Debating an Atheist

[jriccitelli]

Truman, first of all I want to thank you for hanging in there, I have not felt any disdain or irreverence from you, as I know it can seem like sarcasm and heated from either camp sometimes on this issue (I learned that sometimes it is astonishment). I respect you regardless of our differences on this.

I am still looking at the Venema Videos, so in the meantime do you agree with the following under ‘list of transitional fossils” (I do not generally get my info from Wiki but it is a safe and quick resource):

This is a tentative list of transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived organisms to which it is related). The fossils are listed in series, showing the transition from one group to another, representing significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines. These changes often represent major changes in anatomy, related to mode of life, like the acquisition of feathered wings for an aerial lifestyle in birds, or legs in the fish/tetrapod transition. As noted already by Darwin, the fossil record is incomplete.
Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor.[2] They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.

You do not have to agree, but note it says: the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception’ and ‘but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor’.

Still it seems to me all this says is some extinct creatures ‘look’ like other creatures (mice look like rats), if distinguishable at all from these fossils. Looking similar is still far from meaning they evolved from each other.

Also, cars and machines do not evolve in ‘any’ sense related to Darwinism*, the term would be the exact opposite for things purposefully designed.

(*Although they may ‘appear’ to be evolving! They are not, do you see what we’re saying?)

[mattrose]

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

Agreed so far

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.

I don't think that Rask is suggesting that Darwinists CAN'T put their argument for evolution into a form that doesn't contain logical fallacies. I think he is suggesting that Darwinists generally don't do that. You are his evidence. Rather than provide arguments for why we should interpret similarity between species as evidence of descent, you simply take for granted that descent is the obvious conclusion to draw from the evidence. Essentially, your argument (at least as practiced in this thread) runs as follows:

1. If darwinian evolution is true (A), then we will see similarity b/w species (B)
2. We see similarity b/w species (B)
3. Therefore A

IN PRACTICE, this is how your argument comes across, at least to me. And it is exactly what Rask is pointing out.

Now, you could potentially re-arrange your argument as follows

1. If similarity b/w species exists (A), then darwinian evolution is true (B)
2. Similarity b/w species exists (A)
3. Therefore B

Such would NOT be the fallacy Rask is talking about. Rather, it simply contains highly disputable points and connections (why does A suggest B?). You continually seem to fall into the trap of either presupposing B or affirming the consequent (b/c we see similarity b/w species, darwinian evolution must be true). Either way, it is an argument missing... well... an argument.

[CThomas]

Hello again, Truman. Glad to see you back here after a short hiatus. Here's a substantive point. I watched the discussion period of your debate with Rask, and you argued there, and have repeated again here, that it is wrong to present arguments against one theory without proposing a replacement theory. Your contention is wrong, and if you just think about it as a matter of common sense rather than sort of reciting NCSE talking points I think you'll see this. Just imagine other examples. Think about phrenology. We all agree now that phrenology was a pseudo-science, right? But in the nineteenth century there was a serious body of phrenological researchers. There were also skeptics of phrenology. These phrenology skeptics had no alternative theory of the mind to replace phrenology. All they had were negative arguments against the validity of the methods of phrenology. They pointed out that phrenology was ad hoc, susceptible to subjectivity, at key places too vague to test sufficiently, etc. The fact is that they were right. What would you think of a phrenologist who responded to these skeptics by saying exactly what you're saying here? "All you're doing is making purely negative arguments about our theory, but you haven't offered anything to replace it. That is improper. If you have no better theory to offer then your criticisms of our enterprise are nothing but a science-stopper that will replace our active research programme with nothing at all!" To the contrary, there are times when a theory is bad and you can show that simply based on inadequacies of the theory itself, without regard to anything else. Phrenology was an uncontroversial case. So the answer to purely negative critiques of evolution by people like Rask can't be that they offer no replacement theory. That's just silly. And bear in mind, I say this as someone who personally believes that evolution happened. I think this is just an example of a situation where you need to work a little bit harder to think through your own arguments rather than accepting them because they support the conclusion you hold.

CThomas

[TrumanSmith]

Truman, first of all I want to thank you for hanging in there, I have not felt any disdain or irreverence from you, as I know it can seem like sarcasm and heated from either camp sometimes on this issue (I learned that sometimes it is astonishment). I respect you regardless of our differences on this.

I am still looking at the Venema Videos, so in the meantime do you agree with the following under ‘list of transitional fossils” (I do not generally get my info from Wiki but it is a safe and quick resource):

This is a tentative list of transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived organisms to which it is related). The fossils are listed in series, showing the transition from one group to another, representing significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines. These changes often represent major changes in anatomy, related to mode of life, like the acquisition of feathered wings for an aerial lifestyle in birds, or legs in the fish/tetrapod transition. As noted already by Darwin, the fossil record is incomplete.
Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor.[2] They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.

You do not have to agree, but note it says: the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception’ and ‘but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor’.

Still it seems to me all this says is some extinct creatures ‘look’ like other creatures (mice look like rats), if distinguishable at all from these fossils. Looking similar is still far from meaning they evolved from each other.

Also, cars and machines do not evolve in ‘any’ sense related to Darwinism*, the term would be the exact opposite for things purposefully designed.

(*Although they may ‘appear’ to be evolving! They are not, do you see what we’re saying?)

Actually, I don't like to argue about fossils, because I think it is easier to twist the interpretation either way. I was a Christian for a long time because it seems like there is compelling evidence from the creationist side. It probably takes a lot of hard core scientific understanding to know for sure.

What I strongly like is the DNA evidence. That's why I strongly recommend the Venema videos. I think this evidence makes it "game over" for the debate whether evolution happened or not. People like Francis Collins and Dennis Venema will try to convince their fellow evangelicals of this. All of this DNA evidence is relatively new, since the year 2000 when various genomes have been decoded.

