Darwin's Head-scratcher

dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Darwin's Head-scratcher

 I need help with this one, people.

I'm a person of letters, not science and my "Fundie Father" sent me this to explain why "we," the heathen brethren, are oh so wrong. Any intelligent retorts to de-bunk this author would be greatly appreciated!!!

Thanks in advance! 

 http://www.worldmag.com/2013/06/darwin_s_head_scratcher#.Ub3Mr2TEVG8.email

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Two problems:

Basic points:

- He complains that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life. Of course it doesn't. That's the purview of abiogenesis. This would be like complaining that evolution doesn't explain gravity or covalent bonds.

- Pretty much the rest of the argument is a big God of the Gaps argument. He picks parts of evolution where we don't have a clear answer, and assumes that if we can't answer the question now, that the answer must be an intelligent creator. I honestly don't know how he could jump from A to C like that, because:

1) There is still a lot of evidence that evolution has happened and is happening. Just because it can't answer every question doesn't mean that all of the other evidence is invalidated. If you don't know the answer to a single question on a 100 question test, you don't get a zero and have your knowledge of the subject invalidated; you get a 99 and all it means is you didn't know the answer to that one question.

2) There is no compelling evidence for an intelligent creator, so why any question left unanswered by evolution suddenly precludes intelligent design is... peculiar, to say the least.

3) Take a look at history. How may times have we thought that something was governed by something supernatural only later to find out its causes are completely natural? We simply didn't have the information at that time. Now, how many times have we thought we understood a naturalistic cause of something only later to prove that it's actually supernatural? Exactly. That is why God of the Gaps is a stupid way to approach things.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Good Dad

That's great that you're dad is a Christian. Of course I'm assuming that he's a Christian. Your father is using poor reasoning however and very poor arguments.

Intelligent Design along with Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God (which are virtually one and the same) is like catching a cab to the airport with 10 pieces of luggage. The cab driver drops you off a mile away from the airport.

It takes off but dosen't get you to your destination.

Logically we understand God not through inductive particulars, but God is self evident to us. Since He is the Infinite Reference Point, All things are because of Him. And since we are distorted but nevertheless the image of God,  the Law of God is on our hearts (Romans 2:15).

With this, God is axiomaticallly known. The evide nce a demonstration of the known not a substantiation. His doctrines implications of the Axiom of God's Being.

Starting deductively with The ultimate universal gives merit to lesser universals (e.g. all men die) and finally to the particlars such as you and I which involves are personality as well.

Your dad evidently means well, but is using horribly retarded arguments. And while I would argue that you do indeed know what I say, for some reason, either do to your immoral sin, sniffing the the weed, sex, or by some other means, you allow your weakness of being a slave to your flesh then to think rationally about the subject.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This is very simple. "Meyer

This is very simple.

"Meyer graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge."

In other words he is not remotely qualified to discuss evolution or biology, let alone criticise the science of those subjects. The mere mention of information in regarding DNA demonstrates his ignorance of the subject.
Ask your dad if he'd take health advice from his mechanic over his doctor, because that's exactly what he's doing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
In fact, evolution is

In fact, evolution is largely driven by copying errors and loss of information. There isn't a single example of evolution creating new information. When someone uses such an argument as this, it is nothing more than a demonstration of ignorance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
All are welcome to join in on our little Minstrel Show

RE :: Hon, you are welcome to join in on this forum's little Minstrel Show

dassercha wrote:

 I need help with this one, people.

I'm a person of letters, not science and my "Fundie Father" sent me this

Thanks in advance! 

 http://www.worldmag.com/2013/06/darwin_s_head_scratcher#.Ub3Mr2TEVG8.email

 Check out a THREAD  -- Refuting an Incredulity Argument | The Rational Response Squad  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32880
{Beyond Saving wrote}

Beyond Saving wrote:

(Refuting an Incredulity Argument | The Rational Response Squad  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32880

 

daley wrote:

(1) The universe had a beginning

And beginning = god? 

 

daley wrote:

(2) Life only comes from life - this is a scientific fact that is observable and testable.

(3) Life has never been proven to come from non-living matter. No one has ever observed the spontaneous generation of life drom non-living matter in nature, nor has any laboratory experiment replicated it. It is just as unscientific to say that life naturally arose from dead matter as to say men naturally rise from the dead.

And proven false. Scientists have created artificial life. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5409946/scientists_create_artificial_life_a.html it is a relatively new field in science but based on our understanding it is possible to create life with nothing but chemicals and it is not inconceivable that hundreds of years from now humans will be able to create complex life from chemicals.

 (Addendum -- Scientists have had some problems, in the last half decade, in setting the proper or correct parameters for simulating the actual conditions in the extremes in temperatures, found on the early Earth.)

  . . . . .

 ..That is kind of like saying that any being that lives underwater is God since we can't live underwater. Bow down before the holy Billy Bass. IF there is a being that lives outside and before the universe it is simply a new natural being worth studying. To assume that we know everything that is natural is absurd and assuming that anything we do not understand today is supernatural is equally absurd. Just because there might be some living organism we don't understand does not imply a god in any traditional sense of the word. Especially an all knowing, all powerful creator. 

 

daley wrote:

Now, I'd like to see who will prove any of the premises upon which this conclusion is drawn to be wrong.

  Done.  Your (daley's) premises are false and even if they were true your conclusion does not follow.

{Dana wrote}

Dana wrote:
I don't have the time right now, but I am looking forward to properly reading the whole of this article, right now I am only barely able to brief(ly) skim-through your link  ...  Oh, Another link is the THREAD http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/27422. Hope that helps you out.

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Everyone -

except Jean, of course - has given you some very good discussion. I always recommend Talk Origins for in depth discussions of the various creationist nonsensical claims. Start here, with the index. You can't go wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
 Thank you everyone for

 Thank you everyone for your responses I appreciate it greatly!!!