Do you genuinely find that kind of self-righetous rhetoric convincing?
You must have no idea how self-righetous the rhetoric of the athiests (not the evolutionists, mind you) sound from the “other side”.
I’m sure both sides are guilty of it in some measure, I’m not saying atheists are free of fault. But that’s not the question I asked.
Your question was whether I found that kind of “self-righetous rhetoric” convincing.
In my original response, I was trying to point out that I missed the feeling that it was self-righteous;
Your post brought me to think that the response was “tit-for-tat” with others’ posts;
And on reflection I think it is not the rhetoric that got me, but the clearly phrased arguments behind them which begged responses.
The real question isn’t if Evolution is “true†but if it is more “true†in relation to another hypothesis.
In which case you must compare it to another theory meant to explain reality.
As things stand Evolution is the best theory explaining natural diversity and life.
Anyone questioning it in comparison to a creationist hypothesis should first ask himself, if outer proof is lacking, what answer would satisfy him and why.
Why is the agnostic evolutionist satisfed if proof is lacking? (I have heard arguments besides Inkibo’s against the fossil record.)
Belief in Creationism or even a theistic evolution provides for more meaning and philosophical continuity, it seems… Unless you want a continuity of nihilism.
Not a persuasive argument unless you base your inclination to beleive something on how much you want to beleive it… a popular approach, if not especially rigorous. I’d also point out that a philosophy based upon what I consider to be the likely truth is the only contiguous philosophy possible.
That doesn’t exactly justify self-righetousness. Everyone knows… two wrongs blah blah blah.
I agree, clearly stated arguments from fact are sorely lacking among creationists. I was delighted to be able to check up on facts from Inkeybo’s arguments- the fruit of which you can see above in my post of Sat Oct 08.
Otherwise, it’s a bit samey… he’s still asking us to teach science that can be proven, as if such a beast existed. And calling evolution a religion. And using “y’all”, which is fine, but does have a certain deep south ring to it. 
So on top of not understanding my posts, you’re prejudiced against Southern accents too?
Philosophy is based on the assumption that truth can be known. See Socrates (third guy on the top of the page) in Plato’s Meno, where he says that we would be better and bolder and less idle if we thought that finding the truth were possible and pursued it than if we didn’t and that it didn’t matter. So, yes, it seems legitimate for us philosophers to believe a more valuable option for us if we don’t know any better and we get more philosophy (love of wisdom) from that option.
No, but it does justify ignoring the self-righteousness on both sides and reading and dealing with their arguments.
And, I concede, you did deal with the argument.
I don’t agree. Both sides are usually somewhat shallow in their understandings and their arguments, from what I’ve seen posted over the months here. I’ve read people who had to be told (and wouldn’t be) the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design theory (no matter what accent they affected.) 
Regards,
mrn
Evolutionism is a crock of shit. It relies on predictions that have yet to be verified or falsified. It also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which has been verified and falsified and which supports the Intelligent Design theory more than anything.
Even the organs used to invent and explain the theory of Evolution are irreducibly complex, hence the expressing the theory actually entails contradicting it.
lol. you fell for that weak sauce creationist garbage?
The second law of thermodynamics states that things tend towards entropy in a closed system, which the earth is not.
Ireducible complexity? Such as in the eye?
That has been proven fallicious, and in fact computer simulations have been done showing how they eye could have ‘evolved’ from a primitive light sensor, given the right conditions.
That someone like you that seems articulate and intelligent would put stock in such childrens fairy-tales is both amazing to me and a tribute to the complexity of human psychology.
No such thing as an open system. The law applies. I can’t believe you fell for the classic secular negation of this point.
No, as in the organs used for speech.
I know. But where does that primitive light sensor come from?
That you believe the evolutionary account simply because it apparently supports your secularity doesn’t impress me in the slightest.
There is nothing to ‘negate’ other than pseudoscience, which is just disinformation anyway. The earth is an open system because it recieves energy from an outside source, ie the sun.
Dude, Irreducible complexity is nothing more than creationist propaganda…it isn’t even science. As well as hinging on an ‘argument from ignorance’ it fails to provide any sort of testable hypothesis or evidence in support of itself.
Must be god, right? 
