Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church

Author: Stronn

Posts

Total: 563
#451
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
If "it's all trivial" in your opinion, then why do you even bother engaging?
I never sought to argue the content of evolution (i.e. what is it? functional arguments, etc.) I sought to argue the logic (i.e. the structure, its premises, its conclusions, etc.) Once again, my contention isn't the content of evolution. My contention is that evolution is allegedly more rational. 
The theory of evolution is based on data and logic.

If you look at a dictionary, "rational" is a synonym of "logical".

Please (EITHER) demonstrate how creationism is logical (OR) demonstrate how the theory of evolution is NOT logical (perhaps by pointing out a counter-factual or specific logical error).
#452
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Both "nothingness" and "the bible" have ZERO predictive or explanatory power.
Incorrect. The Bible has plenty of explanatory "power." It depends on the scope of one's standards.
Please provide an example from "the bible" that is not nakedly assertortic.
#453
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
The "theory of evolution" only has to be "better" than any competing theories.
Why? It's subjective isn't it?
It's call "the marketplace of ideas".
#454
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
All science is provisional.
Not all of it. Laws, Theories, and Hypotheses are; facts aren't.
Are you suggesting that some facts are "objective"?
Topic's author
#455
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Athias
A "random" reality necessitates observation of the metaphysical...
No it doesn't. If you think it does, you need to do better than a bald assertion.

This is virtually no different from your argument six days ago. 
Yes, and it makes the point that natural selection is non-random.

We've now come full circle.
Repetition is sometimes unavoidable when debating a repetitious person.

In this case it is. The criticism levied is one not against "Science" but a single theory. Your arguments are deflecting these criticisms with fallacies of division. 
I never made the argument that the theory of evolution came about due to evidence because it is a branch of science. That would be a fallacy of division. What I said was the theory of evolution came about due to evidence just like other branches of science. Then I listed evidence.

All the evidence shows is that those exist. The rest is an assumption.
Are you really contending that the only thing we can reasonably infer from the fossil record, geologic formations and radioisotopes is that they exist?Really? We can't infer from the fossil record that species change over time? That most species are extinct? We can't infer from geologic formations that some places were once under water, or that an area underwent volcanism? 

No, you've given four lines of description, not evidence.
This fossil record is evidence, it is not a description. Mendelian inheritance is evidence, it is not a description.

It is when you claim semantics is evidence.
Again, the fossil record is evidence, it is not semantics.

More sophistry. If evolution was mathematically demonstrable, then it would be by all scientific standards and definitions, a scientific law. (It would be the Law of Evolution rather than the Theory of Evolution.) And once again, the shift from orthogenesis to natural selection wasn't motivated by evidentiary discovery. The evidence didn't change because it was already there decades prior (Charles Darwin's conception and development of natural selection and Gregor Mendel's Laws of Inheritance.) Ronald Fisher synthesized the works of the two to create a new interpretation. That interpretation became popular among evolutionary biologists and changed the consensus. That wasn't "discovery"; that was an ideological shift.
Oh please. I never implied that evolution can be described by and obeys a concise mathematical equation, which would be required for it to be a law. What I said was that population genetics showed in the 1930's that natural selection combined with Mendelian inheritance over millions of years was sufficient to account for the variety of species in nature. Before then, most scientists did not believe that natural selection could act fast enough to account for such variety, which was why orthogenesis hung on so long. Fisher's interpretation became popular because it fit the facts better, not because Fisher persuaded people to change their values. 
#456
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
You're inferring a negative. 
Which negative have I inferred?

I am not asserting anything more than simple fact.
Which fact have you stated.

You seem to be making a critical error here making an unwarranted prediction that "a solution" will at some point be "discovered" and furthermore that it is even necessarily "discoverable".
"Seem," once again, is not an argument. And where did I make a "prediction"? Considering a possibility is not the same as making a prediction. It's epistemological protocol to consider possibility, which leads us to this ironic statement of yours:


Science renders provisional conclusions with available data.  When new data is available those conclusions will be refined, but even those newer conclusions are considered provisional, pending additional data.

