Evolution Facts

[Mystical]

Ladies and gentlemen, might I introduce to you: Horrifying Evolution invention #42,313

Spider tailed Viper


http://www.cracked.com/article_21454_6-a...rc=fanpage





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IywYmBcM0p8&sns=em

[Dawsonite]

The fact of the matter is that we all believe in things that we don't understand. It's simply a matter of who we decide to believe. Most of us lack the scientific knowledge to perform the experiments or make the observations necessary to justify our beliefs first hand, so we put our faith (if you'll pardon the word) in others who claim to have done the scientific work. Either way, though, for most of us it's mostly argument by reference to authority.

Unfortunately, Creationists choose to put their faith in authority that comes without scientific basis, or from pseudo-science, or from anti-science.

Ignore them, unless they try to impose their beliefs on society. Then stomp on their efforts, but not on them personally.

[Mystical]

The fact of the matter is that we all believe in things that we don't understand. It's simply a matter of who we decide to believe. Most of us lack the scientific knowledge to perform the experiments or make the observations necessary to justify our beliefs first hand, so we put our faith (if you'll pardon the word) in others who claim to have done the scientific work. Either way, though, for most of us it's mostly argument by reference to authority.

I disagree. Referring to a book divinely written by god as basis for belief is reference to authority. Referring to facts independently verified by unrelated educated authorities in their field, is just referencing reality.

[Baqal]

I disagree. Referring to a book divinely written by god as basis for belief is reference to authority. Referring to facts independently verified by unrelated educated authorities in their field, is just referencing reality.

Well, to be fair, it's referencing an authority which references reality.

[Mystical]

I just don't think its fair to compare reality based beliefs based on science, to biblical beliefs based on 2k yr old heresay.

I agree though that we should do our best to not attack the person, but the fallacy itself.

Welcome, btw Always nice to see new faces.

[Baqal]

I just don't think its fair to compare reality based beliefs based on science, to biblical beliefs based on 2k yr old heresay. :P

Of course it's not fair, I won't argue against that. Sorry for being a stickler.

[Dawsonite]

Referring to facts independently verified by unrelated educated authorities in their field, is just referencing reality.

Referring to "facts" "independently" verified by people who you trust. You have to believe that these people actually performed the science that they claim to have done. That's not referencing reality unless you witnessed the science. That's just argument from authority, which is the same thing that the Creationists do.

That's why the arguments on this thread are both sides yelling that the other side is ignorant of the facts. Each side has a different authorities that it references and believes in. You're never going to convince him that your science (just a pseudo-scientific theory in his view) is any better than his revealed truth (just religious bullshit in your view).

---

I just don't think its fair to compare reality based beliefs based on science, to biblical beliefs based on 2k yr old heresay.

To the Creationist, his hearsay is better than your hearsay.

Welcome, btw Always nice to see new faces.

Thanks, nice to be here.

[Diablo]

Referring to facts independently verified by unrelated educated authorities in their field, is just referencing reality.

Referring to "facts" "independently" verified by people who you trust. You have to believe that these people actually performed the science that they claim to have done. That's not referencing reality unless you witnessed the science. That's just argument from authority, which is the same thing that the Creationists do.

That's why the arguments on this thread are both sides yelling that the other side is ignorant of the facts. Each side has a different authorities that it references and believes in. You're never going to convince him that your science (just a pseudo-scientific theory in his view) is any better than his revealed truth (just religious bullshit in your view).

THe science is peer-reviewed by multiple people, and similar experiments are performed by different, unassociated groups. Science works pretty well, as evidenced by our lifestyles.

[Esquilax]

Referring to "facts" "independently" verified by people who you trust. You have to believe that these people actually performed the science that they claim to have done. That's not referencing reality unless you witnessed the science. That's just argument from authority, which is the same thing that the Creationists do.

It's only an argument from authority if the authority you're referencing is misplaced. Referencing an actual authority in a given field, especially with regards to specific work they've done, is perfectly valid.

There's also a huge difference in how those authorities conduct themselves; a scientific authority has been through years of training and study, been vetted by educational institutes that are accredited, and also functions as a part of the scientific community. When they make a claim, the way it gets taken seriously is if the claim itself is open to repeatability and peer review; any given scientist is open about their methods, and puts their reputation on the line there. If they've just made shit up, they will get called on it, and their academic record tarnished.

I'm not particularly fond of this "you weren't there to witness the science being done, thus faith" line of reasoning since it's very close to something Ken Ham might say, not to mention solipsism, but even taking it at face value the scientific community has earned that trust, where the religious one has not.

Oh, and welcome.

[Dawsonite]

the scientific community has earned that trust, where the religious one has not.

Says you. Creationists would point to scientific predictions 40 years ago that we were entering another ice age versus scientific warnings now about global warning. Were they lying then, or are they lying now? You would answer that those very reversals prove that science is open and religion is closed. He would laugh. I on the other hand, would simply advise care in being absolutely certain of anything...

[I disagree because] it's very close to something Ken Ham might say

...and THAT'S perilously close to being a reverse argument from authority, isn't it? If Ken Ham says the sun rose in the east yesterday, he might actually have a point.

Oh, and welcome.

Thanks. It's a pleasure to do reasoned debate, innit?