Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Saturday, August 02, 2008

The eeeevil evolutionists and the bumbling Christians.



Click on image to enbiggen.

Post a Comment


40 Comments:

At 8/02/2008 2:10 PM, Blogger Roe declaimed...

I can't get any overall meaning to this cartoon, I'm I just dense?

 
At 8/02/2008 6:39 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

I believe it tries to show that Christians should be specifically targeting evolution as the foundation of supposed evils like abortion, etc.

 
At 8/03/2008 2:33 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

And that Christians should stop fighting each other or shooting other targets, when they should all be attacking EVILution. Because EVIlution is worse than war, poverty, tyranny, or religious oppression (but of course they are the ones doing the latter one).

 
At 8/11/2008 9:30 AM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

But Franc, the scam doesn't work unless ALL the competition is eeevil, including the denomination next door. Well... maybe not eeevil, just sadly miguided... so sad... tsk tsk. It's a textbook example of how to sector a market while selling a (mostly) undifferentiated product (false hope).

The cartoon would be more accurate if there was clergy in a rowboat trying to affix the banner "Satan" to the evolution rock. Pasting labels and making them stick, and restating contradictory evidence to fit into the delusion are two tactics the clergy excells at. All must be explained away. Sleep, sleeeep little sheep.

Another reason the clergy will never fight a single-front battle with evolution is, that they don't have to. They can merely deny it, and they will be believed by a good percentage of their marks. Why fight a battle you can't ultimately win when you can just tell your followers that it's "sour grapes" and they should avoid it at all costs?

 
At 8/11/2008 3:02 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Yes, of course the image itself was drawn from one particular perspective, and Christians are notoriously unable to look at themselves from outside the blinders of a specific sect.

 
At 8/11/2008 3:03 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Also I wonder which balloon it is they believe that they have "popped" from the evilutionist side.

 
At 8/12/2008 5:41 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

Good question, Franc. I studied that drawing again, and the whole thing is so typically insane, I can only think it's "Communism".

And, "Racism"? That's a whole new level of delusion. I guess we get that from Hitler being an "atheist"? Never mind the racist tendencies of every European nation for centuries. Never mind that the US, which they insist was "founded as a Christian nation", was built on slavery, defended with the Bible. And where are their balloons? I suggest: delusion, intolerance, ignorance, coercion, megalomania, fear, submission, and conformity. No one has put a dent in those, either.

 
At 8/12/2008 9:17 PM, Blogger Matthew declaimed...

"Reason" must have been the first balloon popped - the first and only causality that creationism destroyed.

 
At 8/18/2008 6:52 AM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

>> Because EVIlution is worse than war, poverty, tyranny, or religious oppression (but of course they are the ones doing the latter one).

Disagreements over religious obligations is certainly fertile ground for wars, poverty (due to wars), tyranny and oppression (in the exercise of wars); Religion has to do with what man ought to do, and with what defines man.

Given that Naturalism cannot provide insight to these topics of which man longs for understanding - and given that man can only ignore these longings for so long -, how does Naturalism (and by extension, Evolution) solve the problems of war, poverty, tyranny, and oppression?

 
At 8/18/2008 2:06 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

No one said they did. Only Christians relate the two topics.

 
At 8/20/2008 9:37 PM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

Perhaps it will help the discussion to say that what Christians and Evolutionists disagree on is NOT that change happens - else no one would ever "evolve" into adulthood.

What we disagree on is what does, or does not, necessarily follow from the fact that biological changes happen.

I submit that what necessarily follows from the fact that biological changes happen, is that any given organism changes morphologically over time, even if that morphological change happens at the molecular level.

Also, I submit that what does NOT necessarily follow from the fact that biological changes happen, is knowlege of the amount of change that is possible for any given organism - though I will grant that at the outset, it would be reasonable to suppose that the amount of possible change MIGHT be unrestricted.

Now, given the fact that we expect organisms to give birth to certain kinds of organisms - dare I say, "like kind" organisms - it's at least reasonable to suppose that any given organism has some restrictions on its ability to evolve beyond certain morphological changes.

What Evolutionists have to do if they want to claim that what we today call "species" is the result of branches of evolution - given that we can observe that certain biological restrictions exist - is to map out for the world each biological step from one species to another.

Of course, the Evolutionist's definition of "species" is spurious in that that defining evolutionary change which marks a new species is just a tiny biological change from the prior species - even, in theory [and I would add *necessarily so* ...], allowing for the conclusion that the process of maturation (childhood to adulthood) involves the creation of new species.

But as it is, beyond the biological evidence, there is a whole other class of information which has to do with metaphysics to consider to which Science, *currently defined*, cannot contribute (because you can't use Science to come to conclusions about the philosophy of Science).

 
At 8/20/2008 9:49 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Agilius, we all know you're trying to insert supernaturalist premises into "science" and claim that evolutionary scientists are close-minded to a "true" picture of the universe. It's always the same nonsense.