"You 'seem' to be making a critical error here making an unwarranted prediction that ['new data'] will at some be 'discovered' and furthermore that it is even necessarily 'discoverable'."

Do you see the absurdity in repeatedly arguing non sequitur?

The theory of evolution is based on data and logic.
The theory of evolution is based on an assumption/interpretation of data and logic.

If you look at a dictionary, "rational" is a synonym of "logical".
Why are we for umpteenth time arguing over semantics? Rational is "of reason" and logical is "of logic."

Please (EITHER) demonstrate how creationism is logical (OR) demonstrate how the theory of evolution is NOT logical (perhaps by pointing out a counter-factual or specific logical error).
All arguments are logical. Whether they are sound or fallacious is another matter (Note that when I criticized your argument, I did not characterize it as "illogical," but rather "fallacious.") And once again, you're arguing non sequitur. I did not state creationism was "logical," and/or that evolution was "not logical." Your semantic gymnastics is unwarranted.

Please provide an example from "the bible" that is not nakedly assertortic.
"Assertortic" informs the form of a proposition. Once again, explanatory "power" is contingent on the scope of ones standards. But if you demand an example(s), biblical diets would be one.


It's call "the marketplace of ideas".
All the more reason it's subjective, no?

Are you suggesting that some facts are "objective"?
Where are you getting that?



#457
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Stronn
No it doesn't. If you think it does, you need to do better than a bald assertion.
"Bald assertion"? We are discussing the nature of knowledge, and therefore what proof, other than reason, could I possibly provide which would make my "assertion" less "bald"?


Repetition is sometimes unavoidable when debating a repetitious person.
Duly noted.

I never made the argument that the theory of evolution came about due to evidence because it is a branch of science. That would be a fallacy of division. What I said was the theory of evolution came about due to evidence just like other branches of science. Then I listed evidence.
You listed no evidence. You gave only description. And your fallacy of division was not committed when you stated that the theory of evolution came about due to evidence because it is a branch of science, a claim I never claimed you made (not to mention it doesn't make much sense.) Your fallacy of division was committed when you stated:

My point was that evolutionary theory works just like any other branch of science. Theories do not ultimately change because people's ideologies change. Theories change to fit current evidence.
You were using a supposed truth of a whole (Science) to inform a supposed truth about its part (evolution.) Your claim has nothing to do with the development of evolutionary theory individually, but more so your generalizations of science. That is textbook fallacy of division. (And I should've mention this before: no one claimed that the theory changed. Evolution is the theory. I claimed that its ideology changed (e.g. orthogenesis to natural selection.))

This fossil record is evidence, it is not a description. Mendelian inheritance is evidence, it is not a description.
The fossil record is evidence only unto itself (not to mention, its riddled with loss of information); and mendelian inheritance is evidence only unto itself. Your reference to them without contextualizing their significance in evolutionary theory (and no, not that sophistry "things change over time") renders your mention as description.

Oh please. I never implied that evolution can be described by and obeys a concise mathematical equation, which would be required for it to be a law. What I said was that population genetics showed in the 1930's that natural selection combined with Mendelian inheritance over millions of years was sufficient to account for the variety of species in nature.
See, the great thing about arguing on forums is the typed record. Your words can be quoted verbatim:

Up to the 1930's, the biggest weakness for natural selection was the lack of a mechanism for inheritance. It was only once population geneticists demonstrated mathematically that the variety in evolution could be accounted for with Mendelian inheritance that natural selection became the overwhelming consensus.
Or are you going to retroactively suggest that you meant "variety of species in nature"?


