About this abiogenesis stuff...

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elliotfc

Fine. You can't prove that your theories of the past are false, therefore they are true to you. And since I can't prove my theories to be true, therefore they are false to you.

So your arguments are ignorant.

This is ridiculous. Why don't you call my position "argument from poopy-head" next, OK?

-Elliot

The Penguin is right, "Arguement from Ignorance" is a technical term. Arguement from Ignornace is at its simplest "You cant prove this one way, so it must be the other". From the link arcticpenguin provided:

(i) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.

(ii) Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.

(iii) Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

Its very easy to see why Arguement From Ignorance is an invalid form of debate or rationalizing.

Most Philosophical proofs are commonly known as "Arguement from [fill in the blank]". For example, there is an Arguement From Evil, Arguement From Nonbelief, Arguement From Morality, etc.

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elliotfc

Grow up. "argument from ignorance" is a technical term, not a personal insult, and it was applied accurately in this case.

You should probably also read up on
God of the gaps, you're likely to run into that term very soon.

And who came up with that term?

And it equally applies to your position as well.

And it serves no productive person other than to satisfy the notion that one is knowledgeable and the other is ignorant.

A person named "arcticpenguin" telling me to grow up. And I happen to dig penguins.

-Elliot

 

[Upchurch]

Science can act, however, in ways akin to popular religious stereotypes. {snip}

Agreed, but it is not as prevelant in science as you make it out to be. Most scientists would give their left arms to make the discovery that changes everything we currently know about a given subject. The impetus in science isn't toward the status que but away from it.

But people are constantly asking questions in religion, and I don't know any religion that claims to know all of the answers.

elliotfc, nearly all religions claim to have all the answers (except maybe Buddists). God knows all, right? And through faith, we find those answers in God, right? You've never heard these claims made by preachers on Sunday morning?

If anything, go search these boards for billiefan2000 or Paul Bethke for examples of those who claim religion has all the answers.

Are some things not to be questioned? No. If a Christian wants to question whether or nor Jesus existed that's fine. If he comes to the answer *no*, then he will hopefully find a new religion, or ditch it altogether.

So, if a Christian questions if Jesus is, in fact, the son of God and further, God himself, but determines that there is no way of determining whether or not this is the case, why does not this questioning Christian come to the conclusion that they don't know rather than trusting that Jesus was what the Bible claims he was? If believers in religion were as intellectually honest and inquisitive as you believe, how could they come to such vastly different conclusions, unable to convince one another that theirs is right and all the others are wrong?

With science, there are heretics. There are scientists who eschew the views of the fellow members of their field and go in a different direction. Do you see the analogy?

I do, but it is a poor one.

Scientists who move away from the status que of current theory are either vindicated by the results of their experiments or they are shown to be wrong. Diffenitively. If there are various factions of scientists, it is because there has not yet been a definitive experiment or evidence one way or the other.

Religion, on the other hand, has no definitive answer. There is no common measuring stick to compare who is right and who is wrong aside from each religions holy texts. So, that, each religion is correct according to its holy text(s) but wrong according to another's.

I think it helpful because I hate how we try to make each other out to be so radically different from ourselves. I don't think our behavior makes us difference...rather, it accentuates how similar we are.

Perhaps, but I hate when people try to marginalize science and all the good its done by making it up to be nothing other than another opinion, another religion, just as valid as any other opinion or religion just so they can feel that their religion is not overshadowed the conclusions of science.

I don't see how you can make that statement. Do you understand people better than the people understand themselves?

Tell me. How many Christians ultimately decide that Jesus was not the son of God and still remain Christian? How many Muslims decide that Mohammad was not the prophet of Allah and still remain Muslim?

Now, how many scientists decided that Newton was wrong and still remained scientists? How many scientists decided that the universe was not filled with ether and still remained scientists?

 

[swstephe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elliotfc

And who came up with that term?