 
At 8/20/2008 11:52 PM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

I didn't claim that evolutionary scientists are close-minded to a "true" picture of the universe - that's far too large a category.

Rather, if anything similar, you would better represent my view by saying that I believe evolutionary scientists are closed-minded to a "true" picture of the philosophy of science.

But, as it is, I don't believe that evolutionary scientists are any more closed-minded than what ought to be expected from the consistent extrapolation from a given premise.

That is to say that I expect anyone to be closed-minded to that which they believe contradicts a sound premise - whether the premise is sound or not.

So, I think that evolutionary scientists are very smart, but are unaware of the faulty premise to which they remain committed; and, properly examined, an evolutionary scientist can avoid its logical pitfalls, coming to the conclusion that Naturalism is untenable.

 
At 8/21/2008 12:01 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

You talk a lot.

 
At 8/21/2008 12:37 AM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

I saw that one coming. :D

 
At 8/21/2008 6:16 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

agilius,

I have a solution for you. top wasting time here yapping at atheists. Instead, go pray. Pray with all your might. Maybe that'll help :P

 
At 8/21/2008 9:29 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

aaron:

I don't get it. are you saying that prayer might succeed in contravening The Origin of the Species and all the supporting genetic evidence that has been accumulated since? Are you a sleeper agent? ;-)

 
At 8/22/2008 2:12 AM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

Aaron,

A solution to what, now?

If you mean a solution to the problem of convincing you of my view of Evolution, I think the solution is actually to first convince you to not commit strawman and genetic fallacies (no pun intended).

Breakerslion,

The genetic evidence currently supports both the Evolutionary worldview and the Christian worldview. We just need the Evolutionists to be honest about what the evidence actually proves.

 
At 8/23/2008 5:39 PM, Blogger Joel B. declaimed...

Just checking in to see if I can make uninformed comments on somebody's blog and get away with it also.


Clearly you should be told: Hit-and-run debate styles aren't very becoming. You know where to find me if you're ever interested in anything other than potshots from afar.

 
At 8/24/2008 4:27 PM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

Joel,

If hit-and-run debate styles aren't very becoming, then why don't you address the actual topic?

I'll be chattin away on this blog, on occasion, if you want to take some pot shots.

And by all means, hit and then run and do whatever you feel like doing, cuz you can always check out the comments at a later date.

 
At 8/26/2008 6:44 AM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

"The genetic evidence currently supports both the Evolutionary worldview and the Christian worldview. We just need the Evolutionists to be honest about what the evidence actually proves."

"So, I think that evolutionary scientists are very smart, but are unaware of the faulty premise to which they remain committed...."

And Your proof?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TkY7HrJOhc

 
At 8/26/2008 8:25 PM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

>> And your proof [that the genetic evidence currently supports both the Evolutionary worldview and the Christian worldview]?

My proof for this is that Evolutionists have yet to account for every transitional step from one "species" to another.

Further, the fact that their definition of "species" is spurious does not allow them to conduct this experiment.

>> And your proof [that evolutionary scientists are very smart, but are unaware of the faulty premise to which they remain committed]?

My proof that Evolutionary scientists are smart is that science has been able to give us such precision information about material things, that we can manipulate said materials into lifesaving medical instruments, and tools, such as GPS, that make economies, worldwide, more efficient.

My proof that Evolutionary scientists are unknowingly committed to a faulty premise is that they can't admit that science, first and foremost, is a philosophy about how we come to know things about the material world.

Not to mention that it completely escapes them that observations happen in the mind - not by some methodological osmosis. You have to actually observe an experiment and draw conclusions about what is observed.

*What* you are observing is material, but the observation itself is metaphysical.

>> [From the YouTube video:] "Fraudulent faith healers and evangelical charlatans often say that Creationism is scientific, but there's utterly no verifiably accurate evidence behind any of their assertions, and no way to construct any hypotheses to explain any of their claims, because no experiments could possibly support them, and faith prohibits believers from ever admitting when their notions would be falsified."

Again, this depends on what you consider "verifiable" as pertains to unnaturalistic claims such as "This is how the planet got here", or "This is what the Scientific method should look like".

Believe it or not, Creationists also believe in material things that have properties - we just believe that god created them.

Further, Creationists understand that Naturalists believe that material things exist and have properties. What we have a problem with is the belief that all that exist are material things;

And since our point of contention centers around the question of whether or not material things are the only things that exist, using a methodology which, by definition, does not allow for the existence of such things, cannot be employed to answer such questions.

In other words, Science, by definition, cannot be expected to answer the question of whether or not only material things exist. So, of course, Creationism is unscientific in that respect.

But - we would contend - though Creationism is an unscientific claim, it is every bit as logical as the claim that 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen equals water [simplified example].

