<p>
</p>
<p>There are two definitions of empirical:</p>
<p>1: Pertaining to or based on experience.</p>
<p>2: Verifiable by means of scientific experimentation.</p>
<p>My beliefs are the first, and neither they nor evolution are the second.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The basic point: obviously, analogies have elements that aren’t in common or in perfect union with each other and can seem weird on some level. But the basic message of the second analogy was that gaps in the fossil record don’t invalidate evolution any more than what seems to be a violation of gravity. Its made to show flawed thinking (common creationist argument that holes in the fossil record proving that god did it) which is just as stupid as saying that there is a hole in the theory of gravity because planes can fly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read a holocaust deniers argument and youll see the same forms of creationist-like fallacy asinine arguments with NO proof or proof that they think is true but really isnt.</p>
<p>And are you trying to say that there is no such thing as an invalid argument (what we’re really talking about here are arguments not opinions)? If I think that the atom doesnt exist, do I really have a valid opinion? (Thats another analogy but dont fly off on a useless that doesnt work! spiel)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because I wanted to draw the parallel to a another common foolish group of people who deny something so unquestionably true and want their theory to be taught with equal time in the classroom. Don’t question the parallel because its there and if there’s similarity there’s room for a perfectly valid analogy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t use the appeal to the majority or appeal to what most people think is true fallacy. And what do you mean by numerous? 3? And dont repsond with No, theres 4 because that’ll just miss the boat. The people who miss the point just spin it out of context and launch the straw man argument that genocide, Hitler and whatever else dont have anything to do with evolution. Thats not what I said. Im talking about people who deny each and how they want it taught in the classroom when they are both wrong and deluded. I never brought up Holocaust the occurrence versus evolution the occurrence which is what you all just tirelessly focus on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then tell me how it isnt similar how both holocaust and evolution deniers baselessly shrug off the evidence that proves them wrong and how they both want to teach the controversy in the class room and give equal time to each theory or even reject the occurrences completely. Do you dispute that similarity? If you dont, then it holds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No if you understood the context we wouldnt be having this pointless argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Never seen it before.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Holocaust doubters use the same circular arguments and wide range of fallacies to support their arguments just as creationists mindless garbage arguments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am NOT talking about Holocaust THE EVENT for Christ’s sake… NOT the 1930s/1940s/Hitler/Nazis event. I am talking about modern dismissal which is COMPLETELY parallel to dismissal of evolution. Both vocal groups that try to disprove massively supported occurrences and nudge their way into teaching it in the classroom and who can often get away with it by seeming intelligent and informed. Please tell me you can at least see the connection.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good. Your taunting and dead horse beating of a basic point wont be missed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See what I wrote above. It stands. I’ll state it again. Im talking about the denial aspect and its entrance into the classroom. Both deny irrefutable truths and run their mouth with false and baseless arguments. Notice that this applies to both. So don’t smugly say that you’re right when you aren’t. Its obviously right to say that genocide isnt evolution but thats not what I said and putting up that argument is just distortion of what I wrote. I know what I said, so it would be to your benefit to drop the point because you arent saying anything that takes anything away from my message that creationism is an uneducated illogical dogma.</p>
<p>MM, you are so wrong about evolution not being supported by experimentation.</p>
<p>[Experimental</a> evolution](<a href=“Experimental evolution - Wikipedia”>Experimental evolution - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>^ Those are all excellent examples of how natural selection can cause traits which existed in a genome to become universal or extinct. None of them demonstrate the production of new traits as would be required for a change between, say, a fish and an amphibian.</p>
<p>No variation has thus far been demonstrated that would, given time, produce the large-scale changes needed for Evolution. You can claim that it is possible for features such as the spider’s fighting instinct or the woodpecker’s padded skull and retractible tongue, and I cannot disprove that claim, as you can claim it takes so long to happen that it can’t be observed. But that places your theory in the same realm as mine: a possible explanation that cannot be proven and so must be accepted or rejected by faith and by what appears reasonable given the world we see.</p>
<p>If one has bred fruit flies for example, until they are no longer
capable or willing to reproduce, theyve undergone speciation - new genetics, new species, etc.</p>
<p>Per the article, the chihuaha and great dane were created by artificial selection. When you breed animals, you are getting new genetic material not what already existed. (Sexual reproduction makes variation - genetics that didn’t already exist). Natural selection takes
care of the rest along with mutation, transposons and other
mechanisms.</p>
<p>Evolution is evidenced based not faith so don’t say that it is. This is for you to read about the fish amphibian dismissal:</p>
<p>[Fish</a> to Amphibian Transition](<a href=“http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/fish-amphibian-transition.htm]Fish”>http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/fish-amphibian-transition.htm)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You said opinion, not argument. What do you mean by “exist?” What if I choose to see the designation of atom as an arbitrary human conceptual system rather than an intrinsic part of reality? Maybe I prefer to see everything in terms of electrons and nuclei.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is essentially an ad hominem fallacy. Your entire analogy is basically an ad hominem, because you are trying to discredit evolution-doubters/creationists by directly comparing them to Holocaust deniers in a broad and ambiguous sense. Oh, “they both make the same kind of illogical and fallacious arguments.” What kind of logic is involved in that statement?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Analogies are devices of communication. If your communication fails, it is your error. No one so far, other than yourself, has asserted the wonderful accuracy of your analogy.</p>
<p>
Incorrect.</p>
<p>
This is also an ad hominem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>New species (our arbitrary division), same genetics. Whereas the original population had traits A, B, C, D, E, F, and G (for a simple example), you now have two populations, one of which has, say A, D, E and G while the other has A, B, C and F. If the difference is enough that they don’t reporduce, we call it a new species.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what Darwin thought, but Mendel has shown that wrong. If the parents are Bb and Bb for a trait, the child will be either BB, Bb, or bb, not Cc.</p>
<p>Regarding the atom, that didn’t answer the question. An atom is a collection of both nuclei and electrons which obviously exist together except for particular instances. It’s like saying that life doesn’t exist but bags of cells and tissues do.</p>
<p>I am attacking the fact that both evolution deniers and holocaust deniers have deluded and incorrect beliefs which I’ve stated repeatedly. That’s not ad hominem to say that.</p>
<p>Are you disputing the fact that evolution deniers and holocaust deniers make illogical and fallacious arguments? Or are you simply sticking up for them because its there
opinion?</p>
<p>I didn’t make the analogy up - it isn’t new. In fact I’ve read it in more than one book and after the process of publishing and reviewing no one that I know of had a bone to pick over it. In fact its a well stated and valid point. So don’t act as I’m alone on this matter.
And you are using the “appeal to majority” fallacy once again to make an argument and the lack of affirmative response doesn’t mean that everyone disagrees or that it automatically makes it false.</p>
<p>So you don’t think holocaust deniers and evolution deniers are wrong? Which group isn’t? They’re both wrong because the evidence against them is insurmountable.</p>
<p>With the final charge of your post, where in the phrase “both run their mouth with false and baseless arguments” do you happen to find a personal attack?</p>
<p>Mendelian genetics doesn’t mean that new genetic material doesn’t exist. Are you maintaining that the genome can’t change? That’s absurdly wrong.</p>
<p>[Evolution</a> and Development Group Genome Evolution](<a href=“http://www.molgen.mpg.de/~amphioxus/]Evolution”>http://www.molgen.mpg.de/~amphioxus/)</p>
<p>This isn’t really in the debate but I got a question for you religion buffs. The bible, as I was told, speaks against marking the body, therefore making tattoos illegal in the world of Christianity right? Then why do all these people have tattoos of religious symbols? Why get a tattoo of a cross to show your appreciation and love for your faith when your religion says not to mark your body?</p>
<p>
I think an opinion can be misinformed but to say it is completely “wrong” or “invalid”…well, to whom?</p>
<p>
Yes.</p>
<p>
Yes, it is. Argumentum ad hominem is where you make an “argument” that is intended to discredit a person or group of person without actually addressing all of their arguments specifically. Your “analogy” was an attack against a group of people/a way of thinking rather than the arguments they make.</p>
<p>
Well, you have a lot of work to do to prove that your analogy is “true”. Saying it is a “bad analogy” is not the same as saying that it is necesarily logically false.</p>
<p>
Argumentum ad populum/appeal to authority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You asserted that “Both deny irrefutable truths.” Evolution is a scientific theory. How many times do I have to tell you people, there is no such thing as an “irrefutable truth” in scientific theory. Hence the nomenclature, “theory.” Saying that something is “irrefutable” is contrary to the very methodology of science.</p>
<p>
Yes, you are attacking their character directly without specifiying which arguments are fallacious/baseless and why. Your statement actually infers that absolutely everything that Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers say is false, regardless of whether it has to do with specific aspects of the Holocaust or Evolution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a slothful statement that fails to acknowledge some basic facts. Simply because one aspect is similar between the two groups you tried - and failed - to compare doesn’t make you correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You see, you’re going down an entirely different road here - I didn’t discuss this at all when correctly critiquing your analogy. Furthermore, I don’t know the last time a Holocaust denial group got away with introducing their material to be taught in classrooms. Lastly, Holocaust denial is a form of hate speech. I think you’re quick enough to catch what I’m driving at here, but just in case, I’ll write it out for you: creationism is not hate speech.</p>
<p>A quick tip: Don’t try to misconstrue that statement, either. It won’t work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Here’s what you originally wrote (after being corrected by paying3tuitions for “language”):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065223138-post1055.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065223138-post1055.html</a>)</p>
<p>Honestly, stop defending it. This is your analogy, and it is weak. End of story. All the arguments you have been using to defend your choice of comparison don’t really have much to do with your original statement. Remember, my initial response to your post was this:</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065223471-post1058.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065223471-post1058.html</a></p>
<p>Just wanted to be clear.</p>
<p>I’m not going to bother responding to the rest of your post, as it is unbelievably jejune and unnecessarily hostile for a discussion of this nature and does not merit a cogent response.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not aware of any place in the Bible which says this. I think that point of view comes from a verse that states “the body is the temple of the soul” or something like that. Some people make the argument that if you wouldn’t deface a temple you shouldn’t deface your body. I very much disagree with these people. Although getting a tattoo may be unwise for some people, I am quite positive that there is nothing morally wrong with it.</p>
<p>EDIT: Actually, there may be a verse in the Old Testament forbidding the Israelites from marking their bodies. However, Christians today are not bound by those laws, as clearly stated in the New Testament, which states “We are under a new covenant” and “everything is permissable, but not everything is beneficial” in the context of such things as circumcision and eating of food bought from pagan temples.</p>
<p>Adenine, the problem with comparing my beliefs with those of a Holocaust denier is that the Holocaust is a historical event which was witnessed by many, many humans, some of whom are still alive today, and documented by many first hand accounts, photographs, etc.</p>
<p>Evolution, on the other hand, is a theory about events that supposedly happened long before humans were able to observe them, which has many problems and things that seem to contradict it, and which requires many assumptions to make the evidence support it.</p>
<p>It may be that future research will resolve the problems and explain the contradictions, but as of right now it is far from “irrefutable truth”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Taking a page from HarveyLewis’s book:</p>
<p>Fiction:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fact:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am maintaining that we have little or no evidence that the genome can change in an upwards direction, for example producing limbs when none existed before.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excellent. And even with the ones listed, as you state, further ones would need to be made.</p>
<p>So, rephrasing your original statement,</p>
<p>“I don’t like institutional religion because it does not fit with my arbitrary beliefs.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would say that most definitions I have seen include “observable” in this definition. It’s not just what people “feel” or “think” inside; it is what they have experienced at a sensory level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Experimentation or observation, of course. And evolution, although I disagree with some theories, is definitely scientifically verifiable. We can observe it now (or the lack of it).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This, but also in many cases:</p>
<p>“I don’t like institutional religion because it requires contradicting arbitrary beliefs.”</p>
<p>For example, the belief that the Clergy are divinely inspired and always right, and that they represent the same faith taught by Jesus, yet also the belief that they do such things as torture those who disagree with them or use their power for personal gain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quoting The Matrix again:</p>
<p>“What is real? How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you can hear, what you can smell, taste and feel, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.”</p>
<p>But yes, experience is things you experience, not things you imagine. The observation of happy people who are Christians is experience that may support the idea that Christianity makes people happier. Imagining a sequence of events by which a Christian would be made happy is not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When we try that, we don’t observe it. Yet it is still supposed to be true.</p>
<p>
It happens only in tiny steps. A mutation may create a stub, and over thousands of generations it might become a limb… Mutations happen all the time. Here, for example:
[Discovery</a> News: Mythical Unicorn Found in Deer - Bing Videos](<a href=“http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/mythical-unicorn-found-in-deer/py32t8y?from=en-us_msnhp>1=42007]Discovery”>http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/mythical-unicorn-found-in-deer/py32t8y?from=en-us_msnhp>1=42007)</p>
<p>you can see that oddities occur all of the time.
I highly doubt that horn could have appeared without mutation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is clear that you are talking about Catholicism, so I will respond accordingly.</p>
<p>The clergy are not “always right,” nor are they “divinely inspired” in the manner you suggest. </p>
<p>If that is your sole objection, then your opposition to institutional religion is based on a total falsehood. I don’t really think that’s the case.</p>
<p>Would you mind clarifying? Because right now, you are suggesting “Catholicism teaches X, and X is contradictory to Y.” In fact, Catholicism teaches Z which is consistent with Y. I’m sure you can see the problem here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t comment on the ontological reality of Christianity at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it is possible that it can be observed. Say that we keep records of animals now and revisit them in five hundred years. Obviously, those changes, if there are any at all, are observable.</p>