The term "ignorance" isn't meant to be insulting. It means an argument can not be made from *our* ignorance about a certain truth. You don't know, I don't know, so you can't say that something is true when nobody knows. You can only use it to prove that nobody knows and move onto the next premise. There are lots of names for different fallacies, some are meant to be easy to remember, (it is also called "argumentum ad ignorantiam" and "shifting the burden").

Check out this for a pretty exhaustive list.

 

[hammegk]

So, who was talking about materialism? they were talking about science, creationism and abiogenesis until you threw this straw man into the mix.

Sorry you can't seem to see the link. Better luck next time.

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elliotfc

Anytime, any time at all that religion can make a testable, falsifyable prediction that we can test, Elliotfc, you'll let us know, won't you?

Religion doesn't make that claim. If that is your standard for acceptance (the ability to make a testable, falsifiable prediction) then of course you would reject religion.

Or anytime you have ANYTHING better than science to make such testable falsifyable predections, you'll share that with us, right?

Of course this is a straw horse. I never said that religion was in this sort of business.

Or the moment you have anything that's better than science at determining what happened in pre-history... you'll tell us that too, right?

We have existing written documents from the past, be they mythologies or histories or catalogs of sheep sold. I respect that science does the best it can, and I hope it continues to do so.

Or is it still all "faith" with you, to the point that even contental drift has to be taken on "faith", because no human can observe it in their lifespan?

No, because continental drift is, in fact, measured today. How the continents originated? Not exactly sure.

I'm using this tone with you, because I had such hopes for critical thinking from you, Elliot. But now I'm just disappointed.

It's cool. My expectations from this forum are quite minimum at the moment, but I'm sure they'll rise another day.

Anyone with religious beliefs in a creation story is forced to insert miraculous intervention into every part of evolution that they don't understand, or they choose not to understand or they refuse to accept.

I don't subscribe to a particular creation story. I don't insert "miraculous intervention" into every part of evolution that I don't understand. Yes, I refuse to accept some tenets of your faith. Of course I understand how the totality of Neo-Darwinism is reasonable from a pure materialist perspective. I don't see any reason, however, to have a pure materialist perspective. I claim no certain knowledge, no absolute exclusion of any theory. Other theories work much better, in my opinion. But again, we don't share the same parameters of acception and rejection.

They HAVE to insert God somewhere, and He just fits in so well in the areas you don't know, or you find offensive (some folks can't stomach the monkey-business!). It's MUCH harder for folks to insert Miracles into things that laypeople understand, which is why nobody believes that God puts up a tent with the stars sewn in it at night. What was a literal "tabernacle" has become a figure of speech.

I only find offensive the inability for some people to respect the opinions of others when it comes to this topic. I can't force you to accept that I do, in fact, understand the evolutionary position. I can show you grades I got in college courses, and I can list books I have read. Consider it this way. You all seem to desire to discuss theology/philosophy, ostensibly so that you can understand the other positions. But you reject those positions. Can you possibly see how the same can hold for me?

The more ignorant you choose to be about science, the more room for God. By choosing abiogenesis as YOUR place to involve a Deity, you are raining on everyone who chooses a later stage for miraculous intervention!

So you have more knowledge about the past than me? If I rain on anyone else's parade is besides the point. That you have to continue to say what I am ignorant about is amusing. Tell me what books I should read. Ask me to submit a book report to you to prove that I have read it. If you want to believe that I have no learning, or education, or enlightened status, or awareness, or lack of information or experience, that only confirms that people will believe what they want to believe. Understand, since I KNOW that you are wrong about what I know and don't know, it appears that you're only grasping at straws. Wishful thinking. Not persuasive. Better to bring out specific points to discuss than to fling a general "you're ignorant" net. That's just my opinion of course. I'm content that I've studied evolution in several university classes, and surely you can understand that I value the evaluation techniques of others more than yourself. I'm content that I have the intellectual curiosity to read twice as many evolutionary books than creationist books. You're content with what you want to think about me.

As a thinking species, we can't give up and just rely on that answer as a solution.

I agree. The more theories, the better.

As individuals, folks will do whatever they want, but usually they will use those beliefs, and folks with those beliefs to force religion to be taught in public school.

Is this what you are afraid of? Public schools are a mess, such a mess that I pray that they never teach religion.

And that's when I get out my megaphone.

I respect that you care what is taught in public schools. God knows enough money is pumped into them.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elliotfc

"You can't prove that MY theories of the past are false, and I can't prove that YOUR theories of the past are false."

See, THAT would be an EQUAL statement.

Instead of that, you ADMIT that you can't prove your own theories (and nobody else has proven those theories either), but SOMEHOW you equate them with someone else's theories that he can't disprove (and nobody else has disproven either).

Correct. I can't prove my theories in a scientific manner. I can not travel back in time and observe things that happened millions of years ago. I only equated them to see how I can say exactly the same thing, from my perspective. In other words, I can trot out the *argument from ignorance* just as well as you can.

Here's an idea. How about you PROVE your theories, OR you disprove science's theories.

We're only talking about one theory. How can I disprove parts of a huge theory that happened millions of years ago?

Don't just equate them in your mind as both being equally valid. Prove them.

Of course they are not equally valid. If I thought they were equally valid I probably wouldn't be in this forum supporting one theory over the other.

If you can't prove your theories, they should be false to you. Don't sidestep the issue by somehow convincing yourself that a theory is a theory is a theory, and therefore yours is just as valid as one arrived at by examining data and testing hypotheses.

How can you test a theoretical abiogenesis that happened millions of billions of years ago and cannot be explained in detail?

(You DO know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, don't you?)

I think so. A hypothesis is a guideline for experimentation, a conclusion not yet proven or tested. A theory is a compilation of principles and rules, more speculative in nature yet grounded in knowledge. A theory is not tested in the same way as a hypothesis because it is more like a paradigm than a specific statement.

Anyway, that's why I'm disappointed in you Elliot. I thought your ability to reason would catch you in internal contradictions like that.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Science is an empirical undertaking. While it has basis in philosophy, certainly, I think that labelling an empirical process "philosophy" is rather an odd suggestion.

You have chosen the form in which to practice and understand (empiricism). There is nothing wrong with empiricism (of course). And given the choice, you proceed to inquire and study and think and learn. This makes science a philosophy. Philosophy is the love of knowlege, right? And science isn't a form of philosophy?

I respect that you may think that science is the only worthwhile branch of philosophy, and that all other branches may be less than insignificant.

-Elliot

 

[Upchurch]

Sorry you can't seem to see the link. Better luck next time.

Weak. Try again.

You say that "Science requires the added veneer of materialism to absolutely exclude a creator." And that it's really materialism that requires science to be logically consistant (or in your words "make sense"). Further, that materialism absolutely excludes a creator, which you still have not attempted to justify.

1) Can you back your claim that science and/or materialism (I'll leave it to you which version you care to defend) absolutely excludes a creator?
2) What does any of that have to do with abiogenisis?

 

[Silicon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elliotfc

And who came up with that term?

John Locke, founder of British empericism. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690


Book 4: Chapter 17:


20. II. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Secondly, Another way that men ordinarily use to drive others and force them to submit to their judgments, and receive their opinion in debate, is to
require the adversary to admit what they allege as a proof, or to assign a better. And this I call argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elliotfc

Is the following an argument from ignorance? -Elliot

Since you cannot prove that God exists, therefore God does not exist.

 

[swstephe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elliotfc

Is the following an argument from ignorance? -Elliot

Since you cannot prove that God exists, therefore God does not exist.

Yes it is. You could also state it as:

Since you don't know whether God exists or not, therefore God does not exist.

Look at "innocent until proven guilty", (which I guess doesn't stand up logically). You get into statistics and probability with partial knowledge ... is something so incredibly unlikely or likely that you can make assumptions? Courts do it all the time with "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- and are sometimes wrong, but accept the consquences. You can't use that for a logical proof or statement of fact, but merely to find the most likely answer.

 

[Tormac]

hammegk asked (inresponce to a quote from me about people linking materialism and science)

Who considers that to be true? I don't. "Science" does not require or even imply materialism. Materialism -- to make any sense whatsoever-- certainly does require science. Ergo, veneer; get it?”

Forgive me if I implied that you did. I can see how your first post in this thread could mean the exact opposite. (i.e. science does not exclude a creator unless a veneer of materialism is added). I can also see how it could be misinterpreted. (shrug) Words are tricky things; meaning is certainly not always conveyed by them, but added by the reader.

I ment my post to be a response to the question of whether science was an “ultimate standard”. It was defiantly not meant to put words in your mouth hammegk. I do, however, run across the notion that science (or one of its disciplines) is a religion, because its foundation is built on materialism. Often it is applied specificly to evolution.

I quoted Upchurch, as I almost typed the exact same thing that he did, and it seemed redundant.

 

[elliotfc]

elliotfc, nearly all religions claim to have all the answers (except maybe Buddists). God knows all, right? And through faith, we find those answers in God, right? You've never heard these claims made by preachers on Sunday morning?

Well...

No, I haven't. Of course I am most familiar with only one religion (Catholicism). The Catholic Church, yes only recently, has made it quite clear that they do not have all the answers. They have certain answers for certain questions, but they only offer answers within their own realm of relevance (faith and morals).

To be explicitly clear I do not have a problem with science and the present world. I wonder about cosmology and obviously I scratch my head about evolution.

If anything, go search these boards for billiefan2000 or Paul Bethke for examples of those who claim religion has all the answers.

They may differentiate between important/essential questions (why are we here, what is the moral condition of humanity, why does evil exist) with what can be considered material details (photosynthetic equations and ionic bonds). I can only guess, but does Paul Bethke speak with authority on microwave oven repair or canal building? The questions he is concerned with are of different type I reckon, but I could be wrong about that. And even if I was, I assure you that I do not pray for divine revelation to help me explain how a toaster works.

So, if a Christian questions if Jesus is, in fact, the son of God and further, God himself, but determines that there is no way of determining whether or not this is the case, why does not this questioning Christian come to the conclusion that they don't know rather than trusting that Jesus was what the Bible claims he was?

Of course some do. As for the others, it varies from person to person. In my understanding Jesus is necessary to reconcile humanity to God. That his historical existence is questioned I do not doubt, but what has been characterized as shaky historical evidence is bolstered by theological necessity. All Christians have to believe that they are in bad shape and in need of divine help. They have to believe this with the utmost conviction. That is why they trust the accounts.

If believers in religion were as intellectually honest and inquisitive as you believe, how could they come to such vastly different conclusions, unable to convince one another that theirs is right and all the others are wrong?

Of course there are many believers that aren't intellectually honest. I don't know the percentages, and I try to be charitable and assume that people I don't know are, in fact, intellectually honest unless they prove otherwise. I think different conclusions has a lot to do with your upbringing and life experiences. I think that people get hung up and turned off by certain analogies or ways of thinking that work for some individuals, and obviously not for others. Since this is such a personal subject, of course there will be attachment to *your* opinions over those of others. Do people get comfortable with their beliefs? Absolutely. I am continually tweaking my beliefs, and over the course of several years my beliefs were frankly all over the place.

Scientists who move away from the status que of current theory are either vindicated by the results of their experiments or they are shown to be wrong. Diffenitively. If there are various factions of scientists, it is because there has not yet been a definitive experiment or evidence one way or the other.

Fair enough. Given that science is a concrete endeavor, that talks of concrete things, you aren't going to have as wide a range of opinions as people under the umbrella of religion.

Religion, on the other hand, has no definitive answer. There is no common measuring stick to compare who is right and who is wrong aside from each religions holy texts. So, that, each religion is correct according to its holy text(s) but wrong according to another's.

At some point is has to go beyond holy texts. Even people who theoretically share the holy texts have differences of opinion. The best we can do is share general principles I think. The measuring stick or standard will and has developed over time, and it differs with each religion and even within each religion.

But the true standard? The true standard lies within each of us. Each person has to decide what options of understanding in this world satisfies oneself. You can place a measuring stick outside of each of us, yet it is only a measuring stick if it is compared to something else. We have to compare measuring sticks to our own intellects and beliefs. The questions that science attempts to answer are, for me, important but not essential. I happen to like science, but am not fascinated with it as I am fascinated by theology. If I didn't exist the various -ologies would all still exist. Therefore, for me, I have to be true to what questions most concern me. And frankly, since science does not have much to say regarding my most important questions, of course I will look elsewhere. I can appreciate other religions, but they don't speak to me as well as the religion in which I was raised. That is only natural I think. I'm not the type who would condemn other people of other religions to hell. We all, however, have to make the best of what we've been given.

Perhaps, but I hate when people try to marginalize science and all the good its done by making it up to be nothing other than another opinion, another religion, just as valid as any other opinion or religion just so they can feel that their religion is not overshadowed the conclusions of science.

No, it's not exactly an opinion, is it? When it is NOT an opinion, that's when I don't have a problem with science, see? I'm only all hot and bothered about science when it is opinion. Opinion founded on facts? Sure! Jesus, all opinions are founded on one fact or another. When it is valid it is valid. When it offers conjecture about the distant past...

Let me put it this way. If we lived in a world where abiogenesis happened in every stream, under every pillow, between our teeth, I don't think this conversation would be taking place. Is this a hang up on my part? Sure, from your perspective I'm sure it is.

Tell me. How many Christians ultimately decide that Jesus was not the son of God and still remain Christian? How many Muslims decide that Mohammad was not the prophet of Allah and still remain Muslim?

Now, how many scientists decided that Newton was wrong and still remained scientists? How many scientists decided that the universe was not filled with ether and still remained scientists?

Excellent. You got me there.

Let me submit this. Newton is NOT science. Jesus IS Christianity. Mohammed IS Islam. You can completely chuck Newton, and you'll still have science. You can't compeltely chuck Jesus or Mohammed.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elliotfc

The term "ignorance" isn't meant to be insulting. It means an argument can not be made from *our* ignorance about a certain truth. You don't know, I don't know, so you can't say that something is true when nobody knows. You can only use it to prove that nobody knows and move onto the next premise. There are lots of names for different fallacies, some are meant to be easy to remember, (it is also called "argumentum ad ignorantiam" and "shifting the burden").

Check out this for a pretty exhaustive list.

Hmmm...am I guilty of taking this all too personally?

Sorry for overreacting.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elliotfc

John Locke, founder of British empericism. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690


Book 4: Chapter 17:


20. II. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Secondly, Another way that men ordinarily use to drive others and force them to submit to their judgments, and receive their opinion in debate, is to
require the adversary to admit what they allege as a proof, or to assign a better. And this I call argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Funny, argumentum ad ignorantiam doesn't sound nearly as offensive as argument from ignorance.

Thanks for dropping the knowledge on this one, see you guys in a while.

-Elliot

 

[Silicon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elliotfc

Correct. I can't prove my theories in a scientific manner.

Can you prove them in any manner?

I can not travel back in time and observe things that happened millions of years ago. I only equated them to see how I can say exactly the same thing, from my perspective.

Again with the time travel!! Is that the only method of knowing something?


Tell me why the following isn't an accurate characterization of your point of view: "Because there's no time travel, ANY CRAZY theory I come up with is as plausible as any theory science finds from actually looking at rocks, fossils, geological data, life-science, chemistry, biology, etc, because they have no time machine!!!"


It's not the same thing. You aren't applying the same tests to your own theories that you require of scientific theories. That's you hiding behind double-speak.