RE: "Also, cars and machines do not evolve in ‘any’ sense related to Darwinism*"

I agree. Memetic evolution is different than biological evolution, just like they are both different from cosmological evolution.

[TrumanSmith]

Now, you could potentially re-arrange your argument as follows

1. If similarity b/w species exists (A), then darwinian evolution is true (B)
2. Similarity b/w species exists (A)
3. Therefore B

Such would NOT be the fallacy Rask is talking about. Rather, it simply contains highly disputable points and connections (why does A suggest B?).

This is exactly correct. It is impossible to be the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent." But Bart disagrees, so I don't think he understands the basic logic. You and I agree: the form of logic is valid. What would be at dispute is the premise of 1 (and maybe line 2 also), in this example. So the objection would be a faulty premise(s), not a logical fallacy. But Bart doesn't understand logic and so he says this is a logical fallacy.

[TrumanSmith]

Hello again, Truman. Glad to see you back here after a short hiatus. Here's a substantive point. I watched the discussion period of your debate with Rask, and you argued there, and have repeated again here, that it is wrong to present arguments against one theory without proposing a replacement theory.

It isn't so much that it is "wrong" but more that it is intellectually and academically lazy. For any claim, any at all, basic critical thinking processes entail analyzing all the possible hypotheses to see which makes the most sense.

RE: "These phrenology skeptics had no alternative theory of the mind to replace phrenology."

I think you are wrong about this. There are always alternative hypotheses to any claim.

To prove it, give me any assertion at all, and I'll give you some possible alternative hypotheses for it. It really isn't that difficult. It's really a matter of basic critical thinking processes.

[Paidion]

To prove it, give me any assertion at all, and I'll give you some possible alternative hypotheses for it. It really isn't that difficult. It's really a matter of basic critical thinking processes.

All right. Here is an assertion:

When a 10 kg piece of lead is released from a distance of 10 metres above the surface of the earth, it falls to the earth provided there are no obstructions in its path of falling to prevent it.

[mattrose]

Now, you could potentially re-arrange your argument as follows

1. If similarity b/w species exists (A), then darwinian evolution is true (B)
2. Similarity b/w species exists (A)
3. Therefore B

Such would NOT be the fallacy Rask is talking about. Rather, it simply contains highly disputable points and connections (why does A suggest B?).

This is exactly correct. It is impossible to be the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent." But Bart disagrees, so I don't think he understands the basic logic. You and I agree: the form of logic is valid. What would be at dispute is the premise of 1 (and maybe line 2 also), in this example. So the objection would be a faulty premise(s), not a logical fallacy. But Bart doesn't understand logic and so he says this is a logical fallacy.

Ummm.... I don't think you actually read the majority of my post!

Particularly, the first half of it...

I don't think that Rask is suggesting that Darwinists CAN'T put their argument for evolution into a form that doesn't contain logical fallacies. I think he is suggesting that Darwinists generally don't do that. You are his evidence. Rather than provide arguments for why we should interpret similarity between species as evidence of descent, you simply take for granted that descent is the obvious conclusion to draw from the evidence. Essentially, your argument (at least as practiced in this thread) runs as follows:

1. If darwinian evolution is true (A), then we will see similarity b/w species (B)
2. We see similarity b/w species (B)
3. Therefore A

IN PRACTICE, this is how your argument comes across, at least to me. And it is exactly what Rask is pointing out.

[TrumanSmith]

To prove it, give me any assertion at all, and I'll give you some possible alternative hypotheses for it. It really isn't that difficult. It's really a matter of basic critical thinking processes.

All right. Here is an assertion:

When a 10 kg piece of lead is released from a distance of 10 metres above the surface of the earth, it falls to the earth provided there are no obstructions in its path of falling to prevent it.

I asked for a hypothesis, not an assertion. Give me your hypothesis and I'll show you some alternative ones. A hypothesis gives a theory about how something came to be or how it operates, etc.

[TrumanSmith]

Now, you could potentially re-arrange your argument as follows

1. If similarity b/w species exists (A), then darwinian evolution is true (B)
2. Similarity b/w species exists (A)
3. Therefore B

Such would NOT be the fallacy Rask is talking about. Rather, it simply contains highly disputable points and connections (why does A suggest B?).

This is exactly correct. It is impossible to be the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent." But Bart disagrees, so I don't think he understands the basic logic. You and I agree: the form of logic is valid. What would be at dispute is the premise of 1 (and maybe line 2 also), in this example. So the objection would be a faulty premise(s), not a logical fallacy. But Bart doesn't understand logic and so he says this is a logical fallacy.

Ummm.... I don't think you actually read the majority of my post!

Particularly, the first half of it...

I don't think that Rask is suggesting that Darwinists CAN'T put their argument for evolution into a form that doesn't contain logical fallacies. I think he is suggesting that Darwinists generally don't do that. You are his evidence. Rather than provide arguments for why we should interpret similarity between species as evidence of descent, you simply take for granted that descent is the obvious conclusion to draw from the evidence. Essentially, your argument (at least as practiced in this thread) runs as follows:

1. If darwinian evolution is true (A), then we will see similarity b/w species (B)
2. We see similarity b/w species (B)
3. Therefore A

IN PRACTICE, this is how your argument comes across, at least to me. And it is exactly what Rask is pointing out.

I did read it, and I commented on that already.

RE: "I don't think that Rask is suggesting that Darwinists CAN'T put their argument for evolution into a form that doesn't contain logical fallacies. "

Bart is saying that evolutionary theory is a logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent." I know this by discussions I'm having with him. It is even the very title of his book. It makes no difference to him how the argument is formatted.