I don’t ‘believe’ evolution, but it does seem to be the best theory to explain what it explains, and there are as of yet no reasonable alternatives. My motivation for posting is not so much to defend evolution, but to at least keep the pursuit interllecually honest. The ID crowd adds nothing but confusion and resistance, becuase their motivation isn’t to find an answer, their motivation is to cling to the one they have at ALL COSTS.
your real name
If you are a “Philosopher” then I am a proto-human.
Otherwise, Yes, I mean I don’t remember any, not even proto-human findings around dinosaurs.
You are the kind the intelligent designers they need here, on naturel sciences.
You are right I am not a moderator, I don’t have the right to move anything, but myself.
I will not post on any thread you are involved in.
Nope, there’s no such thing as an open system, or looked another way there’s no such thing as a closed system.
- Prove it
- Evolution is secularist propaganda and isn’t even science.
There are other explanations. I’m certain that life didn’t spontaneously and randomly become more complex by an order of magnitude.
This supposes evolution is a reasonable explanation. It isn’t. You are attracted to it because of its secular nature.
As per usual the evolutionist accuse anyone who disagrees with them of resorting to religious dogma, i.e. they resort to pro-evolutionist dogma. I’ve never seen a single pro-evolutionist who didn’t accuse their opponents of being religious, whether or not they were. Weak defence and you know it.
you’re certain?
ha!
scientifically, we’re done talking
That’s a pretty tall claim. Have you got something against conventional science? In the physical sciences, an open system is a system where matter or energy can flow into and/or out of, while in a closed system no energy or matter may enter or leave.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is only aplicable in a closed system. This is widely accepted by physicists everywhere, and you simply disagreeing without providing an argument isn’t going to change anything.
1-Prove that it IC hinges on argumentum ad ignorantiam? I would veiw that to be self evident. Prove that IC has no testable hypothesis or evidence to support it? Well, I can’t prove a negative…perhaps there is some evidence in it’s suport tucked away under a rock in anarctica somewhere, but proponents of the idea certainly haven’t produced any.
2-Are you denying that evolution happens? 
Other explainations such as?
You are certain of that how exactly? A divine revalation perhaps?
Also, you are targetting a strawman when you imply evolution to be random. Nothing is random.
What about the theory of evolution is not reasonable? You certainly haven’t raised any valid objections, neither has any other of the ID camp in this thread.
What acusations? you have freely admitted to believing in a creationist style deity many times. Also, I have never met anyone not infected with religion take issue with evolution theory.
Why don’t you point me at ONE credible secular scientist that ‘doesn’t believe in evolution’ …I won’t be holding my breath here…
Dear Dr Sss
So which of these descriptions is more accurate for a universe that is increasing quanitatively but decreasing qualitatively?
Bullshit. There are so many different versions of the second law that it’s hard to know where to begin.
If you’d let me chop up the organs you use to speak I could provide an adequate example, as could anyone.
Given that all science is only ever on the basis of the best available knowledge I think the criticism is absurdly applied in this case. The testable hypothesis is that we’ll never find a mechanism to explain how the vastly complex lifeform that is a human came to be. If we find such a mechanism the claim is falsified.
I don’t believe that life originated in some chaotic mess. Species adapt, sure. Species die out, sure.
I’m certain that the notion is incorrect because nothing that I’ve ever experienced has suggested it even might be true.
Other explanations such as a vastly superior life form (alien or whatever) that has always existed or came to be in a place where the conditions for the development of life were very different to those in our universe (what we know of it) coming to earth and planting us here, say, 100,000 years ago. You know the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics?
It seems absurd given the nature of the universe. And it relies on things not in evidence, makes all sorts of predictions and claims that have never been verified and is at best an incomplete explanation.
Aye, but I didn’t believe in the theory of evolution for a long time before I started believing in a God.
Darwin raised serious questions about it, though his religious beliefs are unclear…
Tomoko Ohta raised serious questions about the validity of the theory of natural selection which is of course a central part of the theory.
And anyone who believe in the Everett interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Actually some of them still believe in a God, but there are secular ones as well.
Everett = many world interpretation. I think that’s absurd : it violates strongly the energy conservation.
Marc
i’m gettin tired of hearing this… Darwin had doubts because he had no clue about how it happened
he never heard of DNA or genetic recombination