New To Forum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2015, 04:44 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2015 05:06 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 04:38 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  I see evolution as the one main points upon which atheists are adamant. What I find intriguing is that atheists and others claim there is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution. If there is an academic consensus does this make it a reality?

I also see both groups fighting tooth and claw on this particular issue.
Is it a scientific 'fact' that is in reality an appeal to authority? Or an appeal to ad populum?

Oh boy... So much for objectivity it seems...

No; reality is not dictated by fallacious appeals. Nor is it dictated fallacious misrepresentations, I might add.
We point out the fact of the scientific consensus on evolutionary theory because it is telling: it shows that the mountains of data we have at this time is enough to sway virtually the entire academic world. Not a particularly easy feat.

It is not consensus that makes a 'fact' in science, it is the data, and we have plenty of it.

[EDIT: Reply to updated post]

(17-05-2015 04:38 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  What I mean by this is how do we view structures of scientific theories? What are the limitations of evolution?

That depend of what you mean by the 'structures' of scientific theories.
If you are referring to how something must 'look' to be considered a theory, we need only turn to the definition: A scientific theory is an explanation for a, or a set of, natural phenomena which is supported by evidence.
Not only must a perspective theory be supported by evidence, it must also be falsifiable and have predictive power. Which evolutionary theory qualifies for.

As for the limitations?
That also depend on what you mean by 'limitations'. If you mean things it can't explain or cannot be applied to, you'll have to leave biology pretty much all together for that; evolutionary theory applies only to adaptation of organisms.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Free Thought's post
17-05-2015, 04:49 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 09:04 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(16-05-2015 08:38 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Hello everybody. I'am new to this forum. I have started reading on atheism and watching debates. I'am intrigued as a theist by the theory of evolution.

I posted on another atheist forum and debated but was eventually banned because the forum was only open to atheists. I didn't realise at the time of registering. So I hope we are free as theists to discuss and debate issues on here.

I do not have an atheist friend to discuss with therefore I decided to join a forum.

I read Michael Denton's work on evolution theory as well as Michael J Behe. Recently I started reading upon the counter arguments from the talkorigins website.

So it will be interesting to get information from well informed atheists on here!

Welcome aboard. May I make a few suggested readings (below)? they are relatively cheap and available on amazon. These are the two textbooks that were used when I took my evolutionary science course at Saint Leo University several years back...highly recommended. I am decently familiar with the overall process and would entertain intellectual, civil discussion with you if you so desire, time permitting of course. The central point of evolution is it is observable, predictable and falsifiable, thus factual. Now, is that the explanation for sentience? Spark of life? Definitive answer for the big questions of life? Doubtful.

Does the fact we do not have ALL of the answers to the wonders of life...the universe...man's consciousness mean we have to make up supernatural answers like a world/universe/life creating super genie with zero evidence? No. It is completely possible we may never know all of the answers, I would submit to you anyone who claims to have the answers to LIFE is lying...making faith claims. Especially when it is so easy to discredit the source of knowledge in relation to "god"...the bible. Anyway, welcome, I look forward to seeing if you can substantiate, validate and articulate your worldview as well as be open minded enough to seriously and introspectively consider the plethora of evidence against the hubris Anthropocentric based perspective. Looking forward to seeing you around the board.

Recommended reads:

Coyne, J. (2009) Why evolution is true. London: Penguin Books Ltd. Print.

Shubin, N. (2009) Your Inner Fish: A journey into the 3.5 billion-year history of the human body. New York. Vintage Books. Print.

Thanks for that. I will definitely read these two books.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes objectivetheist's post
17-05-2015, 04:52 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 04:38 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  I see evolution as the one main point upon which atheists are adamant. What I find intriguing is that atheists and others claim there is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution. If there is an academic consensus does this make it a reality? What I mean by this is how do we view structures of scientific theories? What are the limitations of evolution?

I also see both groups fighting tooth and claw on this particular issue.
Is it a scientific 'fact' that is in reality an appeal to authority? Or an appeal to ad populum?

There is no need for claiming when something is simply true - evolution is a fact (also such is a title of book by Jerry Coyne which you should read considering your questions). As for consensus - it's not about something so lofty as reality but about what we can prove and what theists try to disprove. Those speaking in favor of evolution have evidence, those who speak against have only faith and bullshit.

It's not fight it's slaughter, and it's not scientists who are being slaughtered. Though if you preffer nonsense written in Bible or similar nonsense spouted by creationists then it's your choice.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2015, 04:54 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 04:44 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 04:38 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  I see evolution as the one main points upon which atheists are adamant. What I find intriguing is that atheists and others claim there is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution. If there is an academic consensus does this make it a reality?

I also see both groups fighting tooth and claw on this particular issue.
Is it a scientific 'fact' that is in reality an appeal to authority? Or an appeal to ad populum?

Oh boy... So much for objectivity it seems...

