Dowis Refutes Dawkins

[Bikeemikey]

I think not. I think that all that would be needed is for the information that is out there and incompatible with the present macro-evolutionary theory to be included.

Ands that's where we disagree.

[ERayR]

Ands that's where we disagree.

[thesometimesaint]

How about you read these two books:

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1879181509

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1931882789

Little Green Men is a logical fallacy.

False Burden of Proof

In order to have a worthwhile argument, if you make a claim, you have the burden of proving it. This is the simple premise behind the false burden of proof fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim, and then says that because his/her opponent lacks evidence to the contrary, the claim is therefore correct or valid.

For example, say that Paul says, “Little invisible green men are living inside my brain and telling me what to do. You can’t prove me wrong, so therefore I’m right.” Unfortunately for Paul, this line of reasoning is flawed. If you make a claim, and assert it as true, you can’t then shift the burden to the other party and make them prove otherwise. This is why plaintiffs have the burden of proof in court–they’re the one(s) asserting the claim.

A good general rule for intense rational argument: if you can’t prove it, don’t assert it.

[cdowis]

Little Green Men is a logical fallacy.

False Burden of Proof

In order to have a worthwhile argument, if you make a claim, you have the burden of proving it. This is the simple premise behind the false burden of proof fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim, and then says that because his/her opponent lacks evidence to the contrary, the claim is therefore correct or valid.

snip

A good general rule for intense rational argument: if you can’t prove it, don’t assert it.

OK, that is a valid general rule, but I'm sure you understand that is not the "false burden of proof" fallacy.

If I claim "God exists and gives me what I need to have a better life" and you then demand that I prove it. It is legitimate for me to respond that I refuse to accept the burden of proof -- you can accept it or not, as you will.

"This is something that you yourself must find out. I have no interest in convincing you that God exists."

[thesometimesaint]

You are claiming that ancient aliens not only visited this planet but also had major influences in the development of life and progression of civilization. To put it quite simply any civilization with the ability to travel at light speed and beyond would find us no more appealing for communication with than we do an earthworm.

I too have no interest in convincing you that God exists. But that is a far different standard than proving he exists, and that he gives you what you need for a better life. A Tibetan Buddhist has as much claim.

Edited July 27, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[cdowis]

You are claiming that ancient aliens not only visited this planet but also had major influences in the development of life and progression of civilization.

Where did you find that in my post? You have me confused with someone else.

I too have no interest in convincing you that God exists. But that is a far different standard than proving he exists, and that he gives you what you need for a better life. A Tibetan Buddhist has as much claim.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth.

I was expanding on the "false burden of proof" fallacy, that it does not require the one making a claim to prove it. You might want to become acquainted with the fallacy of the strawman argument.

Edited July 27, 2013 by cdowis

[changed]

Cam across this the other day, thought some on this thread might enjoy it.

[cdowis]

Can you give some highlights? It is almost two hours long.

[ERayR]

Little Green Men is a logical fallacy.

False Burden of Proof

In order to have a worthwhile argument, if you make a claim, you have the burden of proving it. This is the simple premise behind the false burden of proof fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim, and then says that because his/her opponent lacks evidence to the contrary, the claim is therefore correct or valid.

For example, say that Paul says, “Little invisible green men are living inside my brain and telling me what to do. You can’t prove me wrong, so therefore I’m right.” Unfortunately for Paul, this line of reasoning is flawed. If you make a claim, and assert it as true, you can’t then shift the burden to the other party and make them prove otherwise. This is why plaintiffs have the burden of proof in court–they’re the one(s) asserting the claim.

A good general rule for intense rational argument: if you can’t prove it, don’t assert it.

tss SOP. Dismissal and ridicule without even looking.

Burden of proof: You claim macro-evolution is true. Now the burden of proof is on you. Prove it.

After all the stuff you have asked me to read or listen to, sometimes several times, it is time for you to return the favor. Are you really afraid to read two little books?

Where in what I posted was there anything about little green men? I have made it abundantly clear I do not subscribe to the ancient alien theory and you know it. It's really quite disingenuous of you.

Edited July 27, 2013 by ERayR

[ERayR]

You are claiming that ancient aliens not only visited this planet but also had major influences in the development of life and progression of civilization. To put it quite simply any civilization with the ability to travel at light speed and beyond would find us no more appealing for communication with than we do an earthworm.

I too have no interest in convincing you that God exists. But that is a far different standard than proving he exists, and that he gives you what you need for a better life. A Tibetan Buddhist has as much claim.

I do not remember any one in this thread claiming ancient aliens visited our planet or for that matter even exist. If you are going to be part of the conversation you are going to have to pay attention.

[changed]

Can you give some highlights? It is almost two hours long.

The two hours is actually a synopsis of a series of many different vids.

Edited July 27, 2013 by changed

[ERayR]

The two hours is actually a synopsis of a series of many different vids.

i have almost as much problem with young earth creationists as with evolutionists.

[changed]

i have almost as much problem with young earth creationists as with evolutionists.

I know, me too. The few valid points they make are lost in the rubble. Who is the most professional IDer out there do you think?

[thesometimesaint]

tss SOP. Dismissal and ridicule without even looking.

Burden of proof: You claim macro-evolution is true. Now the burden of proof is on you. Prove it.

After all the stuff you have asked me to read or listen to, sometimes several times, it is time for you to return the favor. Are you really afraid to read two little books?

Where in what I posted was there anything about little green men? I have made it abundantly clear I do not subscribe to the ancient alien theory and you know it. It's really quite disingenuous of you.

Macroevolution:

http://evolution.ber.../article/evo_47

http://evolution.ber...efinition.shtml

http://evolution.ber...evolution.shtml

http://archives.aaas....php?doc_id=443

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/

http://www.nature.co...-world-96679683

ERayR, on 26 July 2013 - 07:09 PM, said: How about you read these two books:

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1879181509

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1931882789

Edited July 27, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

ERayR, on 26 July 2013 - 07:09 PM, said: How about you read these two books:

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1879181509

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1931882789

And got this response from tss at approximately 10:00 AM July 27:

Little Green Men is a logical fallacy.

Edited July 27, 2013 by ERayR

[ERayR]

I know, me too. The few valid points they make are lost in the rubble. Who is the most professional IDer out there do you think?

I have no idea. I hardly waste my time on them anymore and except this board is the only place I beat my head against the brick wall of evolution.

(Tongue firmly planted in cheek) The ancient astronaut group. They at least approach the data.

[thesometimesaint]

The Little Green Men argument is one in which a propostion can not be proven false. IE; Is gravity a series of waves, or a steady state force. No one knows for sure right now. It could be either one or even something else. But what it most likely isn't is God or space aliens puhing us down.

[danielwoods]

This looks cool. I want to check this out. I remember someone telling me once that there were some Egyptian stories about them battling out on some flying machines, maybe even with Moses. I've completely forgotten the reference but I'll see if I can scare it up. Thanks for the links.

On another note... I know all scientists aren't on board with macro-evolution. But are there scientists that are non-religious that don't believe in macro evolution? that don't find the evidence compelling? It's not that that would make it true or untrue... it's just that if the evidence is so lacking for macro evolution, then there should be plenty that don't buy into macro evolution regardless of religious belief.

It's sort of like the Book of Abraham arguments. When I hear about how the Egyptological evidence shows that Joseph Smith got this or that right, then I would suspect there would be some non-LDS Egyptologists who would also agree that JS got the same this or that right. I'm not saying I place my belief simply in the views of the majority, but it is troubling if the ONLY experts to agree with one way of looking at the evidence have "reason" to want to see the evidence that way.

I'm asking this honestly, because I don't have my finger on the pulse of scientific consensus, but with the section of scientists that DON'T believe in macro-evolution, are they all religious (believe in a creation story), or do we have agnostic/atheist scientists that also don't find macroevolution compelling?

At the time Michael Denton wrote this he wasn't a believer. I think he's now a catholic.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/091756152X

Antony Flew also changed his mind based on the existence of God, based on the evidence (for origins).

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/intermediate/a-change-of-mind-for-antony-flew.htm

[ERayR]

The Little Green Men argument is one in which a propostion can not be proven false. IE; Is gravity a series of waves, or a steady state force. No one knows for sure right now. It could be either one or even something else. But what it most likely isn't is God or space aliens puhing us down.

That's fine I made no little green men argument so don't attribute it to me. Its also a handy, inane, dismissive comment for those who have no cogent response.

Edited July 29, 2013 by ERayR

[ERayR]

At the time Michael Denton wrote this he wasn't a believer. I think he's now a catholic.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/091756152X

Antony Flew also changed his mind based on the existence of God, based on the evidence (for origins).

http://www.bethinkin...antony-flew.htm

Are they young earth protagonists?

[danielwoods]

Are they young earth protagonists?

Not that I am aware of. You have to be really strange like me, to be that.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Are they young earth protagonists?

Not that it means anything one way or another, but for the curious:

Antony Flew was a Deist who accepted Evolution to the end. His conversion from Atheism centered around the origin of DNA and the first replicating species.

Michael Denton argues that the laws of nature are fine tuned for life as it exists on earth. He accepts Darwin to a point and acknowledges that new species evolve, however he rejects the idea that major advances in the history of life on earth are caused by the same process.

[danielwoods]

Not that it means anything one way or another, but for the curious:

Antony Flew was a Deist who accepted Evolution to the end. His conversion from Atheism centered around the origin of DNA and the first replicating species.

Michael Denton argues that the laws of nature are fine tuned for life as it exists on earth. He accepts Darwin to a point and acknowledges that new species evolve, however he rejects the idea that major advances in the history of life on earth are caused by the same process.

Right Flew was influenced by the arguments used in the ID movement to become a Deist, which was a huge turn for him being a large proponent of Atheism.

Denton's arguments are compelling, as he details the complexities of just one cell as being equal to a large city.

[thesometimesaint]

Right Flew was influenced by the arguments used in the ID movement to become a Deist, which was a huge turn for him being a large proponent of Atheism.

Denton's arguments are compelling, as he details the complexities of just one cell as being equal to a large city.

Would the so callled ID/Creationist arguments have much weight to a non Deist such as a Buddhist?

Some living cells are complex like a city. OTOH A virus is very much alive, but fundimentally not complex at all.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Would the so callled ID/Creationist arguments have much weight to a non Deist such as a Buddhist?

Some living cells are complex like a city. OTOH A virus is very much alive, but fundimentally not complex at all.

There is much debate on whether viruses are alive. And a virus can't exist without a much more complex host, right?