Fisher's interpretation became popular because it fit the facts better
No it did not. That is your interpretation and assumption. If it fit the facts better then a shift in "consensus" would be trivial.

not because Fisher persuaded people to change their values. 
Well, Fisher may have or may have not persuaded others, but I did not claim that he persuaded others to change their values. I said he "popularized" natural selection through modern synthesis, spurring the ideological shift (in consensus) from orthogenesis to natural selection.
#458
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Athias
My point was made.
#459
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@disgusted
As far as I'm concerned your one-lined commentary is irrelevant. I'm going to ignore you, now.
#460
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Athias
Of course but you lack the mental faculties necessary to understand my one liners it requires a capacity for deeper thought.
#461
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,076
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
I definitely haven't dismissed anything out right.
I just don't do that.
I'm fully aware that I might be correct or that I might not be correct.
I'm also fully prepared to take on board other peoples data offerings and alter my point of view if necessary.

I cannot prove that a God doesn't exist. So therefore I would never dismiss the God theory/hypothesis out of hand.
As you cannot prove the existence of a God. Would you be prepared to accept that you are just as likely to be incorrect as you are to be correct?
If not; then I would suggest that it is you who is the obstinate one.
#462
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Science renders provisional conclusions with available data.  When new data is available those conclusions will be refined, but even those newer conclusions are considered provisional, pending additional data.
"You 'seem' to be making a critical error here making an unwarranted prediction that ['new data'] will at some be 'discovered' and furthermore that it is even necessarily 'discoverable'." 
Would you feel better about, "Science renders provisional conclusions with available data.  When new data is available those conclusions have the option to be refined, but even those newer conclusions are considered provisional, pending additional data."

"New data" is inevitable.  Refinement is optional.
#463
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
The theory of evolution is based on data and logic.
The theory of evolution is based on an assumption/interpretation of data and logic. 
The theory of evolution is based on a hypothesis that is supported by and verified by falsifiable data and logic.

Some people make unscientific assumptions and draw unscientific conclusions and interpretations "based on" the theory of evolution, but those do not invalidate the theory itself.
#464
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
If you look at a dictionary, "rational" is a synonym of "logical".
Why are we for umpteenth time arguing over semantics? Rational is "of reason" and logical is "of logic." 
rational
  • adj.
    Having or exercising the ability to reason. synonym: logical. [LINK]
#465
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Please (EITHER) demonstrate how creationism is logical (OR) demonstrate how the theory of evolution is NOT logical (perhaps by pointing out a counter-factual or specific logical error).
All arguments are logical. Whether they are sound or fallacious is another matter (Note that when I criticized your argument, I did not characterize it as "illogical," but rather "fallacious.") And once again, you're arguing non sequitur. I did not state creationism was "logical," and/or that evolution was "not logical." Your semantic gymnastics is unwarranted.
Would you perhaps feel better about, "Please (EITHER) demonstrate how creationism is logically sound (OR) demonstrate how the theory of evolution is NOT logically sound (perhaps by pointing out a counter-factual or specific logical error)."
#466
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Please provide an example from "the bible" that is not nakedly assertortic.
"Assertortic" informs the form of a proposition. Once again, explanatory "power" is contingent on the scope of ones standards. But if you demand an example(s), biblical diets would be one. 
Biblical diets are purely dogmatic rules with zero explanation.

assertoric

  • Asserting; assertory; assertive: as, an assertoric judgment. See assertory. [LINK]
#467
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
It's call "the marketplace of ideas".
All the more reason it's subjective, no? 

Are you suggesting that some facts are "objective"?
Where are you getting that? 
You seem to be disparaging "subjective" but you get defensive when I ask you about the obvious alternative (objectivity).

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT SOME FACTS ARE "OBJECTIVE"?
#468
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Well, Fisher may have or may have not persuaded others, but I did not claim that he persuaded others to change their values. I said he "popularized" natural selection through modern synthesis, spurring the ideological shift (in consensus) from orthogenesis to natural selection.
I've never seen such skillful hair-splitting.