No; reality is not dictated by fallacious appeals. Nor is it dictated fallacious misrepresentations, I might add.
We point out the fact of the scientific consensus on evolutionary theory because it is telling: it shows that the mountains of data we have at this time is enough to sway virtually the entire academic world. Not a particularly easy feat.

It is not consensus that makes a 'fact' in science, it is the data, and we have plenty of it.

So the overwhelming data makes it a scientific fact...and not the appeal. So in any discussion the only thing that would hold water are verifiable facts and data.

This leads to the application of these facts. Does scientific evolution bring abot complexity in organisms or does it have limitations?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2015, 05:05 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 04:54 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  This leads to the application of these facts. Does scientific evolution bring abot complexity in organisms or does it have limitations?
"Scientific" evolution brings about change in organisms. Whether they get more or less complex is pretty incidental to that.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like LostLocke's post
17-05-2015, 05:08 PM
RE: New To Forum
There is however something reminiscient of blind following of clergy in the Middle Ages amongst modern atheists. How does a lay man verify so many 'facts' regarding fossils, embryology, vestigial organs and a host of other things? The only way is following the modern clergy.

By the way I do not ascribe to young earth creationism ( just to avoid straw man arguments). And as a believer of traditional Ashari theology I do not ascribe to blind faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes objectivetheist's post
17-05-2015, 05:13 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2015 05:26 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 04:38 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  I see evolution as the one main point upon which atheists are adamant.

Not true at all. Evolution is the basis for ALL of Biology, medical science and genetics in 2015. Every major university in the entire world teaches it, and their departments are based on it. In 2015, it's not even a question any longer. Anyone who thinks it is, is UTTERLY ignorant of the current state of science. It's neither an ad populum argument or an appeal to authority. It's supported by MOUNTAINS of evidence, and there is NO evidence to support any other alternative view. None. Scientists are very very competitive. They would give their first-born to be able to be the first to discover something. Any ONE of them who could propose a legitimate alternate theory that explains how we know DNA works, would instantly get a Nobel Prize, and world-wide fame and riches and acclaim. NO one in the world is known to be even working on an alternative theory. It's as established as the Theory of Gravity. It's a fact. Period.

Atheism and Evolution are not related in any way. They stand or fall on their own.

There is no evidence for any god.

There is no evidence for any other theory that explains what we observe that works better than Evolution. Evolution is PROVEN by DNA. (As discussed and proven in the 1st half of THEIST, Dr. David Miller, Professor at Brown University, in his book "Finding Darwin's God". He destroys "creationism".




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-05-2015, 05:22 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2015 05:26 PM by objectivetheist.)
RE: New To Forum
As far as I understand evolution has three facets: 1 random mutation 2 natural selection 3 common descent

The third one is the most problematic for a theist.

As for random mutation and natural selection, they do not affect belief in a Creator. Common descent is problematic because it contradicts the story of the creation of Adam. Just a point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2015, 05:32 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 05:22 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  As far as I understand evolution has three facets: 1 random mutation 2 natural selection 3 common descent

The third one is the most problematic for a theist.

As for random mutation and natural selection, they do not affect belief in a Creator. Common descent is problematic because it contradicts the story of the creation of Adam. Just a point.

The Bible is a myth. The priests who assembled it knew NOTHING about how the world came to be the way it is. Most Biblical scholars accept that. If you don't know that then you know nothing about the Bible, or mainline Biblical scholarship.

"On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...+Testament

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-05-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 05:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 04:38 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  I see evolution as the one main point upon which atheists are adamant.

Not true at all. Evolution is the basis for ALL of Biology, medical science and genetics in 2015. Every major university in the entire world teaches it, and their departments are based on it. In 2015, it's not even a question any longer. Anyone who thinks it is, is UTTERLY ignorant of the current state of science. It's neither an ad populum argument or an appeal to authority. It's supported by MOUNTAINS of evidence, and there is NO evidence to support any other alternative view. None. Scientists are very very competitive. They would give their first-born to be able to be the first to discover something. Any ONE of them who could propose a legitimate alternate theory that explains how we know DNA works, would instantly get a Nobel Prize, and world-wide fame and riches and acclaim. NO one in the world is known to be even working on an alternative theory. It's as established as the Theory of Gravity. It's a fact. Period.

Atheism and Evolution are not related in any way. They stand or fall on their own.

There is no evidence for any god.

There is no evidence for any other theory that explains what we observe that works better than Evolution. Evolution is PROVEN by DNA. (As discussed and proven in the 1st half of THEIST, Dr. David Miller, Professor at Brown University, in his book "Finding Darwin's God". He destroys "creationism".





I'am not denying that the overwhelming scientific community is pro evolution. My point is regarding atheists, like Dawkins in my country, who use it as the main thrust in atheist vs theist debates.

Evolution is the bedrock for modern atheism like the Bible is for Christianity. All the other arguments from atheists do not intrigue me as evolution does.

It is not without reason Dawkins said evolution made him an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Then for me the question as objective enquirer is 'how do I verify the facts?'
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: