Debating an Atheist

[TrumanSmith]

Do you have something besides ‘pseudogenes’?

Did you watch the Dennis Venema YouTube link I gave? A Christian explains the evidence for evolution in DNA, for a Christian audience. I actually was there and attended that lecture in person. I was a Christian then. It was at Baylor University at an ASA conference (http://www.asa3.org). If you want to learn more about evidence of evolution from other evangelical Christians, check out biologos.org .

[jriccitelli]

This better not try and tell me there is no difference between a Cessna, a speedboat, a pickup and a lawnmower because they all share similar design, parts and structure.

[TrumanSmith]

This better not try and tell me there is no difference between a Cessna, a speedboat, a pickup and a lawnmower because they all share similar design, parts and structure.

The plane, pickup, and lawn mover are also a part of evolution, called 'memetic evolution.' Ideas also have a "fight for survival." And yes, 'memetic evolution' is different than 'biological evolution,' just like biological evolution is different than cosmological evolution.

[Roberto]

Even if one were to prove evolution, it has never been proven that it is *unguided*. A challenging book for you, Truman, is by Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies.....

[mattrose]

Truman,

I have enjoyed this thread. I am a slow thinker, but I was really interested to hear what you had to say about evolution. I viewed a couple of your youtube links and tried to follow the different conversations other people were having with you.

However, I have a hard time doing so. You seem to make more assertions about the validity of evolution than actually explaining your reasoning for why it is true or why it debunks creationism (like the statements above). I understand that other people teach X, or some scientist said Y, and that some schools claim Z, but I was really interested in listening to your explanations for scientific proof. I genuinely may have missed it, but this is what I come away thinking more than not.

Also, I have seen a lot of good questions people have posed to you during a conversation that you never respond to. I see you pick and choose a lot of times, skipping over anything that seemed to difficult? Perhaps you didn't find them interesting? I do not know your reasoning.

Anyway, I know I didn't add any content to the debate. I just wanted to give a couple of my observations.

jarrod

I totally agree with Jarrod on these two points

I also watched your debate last night (the one vs. Rask). I don't think you even understand his point very well (or else you just choose not to actually respond to it). It is NOT ENOUGH to just show similarity between different species (even AMAZING similarity). No creationists takes any issue with similar gene structures. We would, frankly, expect living things that look alike and have a lot of the same functions to share incredibly similar DNA. This does not show descent.

I will grant you 1 thing. IF we presuppose that there is no divine being (Creator), THEN the Darwinian Evolution model very well could be the best hypothesis concerning how complex creatures came to be. But what you seem to fail to understand is that this conclusion DEPENDS on that presupposition. People are free to pick presuppositions (we all do it), but we should be honest that we are doing so. Since interpreting the evidence of similarity as evidence for natural descent is more of a philosophical move than a scientific one, there is no reason for people who do not share your presupposition to 'affirm the consequent'

[TrumanSmith]

Even if one were to prove evolution, it has never been proven that it is *unguided*. A challenging book for you, Truman, is by Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies.....

I've read it. The book, and his ideas, are lame.

[TrumanSmith]

Since interpreting the evidence of similarity as evidence for natural descent is more of a philosophical move than a scientific one, there is no reason for people who do not share your presupposition to 'affirm the consequent'

Incorrect. It has nothing to do with presuppositions; more to do with knowing the evidence and how to deduce correctly. This is why Baylor University (premiere evangelical Christian University that it is) teaches evolution and says it is good science. The presuppositional argument is a lame creationist argument.

Wheaton Collee is also struggling with this crisis:
"Wheaton College has received criticism in recent years from both conservative and liberal alumni. Areas of controversy have included evolutionary biology being generally accepted in the science departments. Wheaton College was prominently featured in the PBS documentary Evolution, which showcased Wheaton professors' acceptance of theistic evolution.[36] This attitude contrasts with that in the 1990s, when science faculty were required to sign a statement that they reject human descent from hominid ancestors. Initially, those who declared they were 'unsure' whether or not humans had evolved were given one year to change their mind before facing dismissal; this was later relaxed, and scientists were allowed to stay on as long as they did not endorse human evolution."
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheaton_College_(Illinois)
(I saw this episode on TV awhile back.)

Also- Bart is incorrect with his assertion that evolution is a fallacy of "affirming the consequent." I'm actually in discussions with him about this now, as we prepare for our upcoming debate.

[mattrose]

Incorrect. It has nothing to do with presuppositions; more to do with knowing the evidence and how to deduce correctly. This is why Baylor University (premiere evangelical Christian University that it is) teaches evolution and says it is good science. The presuppositional argument is a lame creationist argument....

Also- Bart is incorrect with his assertion that evolution is a fallacy of "affirming the consequent." I'm actually in discussions with him about this now, as we prepare for our upcoming debate.

Incorrect! It IS about presuppositions.

Also, Bart is correct with his assertion that evolution is a fallacy of "affirming the consequent."

See... 2 can play at that game! It is not enough to make assertions in a debate. You have to make arguments. Your only 'argument' seems to be that some Christian colleges agree that lower species evolved into higher species. That's not actually an argument... it's name dropping.

[TrumanSmith]

Incorrect. It has nothing to do with presuppositions; more to do with knowing the evidence and how to deduce correctly. This is why Baylor University (premiere evangelical Christian University that it is) teaches evolution and says it is good science. The presuppositional argument is a lame creationist argument....

Also- Bart is incorrect with his assertion that evolution is a fallacy of "affirming the consequent." I'm actually in discussions with him about this now, as we prepare for our upcoming debate.

Incorrect! It IS about presuppositions.

Also, Bart is correct with his assertion that evolution is a fallacy of "affirming the consequent."

See... 2 can play at that game! It is not enough to make assertions in a debate. You have to make arguments. Your only 'argument' seems to be that some Christian colleges agree that lower species evolved into higher species. That's not actually an argument... it's name dropping.

Correct deduction is like this:
1. If P then Q
2. P
3. Therefore Q

The logical fallacy of 'affirming the consequent' is like this:
1. If P then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P

Here's a way to state evidence for evolution w/o running the risk of the logical fallacy of 'affirming the consequent.'
1. If there are transitional fossils (P), then evolution happened (Q).
2. There are transitional fossils (P).
3. Therefore evolution happened (Q).

It is is not 'affirming the consequent' because Q is not being affirmed but instead Q is deduced from P.

You can argue with line 1 and/or 2, but that is an issue with a premise, not a potential logical fallacy.

If you say there may be other reasons for transitional fossils, that is not a logical error but a dispute over premise 1.

So Bart's claim that "evolution commits the logical fallacy of 'affirming the consequent' " is incorrect.

[Roberto]

Even if one were to prove evolution, it has never been proven that it is *unguided*. A challenging book for you, Truman, is by Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies.....

I've read it. The book, and his ideas, are lame.

That doesn't qualify as a defeater for his views. That is what is known as a bald assertion. You haven't presented even an argument, how weak is that?