Can somebody please refute this?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-10-2011, 07:24 PM
Can somebody please refute this?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconten...ticle=1104

The article is on the 15 answers to Creationism. Can someone please refute this for me? I've been raised in a religious family and so thus my thinking skills blow.

Can someone help me out?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2011, 09:25 PM
RE: Can somebody please refute this?
The article itself likely does it for us.

http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/212
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2011, 09:28 PM
RE: Can somebody please refute this?
Your thinking skills blow because you've been raised in a religious family? I'm sure you can think for yourself right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2011, 09:43 PM
RE: Can somebody please refute this?
Hi MNeufs, welcome!

I see you've mentioned recently deconverting. I remember it can be tough and scary in the beginning. If you do a lot of reading around the forum there are many threads on these topics that could help you understand. This article is a pretty typical creationist view on disproving evolution. Though I see so many errors in the arguments already, remember that disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism anyway.

Good luck!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LadyJane's post
17-10-2011, 05:55 AM
RE: Can somebody please refute this?
I have glanced through this a bit. I'm not going to try to refute it point by point, since that would take too much time and require I write as much as they did. The first thing I would say about it is that it is nothing more than a very long straw-man argument in that the authors state up-front that this is a response to a particular article by a journalist in Scientific American, but then proceed to treat the article they are refuting as the entirety of evolutionary theory.
Section 1: Arguing with scientists about the definitions of the words hypothesis, theory and fact. Certain scientists have attempted to clarify the scientific meanings of these words in defense against creationists poisoning the well with "only a theory" arguments. The authors are telling them "No, you don't know what you mean when you use those words, we do." =ridiculous.

Section 2: Argument that evolution is "circular reasoning". Here they attempt to argue that since the statement "survivors survive" is a tautology, evolutionary theory is based on circular reasoning. Another straw-man.

Section 3: Argues that "evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created." This is an underhanded attack on the commonly accepted standards of scientific proof. This is not even wrong. First, if we accept the proof from molecular biology, chemistry, paleontology and geology FOR evolution, then by those same standards it is fairly simple to imagine ways in which evolution can be falsified. The verified discovery of a fossilized modern rabbit in the pre-cambrian, for instance. Secondly, we HAVE observed evolution in the laboratory and even in the wild (in certain limited ways.) so their premise is demonstrably wrong.

Section4: "...increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution." Logical fallacy: argument from popularity. It makes no difference how many of what group "believe" it. It's true or not, so show the proof. This is merely a backdoor attempt to insert "fine-tuning" arguments by the authors.

Section 5: There is no section 5. (not in the pdf version, anyway.)

Section 6: "if humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" The authors spend most of this section arguing against the pithy and somewhat misunderstood analogy, "'The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking: "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"'" which they use, again, as a straw-man. The fact is that a species can evolve from another, still extant species quite simply by moving to a different habitat. Disproving an analogy--whether they actually did or not, makes no difference.

section 7: "evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on the earth." ...nor does it attempt to. Evolution is about change from one species to another over time and the natural mechanisms that drive the observed changes. Abiogenesis is the scientific inquiry into how life starts, and, while it draws heavily on evolutionary theory, is a separate field of study.

Section 8: arguments from probability. They use Gish model stuff, etc. I'm not a statistician, and have a hard time following this stuff, but the upshot is that given long time periods and much raw material to work with, even very unlikely events become inevitable. Look this stuff up online, there's plenty out there against these arguments from people who understand it better.

Section 9: 2nd law of thermodynamics. An old, well debunked argument (as most of these are.) The authors attempt to move the goalposts by redefining "Thermodynamics" and other rhetorical sleight of hand tricks. None of which changes what the 2nd law means from a scientific perspective, and the fact that it is only applicable in closed systems, which the biosphere is not.