That's what your quote said. It said "I can't prove mine, and you can't disprove yours." Those are two different standards.

We CAN prove ours. You CAN'T disprove ours, you CAN'T prove yours,

...and you won't really tell us what yours is, so WE can't disprove it, can we? What is it, anyway? What is your abiogenesis theory? Tell us all about it, how it happened, what day it was on, etc. What was the first creature? What did it eat? What was it made of?

This should be the easyist one: When did your theory of life on Earth start? Give us a date! (No fair looking at science's numbers, that's peeking!) We should be able to test that.

Tell us the date, and how you came upon it.

And don't say 4004 B.C., cause we'll just laugh. ;-)

We're only talking about one theory. How can I disprove parts of a huge theory that happened millions of years ago?

Disprove ANY of it, and it all falls apart. Find a human skeleton with t-rex bitemarks inside a dinosaur's stomach and the whole thing falls apart.

How can you test a theoretical abiogenesis that happened millions of billions of years ago and cannot be explained in detail?

You duplicate it in a lab.

When you say it "cannot be explained in detail" do you mean right now, or that it's impossible for anyone to ever explain it in detail?

And how do you know that? Your time machine?



Of course, you don't mind me asking for you to prove your theory. Scientifically, or any other tool that can make testable predictions.

I think so. A hypothesis is a guideline for experimentation, a conclusion not yet proven or tested. A theory is a compilation of principles and rules, more speculative in nature yet grounded in knowledge. A theory is not tested in the same way as a hypothesis because it is more like a paradigm than a specific statement.

Pretty close.

hypothesis
In science, an idea or proposition that is based on certain observations about the natural world. Hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation.


Theory
In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere
speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments.


For example, a hypothesis might be: If I expose this cow to mycobacterium tuberculosis, it will catch the disease.

You test that hypothesis, and it is shown to be true or false.

A theory explains why, such as the germ theory of disease.

 

[Silicon]

Let me put it this way. If we lived in a world where abiogenesis happened in every stream, under every pillow, between our teeth, I don't think this conversation would be taking place. Is this a hang up on my part? Sure, from your perspective I'm sure it is.

Dude, you have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of time.

Here's an analogy for you:

Let me put it this way, If we lived in a world where glaciers moved more than an inch, I'd believe you on how those valleys got carved in Canadian mountains. But we all know that glaciers don't move, or barely move at all! Plus, without a time-machine, there's no way to REALLY PROVE they were carved by glaciers.


Again, a human-centric view. "If I can't observe something in my lifetime, with my own two eyes, it didn't happen."

I guess when you believe that God created it all for our benefit, anything that God hides beyond the ken of the living senses is to be out of our understanding.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Think of it like the old faux-paradox: "what came first, the chicken or the egg". The answer is probably "the egg". If you go back in time far enough, regardless of your definition of "chicken", you will find that the first chicken egg produced the first chicken, but was laid by a proto-chicken that was not 100% according to your definition of "chicken". Creationist might *imagine* that God created chickens, but they would be wrong since the chicken was actually the result of human domestication of a Malaysian jungle fowl. Same with mules vs. horses and dogs vs. wolves. The parent need not produce an offspring of its same kind or name. Just because it has been around for ages, we give them different names but they were definitely part of the same family of animals. Some languages might not differentiate. You can avoid talking about evolution and still answer "the egg".

I'm glad I'm not the only one who makes this argument.

You state it almost exactly like I have in the past.

 

[hammegk]

.. I do, however, run across the notion that science (or one of its disciplines) is a religion, because its foundation is built on materialism. Often it is applied specificly to evolution.

That is a notion I share, and it applies as much to abiogenesis as it does to evolution. Either make as good as or better sense when approached scientifically but minus the faith that materialism is a necessary condition for the utility of science.

As to abiogenesis, the current answer is "we have no clue". I do find it interesting that apparently it was a one-of event on earth.