If Evolution

[6days]

As you now know, any argument that ends, "In the beginning goddidit", is an "argument from ignorance" fallacy. Never in the history of debate/discussion/conversation has goddidit been a valid argument.

Your argument is a straw man, unless you can provide an example of an actual statement you are arguing against. I Don't think I have seen your 'goddidit' argument being used here in TOL. We could perhaps also look for examples where evolutionists use the 'evolutiondidit' argument.

 

[Silent Hunter]

As you now know, any argument that ends, "In the beginning goddidit", is an "argument from ignorance" fallacy. Never in the history of debate/discussion/conversation has goddidit been a valid argument.

Your argument is a straw man, unless you can provide an example of an actual statement you are arguing against.

Seriously, 6days, you're going to challenge that someone can't quote you never, ever in a million years ended an argument, "In the beginning goddidit"? Seriously?

I Don't think I have seen your 'goddidit' argument being used here in TOL.

Are you saying you've never used goddidit to support any argument and it can't be shown you did?

We could perhaps also look for examples where evolutionists use the 'evolutiondidit' argument.

Goddidit is an argument from ignorance (among other fallacies), evolutiondidit is not.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.

The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy.

 

[The Barbarian]

Back in the day, YE creationists denied any evolution at all. Then, as direct observation showed it to be a fact, they retreated to speciation, then evolution of new genera, and then evolution of new families, which is where it stands now for most of them.

And this is a commendable thing. Changing one's beliefs in light of evidence is a reasonable and honest thing to do. (I'm aware that some creationists still deny any evolution at all, but apparently, they aren't here)

So we're at a point where we have to ask what the fossil record, genetic data, and other evidence would look like if common descent was a fact, and what it would look like if there were numerous "kinds" at the beginning, from which all sorts of new organisms evolved in each of those lineages.

Veritas, you've been a voice of reason here. What do you think?

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter
As you now know, any argument that ends, "In the beginning goddidit", is an "argument from ignorance" fallacy. Never in the history of debate/discussion/conversation has goddidit been a valid argument.

Your argument is a straw man, unless you can provide an example of an actual statement you are arguing against. I Don't think I have seen your 'goddidit' argument being used here in TOL. We could perhaps also look for examples where evolutionists use the 'evolutiondidit' argument.

It was a lot more common in the old days. Duane Gish would, whenever the evidence contradicted the evidence, argue that God did a miracle and that's how it happened.

Again, I don't see that as much, these days.

 

[Silent Hunter]

[As you now know, any argument that ends, "In the beginning goddidit", is an "argument from ignorance" fallacy. Never in the history of debate/discussion/conversation has goddidit been a valid argument.

Your argument is a straw man, unless you can provide an example of an actual statement you are arguing against. I Don't think I have seen your 'goddidit' argument being used here in TOL. We could perhaps also look for examples where evolutionists use the 'evolutiondidit' argument.

It was a lot more common in the old days. Duane Gish would, whenever the evidence contradicted the evidence, argue that God did a miracle and that's how it happened.

Isn't that the same as how 6days does it now?

Again, I don't see that as much, these days.

If you were following more closely, you would see things haven't changed from what they were in the "old days".

 

[6days]

Seriously, 6days, you're going to challenge that someone can't quote you never, ever in a million years ended an argument, "In the beginning goddidit"? Seriously?

Post a quote in context and we can see.

 

[6days]

Back in the day, YE creationists denied any evolution at all.

A creationist identified natural selection before Darwin did. What creationists have denied is the common ancestry belief system.

 

[Jonahdog]

A creationist identified natural selection before Darwin did. What creationists have denied is the common ancestry belief system.

Among other things.

 

[Right Divider]

When you are able to separate myth from reality, THEN we can talk. Goddidit is an excuse for what is unknown, a fantasy. Now that I know you haven't passed kindergarten I'd like to wish you good luck with your belief in Santa Claus.

You are the one that believes in myths.

 

[Veritas veritate]

You should probably brush up on your knowledge of informal fallacies. "God of the gaps" is an "argument from ignorance" fallacy creationists routinely use.
Since I'm not the party guilty of the fallacy your objection is misplaced.