That's all I have time for. There's really nothing new here, just new applications of old logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks. If this kind of stuff is fooling you, I would spend some time learning what evolutionary theory actually is, learning about logical fallacies (Michael Shermer's "Baloney Detection Kit" stuff is a good place to start.) and the old arguments (which is really all the creationists have--a comprehensive list here.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BadKnees's post
17-10-2011, 06:20 AM
RE: Can somebody please refute this?
(16-10-2011 07:24 PM)MNeufs Wrote:  http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconten...ticle=1104

The article is on the 15 answers to Creationism. Can someone please refute this for me? I've been raised in a religious family and so thus my thinking skills blow.

Can someone help me out?

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2011, 08:58 AM
RE: Can somebody please refute this?
(17-10-2011 06:20 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(16-10-2011 07:24 PM)MNeufs Wrote:  http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconten...ticle=1104

The article is on the 15 answers to Creationism. Can someone please refute this for me? I've been raised in a religious family and so thus my thinking skills blow.

Can someone help me out?

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

That is an excellent resource. Thanks.

Keep living your life. It's the only one you have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2011, 11:47 AM
RE: Can somebody please refute this?
(16-10-2011 07:24 PM)MNeufs Wrote:  http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconten...ticle=1104

The article is on the 15 answers to Creationism. Can someone please refute this for me? I've been raised in a religious family and so thus my thinking skills blow.

Can someone help me out?

Instead of trying to refute it why don't you consider the possibility that it might be true?

By the way, this looks like an excellent site. I'm glad I found out about it.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2011, 11:51 AM
RE: Can somebody please refute this?
(17-10-2011 11:47 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(16-10-2011 07:24 PM)MNeufs Wrote:  http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconten...ticle=1104

The article is on the 15 answers to Creationism. Can someone please refute this for me? I've been raised in a religious family and so thus my thinking skills blow.

Can someone help me out?

Instead of trying to refute it why don't you consider the possibility that it might be true?

By the way, this looks like an excellent site. I'm glad I found out about it.

Because they are erroneous and complete nonsense. Have you stopped responding to my comments Theo? Still waiting for responses on several threads. And perhaps you should take your own advice and look at things like evolution as if they were true. Don't ask us to do something you are not willing to do yourself.

And for the sake of argument I have considered arguments like these true, when I was a self-proclaiming christian and I found out through education and open-minded exploration that they are complete BS.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
17-10-2011, 12:50 PM
RE: Can somebody please refute this?
(17-10-2011 11:47 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(16-10-2011 07:24 PM)MNeufs Wrote:  http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconten...ticle=1104

The article is on the 15 answers to Creationism. Can someone please refute this for me? I've been raised in a religious family and so thus my thinking skills blow.

Can someone help me out?

Instead of trying to refute it why don't you consider the possibility that it might be true?

By the way, this looks like an excellent site. I'm glad I found out about it.

As you may notice by rereading the OP, that is where it all began Theo. This young fawn has come to us after having been religious. This person started there. Now it is time for the bird to try to fly on it's own, see the world with fresh eyes, and read. READ. READ. READ. you know READ. Learning is the corner stone to life. Without it we die. Without it we build churches, and temples of all sorts instead of housing for the poor, and farms for the hungry.

Also like bearded dude stated, why not give learning more about evolution a try. See most of us here have spent loads of time trying to learn religious ways, learn all about the history of the beast, maybe come to some understanding with it all. But we opened up the can of worms so to speak and they all keep spilling out. Once you start learning about something it's hard to just stop at the nice bits. You hear about atrocities carried out in gods name and the old curiosity bug nibbles at you ear. You look further. You learn more. It's unstoppable. It's cruel. But its provable.
Most of us have learned lots about your side of the argument. How much have you learned about ours? Must have been something in all of the threads you have partaken as I am sure you will gladly admit that there aren't many idiots among us.

More importantly god sir or madame, how much can you know about your side without knowing ours? Or like fight club says "Marla Singer: My God. I haven't been fucked like that since grade school"... wrong quote... hold on a second...

"Tyler Durden: All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I fuck like you wanna fuck, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not. "... that ain't it either... c'mon quote appear damn you.

"How much can you really know about yourself if you've never been in a fight-Tyler Durden" .. that'll do pig.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lucradis's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: