<p>^This is a result of you changing as a believer. The absolutism of religious has not been altered, by definition. Regardless of the religion, if the views of the absolute authority alter, then this is a change in the reality the religion represents. </p>
<p>A young boy might not understand Thermodynamics. As he matures, he learns the concepts and embraces them. Thermodynamics has not undergone a change; the boy changed.</p>
<p>The data that accumulates does not affect the religion. It may affect how you choose to follow the religion, but this is your scientific faith overpowering religious faith.</p>
<p>That isn’t a fallacy and definitely doesn’t include ad hominem. If I said to someone that you’ve never never understood logic your entire life so your argument must be wrong THAT would be ad hominem. Even if speech is vulgar it isn’t necessarily ad hominem. Stating that someone’s arguments are fallacious isnt ad hominem or any type of fallacy at all. It isn’t fallacy to say that someone misrepresents science and contradicts its findings, which is true in MM’s case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for understanding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did read the article. I have more for you look at down below.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>what inquiries? You’re just making inaccurate remarks by accusing me of using an analogy in ways that I wasn’t. You’re not making any decent points about a totally moot point so just give up.</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>So evolutionary biologists have no right to be offended by people (40-some-odd percent of the US) who claim that evolution is false? Or creationists that like to suck the energy out of their efforts to do research and educators ability to teach reality just to suck up to their holy book? some say that believing creation is just looking at the evidence but those that really looked at the evidence wouldnt continually spew garbage all over evolution.</p>
<p>What about holocaust historians? Dont they have the same right to be ticked about holocaust deniers as evolutionary biologists have the right to be against militant creationists? Do you deny that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a strawman argument. They both deny what is factually right. Do they both use the same rhetoric to sound as if they’re intelligent when they’re really just manipulating facts and providing arguments that dont accord with historical/scientific truth? Yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All I can do is read this in disbelief… I honestly cant believe that you think holocaust deniers don’t want to be heard in education or that holocaust denial isn’t taught or that it never happens.</p>
<p>Many schools don’t bother teaching it at all to avoid offending Muslims (just as many school don’t bother teaching evolution to avoid offending creationists and other kids from beliefs that brainwash them into believing its false):</p>
<p>Quote from the article… There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.</p>
<p>The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history ‘as a vehicle for promoting political correctness’.</p>
<p>The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into ‘emotive and controversial’ history teaching in primary and secondary schools.</p>
<p>It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class."</p>
<p>I also think that its really stupid to be pointlessly offended by an objective truth. What the hell kind of a belief system refuses to face up to things that actually happened?! Don’t you think that this is at least somewhat wrong for religion to do this to people?? By the looks of this thread, apparently some people think thats ok this lets all believe what we want to believe and defend it garbage. Its not ok. Actually it just really ****es me off. Don’t you think holocaust denial is an exception to this believe whatever you want BS? MM claims that his evolution bashing is just looking at the evidence and going by what seems right its just his own bias. He thinks upward evolution can’t happen despite all the evidence proving that crap-belief wrong.</p>
<p>And I hope I dont need to go find sources the prove that creationists want their beliefs taught in classrooms… (SCIENCE classrooms no less)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read above. Both will be offended and many - rightfully - will be infuriated, just as historians of the occurrence have the right to be offended that their work is total bunk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I havent shifted anything. I replied to your dead horse beating above so dont act like I’m not responding to it.</p>
<p>And how much more ironic could you possibly make this? Are you blind to the fact that what you started here is just a big tangent (that is way off the track from my main point that wont go anywhere)?</p>
<p>But its fair to accuse you of the red herring since you have not even bothered to respond to my main point that evolution deniers refuse to look at the evidence that proves them wrong in an objective way.</p>
<p>If you think creationists have any say-so in telling scientists what is science and what isn’t and what in science is correct and what isn’t correct, let me know.</p>
<p>You can’t just say “X misrepresents science and contradicts its findings, so X is wrong,” you need to address exactly how he does those things. You are trying to undermine X rather than his argument.</p>
<p>Being offended by something…well that’s a different issue. You can’t say "Someone is only allowed to be offended by beliefs that contradict ‘objective reality’, and they are not allowed to be offended by beliefs that contradict their own “subjective realities’”
Being offended is a personal and an emotional issue, and so lies outside of logic, reason, rationality, whatever you want to call it.</p>
<p>People ought to question science if they wish or if they don’t understand something, but whether they are taken seriously by the scientific community is another matter.</p>
<p>You seem to be operating under a different definition of religion than me. Your “Religion” seems to mean “a system which states that science is unneccesary because it already has all the answers as stated by a man in the sky”.</p>
<p>My definition of religion is “beliefs about ‘why’ and ‘should’, as opposed to ‘is’, ‘was’ and ‘will be’, which are the domain of science.”</p>
<p>? Do you think your POV reflects the POV of the scientific community at large? The scientific community contains many critical people. Theories aren’t objective truths and scientists are always looking for creative experiments that can tear down theories that they believe are incomplete or limiting cases of a broader theory.</p>
<p>To trust data is one thing–even this can be disputed depending on how the data is collected. To trust the models that try to make large scale assumptions using this data is another thing. A properly constructed experiment can only show that a theory holds in the context of the experiment.</p>
<p>Very few scientists believe Creationism can describe the origin or creation of species. Equally few believe your one-dimensional absolutism. Science and its principles are far more malleable than you make them seem. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, evolutionary biologists may be equally upset over the dismissal of Evolution as Holocaust historians are over the dismissal of the Holocaust in the sense that both are watching their work being undermined. But there are many other parties affected by the Holocaust–historians are hardly the most important ones. </p>
<p>To deny the Holocaust is to deny physical evidence–physical evidence that, standing alone, proves the Holocaust. It is not evidence that is being used to validate a larger theory. </p>
<p>Thus, denying the Holocaust implies that the physical evidence was created with some mass conspiracy in mind. Israel is largely a byproduct of the Holocaust and is a home to Ashkenazis who had no place for millennia. The natural implication of denying the Holocaust is to assume that the fabricated story was used as a stepping stone to give Israelis a homeland they don’t deserve. Not to mention that you’re ignoring the pains of millions who were completely ruined. All 4 of my grandparents were Holocaust survivors, and the aftereffects are not a pretty sight. Blowing this off as a conspiracty is a personal attack on the families where an entire family tree was simply destroyed.</p>
<p>Suppose instead that a “Theory of the Holocaust” predicted similar holocausts to arise every 57.5 years due to cultural forces. If there were many prior examples in history to validate this claim, then denying its validity is like questioning Evolution.</p>
<p>Notice that the latter denial is not inappropriate. Past history does not guarantee or predict future history. Examples of the evolution of specific inheritable traits in populations of small organisms does not guarantee that Evolution occurs in all organisms and can thus explain the origin of species.</p>
<p>I find it quite ironic that you are the one saying that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I shan’t go around determining who has the “right” to do something, but chances are that their reaction would not be as extreme as someone affected by a genocide.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, your analogy dealt with someone affected by genocide, not a holocaust historian. Again, you’re shifting your position to one that’s easier to defend. Because I agree with justtotalk’s response, I’ll simply quote it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Their movement is not comparable to that of creationists. Stop pushing it, please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you really? Because you’ve managed to get quite ticked off by the truth that your analogy was - and still is - weak.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That still does not justify your original statement, which was this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think we can both agree that this doesn’t play out in reality, which is why I fairly criticized your statement, which you have been unable to substantiate despite posting a multitude of links.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, this does not show that an agenda is being actively taught in classes, as you erroneously postulated. Not teaching the Holocaust is not the same as teaching Holocaust denial.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that’s not your main point. Your analogy (once more, with feeling!) was this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re not even really discussing Holocaust denial - that was a point you introduced. Genocide victim’s reaction to denial =/= evolutionary biologist’s reaction. That was my point.</p>
<p>1) You do not believe that faith in religion is different than faith in science.</p>
<p>1.a) You presumably accept that faith in science is a short term faith? The scientific faith will ultimately be physically validated or invalidated. The time frame is irrelevant.</p>
<p>1.a.i)Thus, you don’t accept that religious faith is a blind faith that you follow knowing that the faith is permanently blind for you and all future followers. </p>
<p>1.a.j)In other words, you don’t accept the absolute authority of ANY entity. Neither an institution like the Church nor God. Otherwise, the reality as dictated by the authority would forever hold (regardless if its “reality” changes with time) and it would be a different kind of faith than a faith in science. </p>
<p>2) At the same time, you don’t accept Evolution, which is generally accepted in the scientific community as the best theory available to describe the diversity of life. </p>
<hr>
<p>It sounds like you reject conventional religious and conventional scientific theories of our origins.</p>
<p>So, my question is this: what do you believe today? It is perfectly fine to believe that theories are dynamic and imperfect as they stand today. But what holds you up until those theories are improved–what is there to improve?</p>
<h2>And how are your beliefs not different from scientific faith if they are not grounded in generally accepted science–the type of science that will eventually be experimentally (in)validated?</h2>
<p>“To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.”</p>
<p>Its not a fallacy to say that X is wrong and should quit misrepresenting science. It could be but not when someone is passing on antievolution speech. If I had a second life I could go through this entire thread and point out each wrongness of evolution bashing. But for the time I have its just better to make a general statement to be on the lookout for frauds who try to pass on antiscientific rhetoric as scientifically correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep - and you won’t find one creationist with an antievolution paper published into a scientific journal. Not b/c science is biased but b/c it fails peer review.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said anything along the lines that evolution is not open to change or that its a fixed science. It will evolve according to new evidence.</p>
<p>But evolutionary scientists do have this one-dimensional absolutism about the fact that life evolves and that there are shifts in inherited traits as the generations go because of the mountains of evidence showing that. To them that fact isn’t malleable at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe if they can prove that some species doesn’t undergo mutation and other shifts that produce new genetic material. But they haven’t. Genetic change is a fact of life and evo biologists know that the only way to avoid it is under impossible circumstances -which would be to keep life static, mutation-free and without any influence that causes variation. And they just about know that evolution is the backbone of explaining the origin of species since so much of whats been discovered fits into the puzzle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Beyond the analogy the greater point that I’m making is that creationists attempt to lay down what is and what isn’t correct science to biologists with decades of experience. And they do it by bending fact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They both have the right to be offended, extremely annoyed, etc. How peeved someone gets at is completely relative to association. justtotalk has the full right to be irritated by those who say that the Holocaust never happened because of the lasting effects on his/her grandparents. But who is to say that an evolutionary biologist’s or teacher’s anger at those who continue to destroy their research/work on a daily basis can’t compare? If such a person had relatives killed 70 ago, I can guarantee that being threatened and harrassed with the loss of their job is more immediately concerning to them.</p>
<p>I think you’re totally focusing on the expected responses of surviving members of the ordeal. But that’s not what I said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t evade the question. Based on your previous posts I think you’re of the position that the denial of the holocaust is completely unrelated to denial of evolution - both facts established beyond doubt. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong for the Holocaust even if you consider eye witnesses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes it is. Don’t deny that. I had to sit through an idiot’s class that taught that the holocaust was fake. In some countries holocaust denial has MORE of an effect on the educational system than evolution denial. Evolution is taught in science classes without creationist garbage while the holocaust isn’t taught at all like it never happened or as if it never was a part of history. In Islamist countries holocaust denial is second nature.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes it is. How often is the comparison of an analogy the subject of an argument? You’re completing missing the boat of my main point of the post that creationists are wrong to dismiss something supported by so much evidence and shouldn’t be allowed to determine what is and what isnt real science. You took one sentence out of it and continue to waste your time with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, I didn’t say victim (as in direct victim) anywhere in the quote that you continually bring up. To repeat what I wrote above -if someone had great grandparents victimized by the holocaust chances are they’ll be irritated by deniers. But if that same person is an evo biologist and/or teaches the subject and is heckled and threatened regularly by evolution deniers who want the alternative theory or evolution dropped from the curriculum, that will be a more pressing concern. But if say your parents were victims of genocide and evolution doesn’t matter to you whatsoever, then its obvious that the reaction to genocide deniers will be more severe than to evolution deniers. EVERYTHING is relative to the person. I think its unfair for you to say that one person in this group should feel like X and one person from the other group should feel like Y.</p>
<p>It depends. Faith in religion obviously has different implications than faith in science, since religion and science deal with two different realms as I said. But yes, the basic concept of faith, which is to act on the belief that something is true even though it cannot be proven to be true, is the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A belief is validated whenever it crosses the threshold of evidence at which you are willing to have faith in it. But as far as being completely proven, I do not think that is possible for us within our human limitations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that God will be revealed someday, at which point the argument will be settled. However, I do believe that until that happens it will always be possible to present an alternate theory, even if these are not reasonable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t accept the absolute authority of any HUMAN entity. God is another case altogether, but as we can only know Him through the lens of our own humanity, we as humans can never absolutely know what His reality is.</p>
<p>At least until we die. Some theorize that after death we will be a different type of being that is able to comprehend such things… But that’s a question for the scientists of the afterlife to answer… lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Evolution question is simple: given the evidence for it and against it, it is still far from my threshold of faith.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t consider it to be a “religious” theory and a “scientific” theory. My religon (we are here because God wanted it to be so, but we have made a mess of things, so Jesus died for us, which means we can be free) is independent from my science (life first emerged already full of diversity, and the changes since then have been in the downward direction rather than the upward one).</p>
<p>Either one could be false while the other was still true. I believe they are both true, though I am more confident of the first than of the second.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that the diversity we see today is best explained in terms of a fairly recent creation event. I do not, unlike some others, believe that my theory is irrefutably proven or that it is wrong to disbelieve it.</p>
<p>The burden of proof isn’t on nature to invalidate a theory. The burden of proof is on the theory to describe all aspects of nature that it claims to model.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not placing a limit on the anger an evolutionary biologist might exhibit towards others who don’t agree with his or her theory. Their frustration with Creationists could be greater than my frustration with Holocaust deniers.</p>
<p>What I want you to realize is that this is irrelevant. The Holocaust denier is denying data. The Evolution denier is denying that you can describe all data points using a few sample data points.</p>
<p>I give you physical photos, buildings, personal accounts, and confessions involving the Holocaust. The only way such physical evidence could not prove the Holocaust is if the evidence is either improperly gathered or planted. Thus, to deny the holocaust is to believe in a conspiracy or to believe that the data is somehow invalid. Because the data I give you–just the data and nothing else–proves the Holocaust.</p>
<p>Now, I give you data showing that certain organisms undergo evolution of certain traits. I also give you fossil records of hybrid species. I even give you hundreds of other experimental findings that conform to the Theory of Evolution. These are expected results of Evolution. Or, in other cases, these are limited contexts where evolution applies. You don’t have to deny these facts to deny Evolution.</p>
<p>I don’t know what else to tell you: you’re wrong. Suppose you have population. The population is infinitely large (just like the number of potential phenomena in the universe). Now lets say we’re measuring the heights of people in this population. Predict the distribution of heights within this population. </p>
<p>You can give me as many samples as you like and show me that these samples conform to distribution you predicted, but you can not tell me that you have shown me the population’s distribution. You can only tell me that there is a high chance that your model correctly describe the population. But we don’t know if you’re looking at the right ranges; we don’t know if you’re unintentionally avoiding the type of samples that will fall outside the expected bounds; we don’t know anything, really. We just know you have a bunch of samples that agree with your theory. </p>
<p>**Your theory is not that the result of a given experiment will turn out a certain way. You’ve got it backwards. Your experiment simply shows that your theory holds under restrictive conditions. **</p>
<p>I don’t care if an evolutionary biologist would be offended. This is a rational argument. I suspect many evolutionary biologists would be far less offended than you think: they are not blindly proclaiming total adherence to Evolution. They believe Evolution describes reality. They also realize that the accumulation of data validating Evolution does not prove that Evolution conforms to the entire spectra of phenomena that occur in reality. </p>
<p>I don’t know where you get this picture that scientists are so narrow-minded and so easily offended when people question the principles that their research validates. I think you’re forgetting the subset of the population that the scientific community represents–critical thinkers often welcome critical questions. There are notable exceptions (Newton did not take critique well), but they are few.</p>
<p>If God’s reality is absolute, then your faith can not be invalidated. This is the difference between religious faith and scientific faith. </p>
<p>Suppose a nearly infinite amount of time passes:</p>
<p>If we still practice science, then every invalid has been invalidated. You may not know that the theories remaining are definitively valid, but all other theories are definitively invalid. It is a type of proof we don’t accept because we have a short lifespan and thus not all observations can be made in our lifetime, but it is a proof nonetheless. </p>
<p>If we still practice religion, then God’s reality has not changed. Now, you might say that since a nearly infinite amount of time passed and since
then God must have revealed himself. But you don’t believe your reality is absolute, right? You believe God’s reality is absolute. Thus, in reality, God may never reveal himself and still exist. He is not obligated to you. </p>
<p>Thus, you could have followed the belief in God’s absolute authority without ever having validated or invalidated it. Only if God has shown himself has your belief been validated. But if He has not, then your belief has been held in an eternal standstill.</p>
<p>Is this not a different kind of belief than science? You cannot believe God’s reality is absolute and still believe your reality that God will appear is also absolute. Your religious faith can be indefinite. Scientific faith can not be indefinite.</p>
<p>God is not the same as us. I believe His reality to be absolute, as I believe the reality of matter to be absolute. However, in both cases our understanding of that reality is most likely incomplete.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think this is neccesarily true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And if we still practice science, its reality has not changed either, though our understanding of it may have changed.</p>
Well, making a statement to be on the lookout for perpetrators of antiscientific theories and just lumping groups of people together and saying “Oh, look at these deniers of X/Y/Z,etc., they are all wrong.” is meaningless and merely a rhetorical device–it has no value in the context of an argument if you want the argument to be reasoned. You are basically just saying: “Just trust me, these people are wrong.” If what you are doing is not argumentum ad hominem, then it is at least argumentum ad logicam.</p>
<p>I’m only discussing the analogy. Your personal beliefs are - in this matter, at least - irrelevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The denial of the holocaust is unrelated to evolution denial, Adenine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is untrue. The evidence leads to evolution, whereas the existence of the Holocaust leads to the evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’d like to change what you originally stated, that’s just fine; however, don’t masquerade about as if that was the point that started discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gibberish.</p>
<p>When I said “victim,” I did not mean a direct victim. Extrapolation #1.</p>
<p>You did not mention anyone being threatened. Be clearer next time. Extrapolation #2.</p>
<p>I did not proscribe emotional reactions for anyone. Extrapolation #3.</p>
<p>Lastly, if everything is relative to the individual, why on earth would you have used such an example? Reactions could vary widely within the groups themselves. The suckiness of your analogy hasn’t changed.</p>
<p>Any sort of boneless Buffalo wings (spiciest, none of that mild crap) combined with blue cheese dipping sauce is outrageously delicious. I’m starving now.</p>
<p>All evidence points in the direction that all organisms have evolved to where they are today. It is indisputable fact that the Earth did not have life when it formed and I think those of (nearly) all opinions will agree with that. Those who accept the evidence for natural abiogenesis and evolution (which has much evidence, observation and experimental support) don’t care for any of the countless tales that explain how we all got here because we do have an understanding of how life formed and evolved. Most of those in the scientific community don’t believe in some sort of creation event and I think its fair to say that very very few in the evolutionary science community (those with expertise in the subject) do. They have zero reason to.</p>
<p>So I have to say that I don’t agree with you here. I really think the burden of proof is on the person who believes that there are creatures out there who magically popped into existence and are permanently static -no evolution- because there is a ton of evidence against that possibility. And I know that there are people who go the route of theistic evolution which means the belief that all/most species magically came into being and then evolved from there (natural or guided by their deity or deities).</p>
<p>I get the basic message of your point that science can be overturned, changed, etc. Thats true. But there are things in science that we are certain of. The fact that organisms evolve over time and that life can come from non-life happen to be two of them - but thats a lot different than saying that we know exactly how those two things happened.</p>
<p>What are your personal beliefs justtotalk?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This mostly applies to what I wrote above (the burden of proof on those to show that some creatures popped into being because of god(s) and have been unchanging since then).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It can imagine that it is quite annoying to them when an evolution denier says that evolution is complete bunk or that theres a magical being that created everything as it is now because thats just not how things work. Of course there are those that might pity those that feel that way or laugh at such stupidity. But if it negatively affects their work then its not too funny or realistic to just tolerate these people.</p>
<p>And I can guarantee that things are different for educators (who teach evolution as part of a curriculum) who are constantly threatened with the loss of their jobs. It happens and takes a different dimension then because that affects their well-being. Then it really isn’t narrow-mindedness and taking offense to that isn’t irrational. Then again, it isn’t irrational to be offended by those who pass along lies even if it has no effect on personal well-being.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It really isn’t a fallacy if it’s true. Evolution is true whether one wants to believe it or not. Creationism has zero scientific credibility.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know. This pointless analogy discussion has nothing to with god/no god/creationism/evolution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both are forms of irrational denial - whether its historical or scientific is irrelevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? The fact that organisms evolve over time has been verified so many times over that it is as factual as any historical occurrence. Some people don’t believe that just as some refuse to believe some historical events - genocides almost always have deniers just as some refuse to believe scientific findings b/c it conflicts with their belief system (geocentrism, evolution, etc).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not changing what I was originally stating - just saying that a simple analogy wasn’t the main point of my post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well you seem to be making the statement that a person with even a slight relation to the event (e.g. great grandparents were victims) should be automatically more disgruntled than an evolutionary biologist or educator who can’t properly do their job because of efforts against them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you exclude everything I’ve said since the beginning, sure. That doesn’t invalidate anything I’ve stated showing the similarities in the stupidity of both holocaust and evolution denial.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See response to extrapolation #1</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The irritaiton that different people have to any type of truth dismissal has nothing to do with the basic similarity of all types of baseless denial.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, reactions vary just as some will get my basic point and proceed on with life while others will hop on something irrelevant to the message. And the pointlessness of you trying to beat something so trivial hasn’t changed either.</p>