See, Creationists claim to observe that there is an unmaterialistically causal force exerted on those material things we call [live] humans;

And since they seem to violate the causal laws of nature by, for example, "magically" arighting themselves when affected by a lateral force, such that they regain their upright posture, when other such materials would tend to follow the law that a body in motion will tend to stay in motion, such that the expected result is that the material would end up in a prostrate position.

 
At 8/26/2008 8:36 PM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

>> And since they seem to violate the causal laws of nature ...

Oops, I forgot to close this thought out after I gave my example.

How I meant to close this is: Since humans seem to violate the causal laws of nature ... we believe we are justified in claiming that souls, and by extention, god, exists, and is an adequate, and necessary, support for at least the existence of souls and the bodies they control; and is an adequate, though theorhetically unnecessary, support for the existence of everything else [as pertains this particular line of reasoning, thus far; that is to say that Creationism does not necessarily equal Christianity];

... Though the presense of those things which readily sustain a human seem suspiciously purposeful.

 
At 8/28/2008 4:22 PM, Blogger Marshall declaimed...

Agilius, I think you're simply ignorant about science and have some weirdo-wacky view about how science works.

Science is not a philosophy: it's a search for truth. Science is the application of applying logic to observation. You can call this a philosophy if you want--that doesn't change anything. We look at data, we formulate theories to fit the data, and we modify the theories as new data comes in.

As it stands, Evolution far, far, far outstrips any other conceivable theory. Creationism has absolutely ZERO evidence for it. The evidence for evolution, on the other hand, is unbelievably overwhelming. You have this wacky idea that in order to offer evidence towards the Evolutionary Theory, we must show evidence of every single step along the way. This is not true at all, and I don't understand why you think that.

When you say "*What* you are observing is material, but the observation itself is metaphysical," you are spewing complete garbage. This has nothing to do with anything. You're trying to defend your position by saying that nothing is real--wow, that'll hold some weight in the scientific community! "Hey, that only looks like a frog--but it's not, frogs only exist in your mind!" Try telling a cancer patient, "Hey, you might have cancer--but we're only observing metaphysically, sorry! Good luck in the next life." Seriously, what are you trying to say? That when we find fossilized evidence of a transitional species, or vestigial genes and appendages in full use by similar species, our observations mean nothing because they're really "metaphysical?"

All this mumbo jumbo about things really existing or not existing--it sounds like you're trying to confuse us with meaningless philosophy that has zero applicability to reality or the natural world.

 
At 9/14/2008 9:44 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

agilius: I would only add this to what marshall said.

1. Your world view re. the nature of science reflects both the projection of those ascribing to pseudoscience, and the wishful thinking that typifies faith-based thought.

2. You're probably a hopeless case.

 
At 9/15/2008 5:02 AM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

>> Agilius, I think you're simply ignorant about science and have some weirdo-wacky view about how science works.

Perhaps you are right. When I find that you have made an attempt to argue that point, I will address the arguments.

>> Science is not a philosophy: it's a search for truth. Science is the application of applying logic to observation.

Otherwise known as "philosophy".

>> You can call this a philosophy if you want--that doesn't change anything.

This is where you catch yourself mid-thought, and then only "kinda-sorta" grant me that I'm right about Science being first a philosophy. You have to be careful not to upset the "initiated" - I understand.

>> We look at data, we formulate theories to fit the data, and we modify the theories as new data comes in.

None of the things that you have listed involve empirical objects. True, *gathering* data may involve performing tests on objects, but the act of looking at the data happens in your mind - as do the formulation and modification of theories.

>> As it stands, Evolution far, far, far outstrips any other conceivable theory.

Again, the evidence for Evolution is currently the evidence for Intelligent Design.

>> Creationism has absolutely ZERO evidence for it.

That's the issue, isn't it?

>> The evidence for evolution, on the other hand, is unbelievably overwhelming.

Since the material evidence for Evolution is the same evidence for Intelligent Design, the material evidence alone cannot be said to overwhelmingly support one worldview over another. But add the metaphysical evidence for the soul, and it becomes obvious that Evolution the Theory is untennable.

>> You have this wacky idea that in order to offer evidence towards the Evolutionary Theory, we must show evidence of every single step along the way. This is not true at all, and I don't understand why you think that.

This is not exactly my position. Like I've said, the evidence for Evolution the Theory is the same evidence for Intelligent Design (since both worldviews acknowledge the existence of material things which have properties).

Rather, my position is that Evolution the Theory can never be proven, nor be better attested to than Intelligent Design, unless every evolutionary step from species to species is shown - whatever *that* means.

>> When you say "*What* you are observing is material, but the observation itself is metaphysical," you are spewing complete garbage. This has nothing to do with anything.

Your stated observation is philosophical in nature.

>> You're trying to defend your position by saying that nothing is real--wow, that'll hold some weight in the scientific community!

Nowhere did I say that nothing is real. I defy you to prove that I said this.

>> "Hey, that only looks like a frog--but it's not, frogs only exist in your mind!" Try telling a cancer patient, "Hey, you might have cancer--but we're only observing metaphysically, sorry! Good luck in the next life." Seriously, what are you trying to say?

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that frogs don't exist. I'm saying that there is a difference between the frog and your perception of the frog, such that your perception is its own "entity" of sorts.

For example, if I question you about your observation of a crime, one of my considerations is going to be "Did he see what he said he say, or did he merely *think* he saw such and such".

The fact that you can truly perceive something a certain way, yet be sincerely wrong, proves that there was a metaphysical process going on.

>> That when we find fossilized evidence of a transitional species, or vestigial genes and appendages in full use by similar species, our observations mean nothing because they're really "metaphysical?"

Look, how do you determine whether or not a species is transitional, genes/appendages are vestigial. You have already concluded, a priori, such things, because the "initiated" won't let you think for yourselves. Ask them what a species is. Ask them why it's not possible that "vestigial" genes/appendages are merely dormant or malfunctioning.

>> All this mumbo jumbo about things really existing or not existing--it sounds like you're trying to confuse us with meaningless philosophy that has zero applicability to reality or the natural world.

Again, I never said this.

>> 1. Your world view re. the nature of science reflects both the projection of those ascribing to pseudoscience, and the wishful thinking that typifies faith-based thought.

I'm pretty sure you didn't use Science to supposedly arrive at your conclusion, so I'll take that as acknowledgement of the legitimacy of metaphysical evidence.

Further, you can't prove that Science provides us with any information at all if you attempt to do so using Science, because you'd have to use something which has yet to be proven; This is circular. No, the reason you believe in Science is because, as it pertains to material things, the Scientific Method is *philosophically* sound.

Now, all you have to do is acknowlege that the foundation of Science is Philosophy, and you've got yourself some metaphysical evidence.

>> 2. You're probably a hopeless case.

I think you like what I bring to your blog, too much, to write me off.

 
At 9/15/2008 6:25 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 9/15/2008 6:28 AM, Blogger HellboundAlleee declaimed...

Yeah. DNA is just a philosophy. The human genome is nothing more than metaphysics at work.

God did it.

And when someone murders your mom with cyanide in a cup of coffee, you should just pray that they use philosophy or (this is sounding like a certain kids' book) "experimental theology" to figure out what killed her.

 
At 9/15/2008 7:04 AM, Blogger HellboundAlleee declaimed...

I noticed another line in that last Agilus post. I just have to mention it, because I am a troublemaker.

Data is "compiled" in the mind. Yes. And what and where is the mind? In reality. It is material. It is just as real as the substance you're looking at through a microscope. Or even on the end of your arm.

Kind of interesting to heat this post-modernist, subjectivist kind of nihilist stuff coming from a God Did It enthusiast. But not surprising. This idea that because (of the belief that) the little ghost who lives inside of your skull compiles data, therefore thinking and reasoning is outside of the "Material World."

You only believe this if you believe that God or some evil demons exist, pulling your strings (or that antique notion of the brain-driver). We don't have to believe this any more than believing that electricity comes from Zeus. Magical, mysterious brain synapses, from a machine that lives in the universe.

Not in Puff-Puff Cloud Land--you know, that place Plato believed in.

God Did It Theory is really, really pagan, don't you think?

 
At 9/16/2008 3:29 AM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

>> Yeah. DNA is just a philosophy. The human genome is nothing more than metaphysics at work.

I've already addressed this misunderstanding in another form in my previous post.

>> Data is "compiled" in the mind.

Who or what is doing the compiling?

>> Yes. And what and where is the mind? In reality. It is material. It is just as real as the substance you're looking at through a microscope. Or even on the end of your arm.

Such a belief is simply untennable. If the thoughts and decisions of your mind are governed by the same causaul system as materials, then you forfeit all certainty about everything, since you will only be thinking and deciding what has already been determined by causal law.

Now, just because this belief is untennable doesn't mean it isn't so. But I just wanted to make you aware that the intellectual soundness of your very Theory of Evolution, as well as all theories (religion included), is at stake.

But to address this more concretely:

There is only one type of thing that can violate the causal laws: agency. And the fact that you and I have agency - as is evidenced by the fact that people can do even the misguided Science that is practiced today - shows that there exists something other than those things which conform to causal laws. We call whatever doesn't fit into the category of that which conforms to causal law, "metaphysical".

>> Kind of interesting to heat this post-modernist, subjectivist kind of nihilist stuff coming from a God Did It enthusiast. But not surprising. This idea that because (of the belief that) the little ghost who lives inside of your skull compiles data, therefore thinking and reasoning is outside of the "Material World."

I strongly suspect that your idea of post-modernism is informed by the "modernist" Naturalist philosophy.

Anyway; Again, since decision making violates the otherwise causal nature of our bodies, there must be some non-material cause to account for it.

>> You only believe this if you believe that God or some evil demons exist, pulling your strings (or that antique notion of the brain-driver).

No, god is a conclusion from the metaphysical evidence. And *which* god is another matter.

>> We don't have to believe this any more than believing that electricity comes from Zeus.

Well, if Zeus created everything, then electricity was made possible by Zeus.

Whether or not Zeus always deliberately sends lightning bolts is another matter, since it is enough for the topic at hand to base merely the possibility of lightning on a deity.

>> Magical, mysterious brain synapses, from a machine that lives in the universe.

I don't follow.

>> Not in Puff-Puff Cloud Land--you know, that place Plato believed in.

Did he believe in Puff-Puff Cloud Land? Good for him.

>> God Did It Theory is really, really pagan, don't you think?

I think everyone can come to the conclusion, regardless of religion, that a god exists. Indeed, I actually believe everyone already *does* believe in the existence of a deity or deities because it's so apparent.

You are part material, for sure, but you are also part metaphysical, and you can't deny who you are. By extension, this is why it is so obvious that god exists.

 
At 9/16/2008 3:31 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Thank you agilius for once again repeating the presuppositionalist line of argumentation from the Christian side. Unfortunately for you, we've heard it a thousand times before, and it's still bullshit. As a presup, you have absolutely no grounds to hold causality as valid, which makes the whole exercise nihilistic at best from your side. All you're doing is trying to pull us down to your low level.

 
At 9/16/2008 4:42 AM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

>> As a presup, you have absolutely no grounds to hold causality as valid, which makes the whole exercise nihilistic at best from your side. All you're doing is trying to pull us down to your low level.

The fact that I was able to say that "god is a conclusion" should have precluded that view.

 
At 9/16/2008 8:13 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Of course God is the conclusion. God is always the conclusion: that's how your "reasoning" starts, with God as the conclusion. Too bad Christians are never able to construct an argument that makes any sense and has God at the end.

 
At 9/17/2008 2:53 AM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

>> Too bad Christians are never able to construct an argument that makes any sense and has God at the end.

Actually, I've done just that several times.

Here, I'll do it again:

Theists observe that human decision violates the otherwise causal nature of our bodies, which means that there exists a force which is not bound by causal law.

Materials actually conform to causal law, so materials cannot account for the animating force behind human decision.

So, that which is responsible for human decision is non-material.

Now, at this point you have a non-material cause which does not conform to causal law.

If not causal law, then the source of human decision is a first cause. And we realize that first causes are sentient because non-sentient things cannot act of their own volition.

Now we are left with a sentient, non-material - or incorporeal - being.

But as experience has shown all of us humans, our incorporeal being had a beginning, which means we weren't always here.

Since materials conform to causal law, and since materials can only affect other materials [directly], unlike the incorporeal part of ourselves; a belief in the existence of only material, causal, things would not account for the creation of an incorporeal being.

So, since the cause of the creation of incorporeal beings cannot be material or be bound by causal law, then the cause is incorporeal and sentient.

See? We have now proven the existence of an incorporeal, sentient creator.

I could go on to argue that Monotheism is a more logical worldview than Pantheism, but I'll do that some other time.

 
At 9/29/2008 1:19 AM, Blogger Marshall declaimed...

Agilius, you simply state that evidence for evolution is the same as evidence for Creationism, and then you say "voila! Since you've shown evidence, my point is proven!" Of course it's not. Evidence for Evolution is evidence AGAINST Creationism, since Creationism and evolution are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Second: there's no such thing as incorporeal, ethereal things. They don't exist. You made them up for your argument, but since there's no evidence for them, all of these arguments you give about souls and such have no weight at all.

You continue to shift the debate from what matters--the evidence collected by humans--to this metaphysical mumbo jumbo. Don't you realize you're just dancing around the point, trying to grasp onto your god and doing whatever necessary to avoid the obvious conclusions about reality? Let's look at your most recent post:

>> Theists observe that human decision violates the otherwise causal nature of our bodies, which means that there exists a force which is not bound by causal law.
False. Human decision does not violate causal natures at all.

>> Materials actually conform to causal law, so materials cannot account for the animating force behind human decision.
They can conform, and they do. That is how we make decisions; because our brains, composed of matter, represents and utilizes information in what is known as decision-making.

>> If not causal law, then the source of human decision is a first cause. And we realize that first causes are sentient because non-sentient things cannot act of their own volition.
How the hell could sentience be a first cause? You just made up this "logical" conclusion, which is in fact totally, completely illogical. Sentience requires complexity, which cannot simply poof into existence.

>> So, since the cause of the creation of incorporeal beings cannot be material or be bound by causal law, then the cause is incorporeal and sentient.
You conjured up fake inferences and left satisfied that you proved your point. Congratulations! I could do that too. Here's my counter to your arugment:

1. God cannot exist if both Saturn exists and a boy named Brian lives in New Jersey.

2. Saturn exists and a boy named Brian lives in New Jersey.

3. Therefore, God does not exist.

See, I can do it too!

>> See? We have now proven the existence of an incorporeal, sentient creator.
And I have disproved as well. So, who's right?

 
At 10/02/2008 12:51 AM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

>> Agilius, you simply state that evidence for evolution is the same as evidence for Creationism, and then you say "voila! Since you've shown evidence, my point is proven!" Of course it's not. Evidence for Evolution is evidence AGAINST Creationism, since Creationism and evolution are pretty much mutually exclusive.

The evidence you have for Evolution is that consecutive generations of organisms are biologically different, to some degree, from their progenitors. Many religions already acknowledge this, and, indeed, that biological changes happen does not preclude certainty of the existence of god, as I argue below.

The evidence you *don't* have for Evolution is an account for every biological step from one species to another [again, whatever *that* means, since the concept of species is more problematic for Evolutionists than most people realize].

Evolution is able to support its worldview only so far as what many religions already acknowledge.

The evidence for Evolution is the same evidence for Creationism.


>> Second: there's no such thing as incorporeal, ethereal things. They don't exist. You made them up for your argument, but since there's no evidence for them, all of these arguments you give about souls and such have no weight at all.

You attempt to offer a rebuttal of my argument below, so I will address it there. But this particular treatment of my argument in favor of incorporeal beings fails to account for the argument I have offered.

Again, I will address the rebuttal you *have* offered where it appears, below.


>> You continue to shift the debate from what matters--the evidence collected by humans--to this metaphysical mumbo jumbo. Don't you realize you're just dancing around the point, trying to grasp onto your god and doing whatever necessary to avoid the obvious conclusions about reality? Let's look at your most recent post:

Actually, I didn't *shift* the debate. I challenged your belief that all that exist are only those things which conform to causal law, by offering evidence to the contrary.

So since we're all addressing the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo *I* brought up, *this is* the debate.

And the obvious conclusion from *any* metaphysical evidence, eventually leads to the conclusion that a deity is *at least* responsible for humanity. Of course, if a deity is responsible for humanity, why *wouldn't* it be likely that he created everything else?


>> >> Theists observe that human decision violates the otherwise causal nature of our bodies, which means that there exists a force which is not bound by causal law.
>>
>> False. Human decision does not violate causal natures at all.

Does your definition of causal law include the capacity for material things to possess autonomy?

I thought you all didn't believe in magic?

If I tell you a water bottle moved itself from one cupboard to another, you will think me a loon; But if I tell you certain types of pieces of meat can animate themselves, it's suddenly sensible?

Again, if the human capacity for decision is within the bounds of causal law, then certainty about *any* argument is not attainable, since all beliefs about anything at all are the result of determinism.

Sure, religious people can be loony; But apparently so can Evolutionists.


>> Materials actually conform to causal law, so materials cannot account for the animating force behind human decision.
>>
>> They can conform, and they do. That is how we make decisions; because our brains, composed of matter, represents and utilizes information in what is known as decision-making.

Again, unless determinism isn't true, you *cannot* make decisions.

Further - and again - you are proposing that things composed of matter can possess autonomy. This is madness.


>> If not causal law, then the source of human decision is a first cause. And we realize that first causes are sentient because non-sentient things cannot act of their own volition.
>>
>> How the hell could sentience be a first cause? You just made up this "logical" conclusion, which is in fact totally, completely illogical. Sentience requires complexity, which cannot simply poof into existence.

By saying that sentience is a first cause, I mean that there were no other materially causal causes prior to sentient decision, such as "1,000 years ago, someone accidentally stepped on a butterfly, thereby starting [continuing] a chain of events that eventually made me choose to each Cheerios this morning".

Sentience is a first cause of its effects, and therefore does not conform to causal law.


>> So, since the cause of the creation of incorporeal beings cannot be material or be bound by causal law, then the cause is incorporeal and sentient.
>>
>> You conjured up fake inferences and left satisfied that you proved your point. Congratulations! I could do that too. Here's my counter to your arugment:
>>
>> 1. God cannot exist if both Saturn exists and a boy named Brian lives in New Jersey.
>>
>> 2. Saturn exists and a boy named Brian lives in New Jersey.
>>
>> 3. Therefore, God does not exist.
>>
>> See, I can do it too!

If metaphysical things exist, then that would, almost by definition, preclude that the only things that exist are material, causal things.

Where's the error in this line of reasoning?

 
At 10/03/2008 3:31 PM, Blogger Marshall declaimed...

You fail to prove that the metaphysical is responsible for "animation"--which is simply biological behavior.

>> Does your definition of causal law include the capacity for material things to possess autonomy?

Sure it does. I consider myself autonomous, and you as well. Because we have brains, which follow causal laws, and our thoughts are derived from the billions of chemical and electrical reactions going on in our brains.

You continue to claim that the evidence for evolution is the same as the evidence for creationism, but you fail to explain why. It's not at all, and there's far more evidence for evolution than the simple observation that organisms change slightly. Do a little research on chemical pathways, vestigial organs, chromosomes, and genetic markers, and you'll see that the evidence is far more convincing than simply "we're similar."

>> Again, unless determinism isn't true, you *cannot* make decisions.

This is false, but it's a topic that people have difficulty grasping. My decisions are causal sure, but that doesn't mean that I don't make them. All of the trillions of factors that go into my decisions indicate causality, sure--but it's so complex and unique to the processes involved with me that it is most certainly me making the decision. The decision is the resolution of these trillions of mechanisms following causal law.

Your reasoning that "if metaphysical things exist, then not everything is causal" would probably be true. But no evidence for the metaphysical has ever existed, and I doubt it will. If it does, I'll change my mind; until that point, I'm going to sit grounded firmly in reality.

Again, you're dumbing down the evidence for evolution to a point where it looks stupid, when in fact 99% of all biological scientists in the world will tell you that their research indicates common descent (the other 1% are most likely researching something unrelated). There's a reason there has never been a single scientific paper offering valid evidence against evolution: because it doesn't exist. Science is not "taking sides" here--it's completely objective.

 
At 10/04/2008 4:16 AM, Blogger Agilius declaimed...

>> You fail to prove that the metaphysical is responsible for "animation"--which is simply biological behavior.

I will address this in response to your "trillions of factors" argument below.


>> Does your definition of causal law include the capacity for material things to possess autonomy?
>>
>> Sure it does. I consider myself autonomous, and you as well. Because we have brains, which follow causal laws, and our

thoughts are derived from the billions of chemical and electrical reactions going on in our brains.

Wow. I guess that means you're consistent, at least. But if someone ever blogs here and claims that any material thing does

something of its own accord, I will *not* see you write it off as unscientific, will I? Because you just said that your definition of causal law includes the capacity for material things to possess autonomy.

But to answer this more concretely, any number of causal processes put together still equals a causal process, which is not autonomy. Autonomy means that the causes of your actions were not directly dependent upon a prior physical cause.

So, if it is true that thoughts are derived from billions of chemical and electrical reactions, then it's *not* true that we have autonomy. If I trip, my descent is the result of causal law, not autonomy (my own, anyway).


>> You continue to claim that the evidence for evolution is the same as the evidence for creationism, but you fail to explain

why. It's not at all, and there's far more evidence for evolution than the simple observation that organisms change slightly.

Do a little research on chemical pathways, vestigial organs, chromosomes, and genetic markers, and you'll see that the evidence is far more convincing than simply "we're similar."

Are you saying that I have failed my *attempt* to explain why the evidence for evolution is the same as for creationism? Or are you saying that I have failed *to even attempt* to prove it? If the latter, then your response is a bit disingenuous, in that the record will bear me out that I have at least made the attempt several times.

As far as the actual attempt, the argument is simple: nothing of what the evidence for Evolution *actually* supports precludes Creationism. In fact *many* views of Creationism withstand the evidence for Evolution - it's the same evidence.

Chemical pathways:
Chemicals conform to causal law, so they don't possess autonomy from it; And chemical pathways are consistent with Creationism.

Vestigial organs:
I've actually talked with someone on this site about this, and told them to ask "the initiated" why so-called vestigial organs can't be simply dormant, in that the purpose can only be known in certain circumstances. That the purpose of a particular organ (to borrow an idea which is solely consistent with Creationism; that of purpose) is unknown is certainly consistent with Evolution, in that one would expect to find vestigial organs; It is also consistent with Creationism, in that the organ may be dormant.

Chromosomes:
Chromosomes conform to causal law, so they don't possess autonomy. Consistent with Creationism.

Genetic markers:
Genetic markers conform to causal law, so they don't possess autonomy. Consistent with Creationism.

And since you need to say that there is more evidence for evolution than the fact that descendants of organisms vary, slightly, from their progenitors, you support one of my earlier claims that it is not enough for Evolutionists to claim that Microevolution supports Evolution; This is because Microevolution also supports, and is not contrary to, Creationism.


>> Again, unless determinism isn't true, you *cannot* make decisions.
>>
>> This is false, but it's a topic that people have difficulty grasping. My decisions are causal sure, but that doesn't mean that I don't make them.

No, what I said is true, if you *cannot* do anything contrary to what causal law prescribes your causal body to do, then you are not making decisions.


>> All of the trillions of factors that go into my decisions indicate causality, sure--but it's so complex and unique to the processes involved with me that it is most certainly me making the decision. The decision is the resolution of these trillions of mechanisms following causal law.

Ok, so here is your "trillions of factors" argument.

