. When I was younger I had heated debates that ended with, "As soon as we can see evidence of flagellum evoling I will accept [evolution] as fact." They didn't, and you won't. You will move the goalpost, draw new false dichotomies, and struggle to preserve your world-view. But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're assigning our faith Quite the opposite. You have decided to have faith, and I reject that notion. Evolution is a useful model for biology, nothing more. If we can provide a better model with excellent evidence involving invisible winged greyhounds, I think that'd be way more entertaining. You've admitted your position is based in faith, and that's why all the logic, evidence, and reason that I can muster cannot unseat your position. Logic, evidence and reason can only act on rational people, and your faith is–at its core–inherently irrational.