Popularized =/= Persuaded

WTF?
#469
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
The Ultimate Reality exists.

Can you count how many things you can be 100% certain of? There truly aren't many, if any, but there is one thing that there is no room for doubt about. That God exists. I am more sure of this than anything. How can I be? I know The One True God. You do not know The One True God, so you have doubts.

#470
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
If they say it doesn't,   they need a ultimate Reality check. 

#471
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
The bigfootlochnessspacealien exists.

Can you count how many things you can be 100% certain of? There truly aren't many, if any, but there is one thing that there is no room for doubt about. That bigfootlochnessspacealien exists. I am more sure of this than anything. How can I be? I know The One True bigfootlochnessspacealien. You do not know The One True bigfootlochnessspacealien, so you have doubts.
#472
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
Once the Ultimate reality sinks in,  they will know Mow Mow. 
They Will know..  

#473
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL

Next thing ya know Gods will be flying around on horses and crap.    

#474
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Words are not arbitrary placeholders.


This childish non-argument is beneath you.


#475
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
"Science renders provisional conclusions with available data.  When new data is available those conclusions have the option to be refined, but even those newer conclusions are considered provisional, pending additional data."
So you're not going to address the absurdity of your non sequitur? Or the negative you claimed I inferred? Or your reference of stating a simple fact? That's fine.


The theory of evolution is based on a hypothesis that is supported by and verified by falsifiable data and logic.
In other words, it's an assumption/interpretation despite it's being qualified as "educated."

Some people make unscientific assumptions and draw unscientific conclusions and interpretations "based on" the theory of evolution, but those do not invalidate the theory itself.
Non sequitur; I never stated once that the theory was invalid.

"Please (EITHER) demonstrate how creationism is logically sound (OR) demonstrate how the theory of evolution is NOT logically sound (perhaps by pointing out a counter-factual or specific logical error)."
Non sequitur.

You seem to be disparaging "subjective"
Seem is your impression based on your own projection. I'm not responsible for your impressions.


you get defensive when I ask you about the obvious alternative (objectivity).
How did I get "defensive" about something you didn't ask? You asked about objectivity as an "obvious" alternative to provisional, not subjectivity.

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT SOME FACTS ARE "OBJECTIVE"?
Once again, where are you getting that?




#476
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
So you're not going to address the absurdity of your non sequitur? Or the negative you claimed I inferred? Or your reference of stating a simple fact? That's fine.
You're going to have to provide more details if you want answers to those peripheral tangents.

More to the point,

Would you feel better about, "Science renders provisional conclusions with available data.  When new data is available those conclusions have the option to be refined, but even those newer conclusions are considered provisional, pending additional data."

This one's easy, it's just a "yes" or "no".
#477
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
The theory of evolution is based on a hypothesis that is supported by and verified by falsifiable data and logic.
In other words, it's an assumption/interpretation despite it's being qualified as "educated."
In other words, you can debunk it with a counter-factual.  Please present one.
#478
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Some people make unscientific assumptions and draw unscientific conclusions and interpretations "based on" the theory of evolution, but those do not invalidate the theory itself.
Non sequitur; I never stated once that the theory was invalid. 
I believe you suggested it had equal validity to holy scripture.

Please answer with a "yes" or a "no".
#479
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
"Please (EITHER) demonstrate how creationism is logically sound (OR) demonstrate how the theory of evolution is NOT logically sound (perhaps by pointing out a counter-factual or specific logical error)."
Non sequitur.
Do you believe that creationism and the theory of evolution are of equal validity?

Please answer with a "yes" or a "no".
#480
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
You seem to be disparaging "subjective" 
Seem is your impression based on your own projection. I'm not responsible for your impressions.
Are you kidding me?

You have repeatedly made comments about how scientific consensus is subjective.

Are you suggesting that there is some "objective" alternative?

Are you suggesting that "subjectivity" invalidates scientific theories?

Are you suggesting anything at all?