I've actually already tipped my hand, so here it goes again: You can have a bajillion physically causal factors affecting an outcome, and the outcome will be certain and not otherwise; Again, this is not autonomy.

Further, as I've been saying so far in this post, the key word here is "physical". If your decisions were the effect of prior "metaphysical" causes, this would preclude that only the causal law of Evolution the Theory is in effect.

If I hug my mom cuz she gave me cookies, it's not because causal law dictates that I will hug my mom - I could just as easily not hug her. So *this* type of causation does not fit the bill for Evolution the Theory.


>> Your reasoning that "if metaphysical things exist, then not everything is causal" would probably be true. But no evidence for the metaphysical has ever existed, and I doubt it will. If it does, I'll change my mind; until that point, I'm going to sit grounded firmly in reality.

O, not only do metaphysical things exist, but my evidence has caused you to change your mind, already; But you're still going to sit grounded firmly in the company, at least, of "the initiated".

I believe this, too; I think this evidence is so hard to miss, that you *cannot* deny it, so I conclude that you have changed your mind already.

>> Again, you're dumbing down the evidence for evolution to a point where it looks stupid, when in fact 99% of all biological scientists in the world will tell you that their research indicates common descent (the other 1% are most likely researching something unrelated). There's a reason there has never been a single scientific paper offering valid evidence against evolution: because it doesn't exist. Science is not "taking sides" here--it's completely objective.

As far as common descent is concerned: Again, because there are no meaningful milestones in the basic claim of Evolution, you can claim whatever kind of descent you want, and still call it Evolution.

For instance:
• You can claim that humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor,
• You can claim that humans came from monkeys,
• You can claim that monkeys came from humans,
• You can claim insects can come from monkeys (as some of us talked about on another Goosing The Antithesis blog post),
• You can even claim that Evolution has never allowed descendants to evolve outside their "kind" - and never will - and *still* claim that this happened as a result of Evolution without the assistance of a deity.

So, again, until you show every single biological step between one "species" and another, you haven't proven Evolution the Theory.

What this means for Evolution, again, is Evolution the Theory is based more on philosophy than evidence.

So I chalk up your statistic to the fact that biological scientists have an a priori commitment to Naturalism. Biological scientists *cannot* write a scientific paper against Evolution, *even in theory*, because the very definition of science precludes metaphysical evidence.

That is, the only reason you're right about there never being a scientific paper offering "valid" evidence against Evolution, is because if they did, they would no longer be doing science. At the outset, that is; I'm talking about not even having to read the evidence - if your scientific paper is said to provide evidence against Evolution, then we can know 100% of the time before reading it, that it is not scientific. Tell me I'm wrong about this - I dare you.

 
At 10/09/2008 2:11 AM, Blogger Marshall declaimed...

1. The universe is causal. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. The fact that you think you make you own decisions is because you do--all of the molecules that comprise you form a causal system that performs googols of calculations.

2. There is no metaphysical, and there has never been any evidence for anything metaphysical. To claim it exists has the same merit as to claim that a Chinese teacup is floating in orbit around the Earth.

3. Evidence for evolution is evidence against Creationism. Creationism claims that organisms did not evolve; evolutionary theory claims it did. The conjunction of chromosomal, paleological, and geological evidence all point unanimously to a slow increase in size, variation, and number of species as time has progressed over the three billion or so years life has existed on our planet. Higher strata contain higher, more complex life forms; lower strata contain simpler life forms. Organisms that paleological and geological evidence indicates are more recent also contain DNA reminiscent of older, related species. The branches predicted by evolutionary theory and supported by the evidence are backed up by thousands and thousands of scientific studies, each taken very skeptically. Creationism makes zero predictions and has zero explanatory power. It is as informative and baseless as the hypothesis that aliens create Terran species by doing backwards cartwheels and egesting lions and tigers.

4. In order to "prove" Evolution (in a scientific sense), you do not have to show every step along the way. All you need to show is that the mechanism that produces new species is that of Darwinian evolution. I don't have to convince anyone that a glass contains water by showing that every single molecule is H2O; the evidence that it is water increases as we perform more and more tests: if it boils at 100C, freezes at 0C, is non-reactive with most substances, liquid, etc. You're making up an impossible criteria for a scientific theory, and that is not how science works. In science, evidence that points towards a theory helps it; evidence that points away weakens it. So far, no evidence has weakened it, it has only strengthened.

5. This argument is pointless, because even if I gave you the most convincing possible argument in the world, along with a time-lapse video of organisms actually evolving, you would still reject it because you are unwavering in your faith. No matter how much reason is thrown at you, you will always 100% reject this theory no matter what. I'm not going to post any more because it's pointless.

 
At 11/07/2009 2:34 PM, Blogger Nadine declaimed...

The racist balloon is on the wrong castle.

 

Trackbacks:

Create a Link

<< Home