You are quite correct, "argument form ignorance" is an informal fallacy, but I have seen "Atheists" and "Creationists" use this fallacy in their arguments. No creationist believes in a "god of the gaps." The "god of the gaps" is a straw-man fallacy because it assumes that once you have discovered the "natural explanation" for a "gap" that it eliminates God, however, the "natural explanation" answers only why/how the "gap" happens, not why/because it happens. They are two different kinds of answers why. If there is a pot of water boiling and I ask you why it is boiling, how would you answer? I would assume that you would give an answer based on thermodynamics. That is all well and good, but the answer could very well be that it is boiling because I wanted a cup of tea. The "god of the gaps' fallacy, that you propose, assumes that the only answer to the "gap" must be a why/how answer, and that is the straw-man.

It is creationists who are guilty of the "god of the gaps" fallacy so I suppose it makes you creationists sound like you they lack the honesty and intelligence to hold a real conversation with anyone.

I believe I have already sufficiently covered the reason why the "god of the gaps" is a straw-man fallacy rather than an "argument from ignorance" fallacy so I will refrain from rehashing the point here.

As you now know, any argument that ends, "In the beginning goddidit", is an "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

Actually, if you consider "in the beginning God" an "argument from ignorance fallacy," you must also consider "in the beginning the big bang" or any other world/life origin theory to be an argument from ignorance as well. Lets not have a double standard. The truth is that no world/life origin theory is scientific, they are all religions that must be believed by those who subscribe to each theory, and they all give a why/because kind of answer instead of a why/how kind of answer.

Never in the history of debate/discussion/conversation has goddidit been a valid argument.

Never in the history of debate/discussion/conversation/ has any stance on the world's origin been a valid argument. The difference is that I admit that "in the beginning God" is a religious position (not theory) that I take based on the evidence presented in science; whereas, "in the beginning (insert belief here)" is taught to be a fact of science rather than a belief based on the evidence presented in science.

 

[Silent Hunter]

When you are able to separate myth from reality, THEN we can talk. Goddidit is an excuse for what is unknown, a fantasy. Now that I know you haven't passed kindergarten I'd like to wish you good luck with your belief in Santa Claus.

You are the one that believes in myths.

Well, I'm not the one fearful my invisible friend will punish me for not "believing in him".

Oh, by the way, Santa is very disappointed in you. You only have three weeks to get your act together... or else.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Seriously, 6days, you're going to challenge that someone can't quote you never, ever in a million years ended an argument, "In the beginning goddidit"? Seriously?

Post a quote in context and we can see.

Are you saying you've never used goddidit to support any argument and it can't be shown you did? Seriously?!


Sent from my SM-G930V using TOL mobile app

 

[Silent Hunter]

You should probably brush up on your knowledge of informal fallacies. "God of the gaps" is an "argument from ignorance" fallacy creationists routinely use. Since I'm not the party guilty of the fallacy your objection is misplaced.

You are quite correct, "argument form ignorance" is an informal fallacy, but I have seen "Atheists" and "Creationists" use this fallacy in their arguments. No creationist believes in a "god of the gaps." The "god of the gaps" is a straw-man fallacy because it assumes that once you have discovered the "natural explanation" for a "gap" that it eliminates God, however, the "natural explanation" answers only why/how the "gap" happens, not why/because it happens. They are two different kinds of answers why.

God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.

The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy.

You can further your education here, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

If there is a pot of water boiling and I ask you why it is boiling, how would you answer? I would assume that you would give an answer based on thermodynamics. That is all well and good, but the answer could very well be that it is boiling because I wanted a cup of tea.

I didn't know "I want a cup of tea" will cause water to boil. Perhaps you can quantify the amount of "I wanted a cup of tea" necessary to boil water, it sure will help save on my energy bill.

The "god of the gaps' fallacy, that you propose, assumes that the only answer to the "gap" must be a why/how answer, and that is the straw-man.

Nope. See above link.

It is creationists who are guilty of the "god of the gaps" fallacy so I suppose it makes you creationists sound like you they lack the honesty and intelligence to hold a real conversation with anyone.

I believe I have already sufficiently covered the reason why the "god of the gaps" is a straw-man fallacy rather than an "argument from ignorance" fallacy so I will refrain from rehashing the point here.

Nope. See above link.

As you now know, any argument that ends, "In the beginning goddidit", is an "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

Actually, if you consider "in the beginning God" an "argument from ignorance fallacy," you must also consider "in the beginning the big bang" or any other world/life origin theory to be an argument from ignorance as well. Lets not have a double standard. The truth is that no world/life origin theory is scientific, they are all religions that must be believed by those who subscribe to each theory, and they all give a why/because kind of answer instead of a why/how kind of answer.

There is a huge difference between the Big Bang (a naturalistic theory of origin) and goddidit. That you don't understand the difference is a testament to your lack of critical thinking skills. That no matter how clearly I might explain it you will never comprehend it is testament to the thoroughness of how well you have been brain-washed by christian fundamentalism.

Goddidit is an argument from ignorance. That you don't accept or undrstand a naturalistic explanation doesn't make goddidit the conclusion by default.

Never in the history of debate/discussion/conversation has goddidit been a valid argument.

Never in the history of debate/discussion/conversation/ has any stance on the world's origin been a valid argument. The difference is that I admit that "in the beginning God" is a religious position (not theory) that I take based on the evidence presented in science; whereas, "in the beginning (insert belief here)" is taught to be a fact of science rather than a belief based on the evidence presented in science.

I see you are continuing to confuse "straw man" with "goddidit".

 

[Right Divider]

Well, I'm not the one fearful my invisible friend will punish me for not "believing in him".

You will be when you stand before Him in judgement.

Oh, by the way, Santa is very disappointed in you. You only have three weeks to get your act together... or else.

Oh boy... more childish banter.

 

[RealityJerk]

I believe in devolution, rather than evolution. All life forms are an expression and aspect of human consciousness. When Adam fell into corruption, the whole creation fell with him. The bible says he named all of the animals and his wife Eve. What this means is that, he gave all life on earth their respective natures and attributes, drawing them from himself.

Even if evolution is true, I don't consider it a problem for Christian theology or theism. God can choose many different ways to create and develop life on earth and throughout this universe, including evolution. The process of evolution might be the means through which God populates universes with life. I recommend the book, Morphic Resonance by Rupert Sheldrake. You can find it on Amazon, it's a very interesting theory on evolution and natural selection, based on what he calls "Morphic Resonance".

 

[Arthur Brain]

My comment was mean to be very "tongue in cheek", but I'll sure that any subtleties are bound to go right over your head. (oo.. I used another figure of speech, AB will get confused again).

If the prevailing "theory of evolution" is no longer that a some chemicals miraculously came to life, then please let me know.

It certainly is no longer that as it was never that to start with. I thought you said you'd studied science?

:AMR:

 

[Right Divider]

It certainly is no longer that as it was never that to start with. I thought you said you'd studied science?

:AMR:

OK, Mr. KnowItAll, How did life begin?

 

[The Barbarian]

The "god of the gaps" is a straw-man fallacy because it assumes that once you have discovered the "natural explanation" for a "gap" that it eliminates God, however, the "natural explanation" answers only why/how the "gap" happens, not why/because it happens. They are two different kinds of answers why. If there is a pot of water boiling and I ask you why it is boiling, how would you answer? I would assume that you would give an answer based on thermodynamics. That is all well and good, but the answer could very well be that it is boiling because I wanted a cup of tea. The "god of the gaps' fallacy, that you propose, assumes that the only answer to the "gap" must be a why/how answer, and that is the straw-man.

This is a good point. When we ask about causes, we should consider the kind of cause we're discussing. In the above, your intentions are a final cause, the purpose behind the boiling, while thermodynamics is a formal cause, the mechanics of boiling.

So the diversity of life is "caused" by God's intention to have such a diversity. That is the final cause of living things. Random variation and natural selection together make the formal cause.

 

[The Barbarian]

Isn't that the same as how 6days does it now?
If you were following more closely, you would see things haven't changed from what they were in the "old days".

I notice he has admitted some forms of evolution in his answer to Veritas, above.

 

[The Barbarian]

Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider
If the prevailing "theory of evolution" is no longer that a some chemicals miraculously came to life, then please let me know.

It certainly is no longer that as it was never that to start with. I thought you said you'd studied science?

I missed that one. A great example of why you shouldn't fall asleep in your high school biology class.