You smart people care to examine this for me?

[Minimalist]

Sae, have you read Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

As you an see, I have the woeful task of having accepted a theist's challenge of 'No evidence for evolution'. That's fine though, since i need to get my arguments right anyhow So anyone care to tell me how many logical fallacies I made here, vital omissions that need to be fixed, bits of extraneous fluff that you personally don't like and I'll shoot you for asking me to remove them? Anyway, it's below.

I rarely try, any more than when an ignoramus starts rabbiting on about Communism. There are a total 8 people in the world world whose opinion of me or anything else matters to me in any deep way..

When some dickhead says something really stupid, such as "there is no evidence for evolution". I just laugh at them and suggest they trot off and read some Darwin, perhaps starting with "The Origin Of The Species". Then perhaps say some science explaining how DNA validates evolution. Then I change the subject.


This is not laziness on my part. I accept evolution as fact, not an unproven hypothesis. However,I'm neither a scientist nor a teacher. I lack the skills to actually teach evolution,especially as to a 12 year old.

Plus, I have character flaw: I don't suffer fools, and have been known to say some very unkind things to such people.This is not always wise in a social setting.


I do not conflate the outcome of an argument as necessarily reflecting the truth or falsity of a position.

[Violet]

Thanks Chuck, that was a needed clarification I was missing

Sae, have you read Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth?

No, never touched it. Or any other book regarding 'proving' evolution Comes from not caring about the subject I think

[Minimalist]

Then I suggest you are singularly ill-equipped for the fight you have taken on.

Good luck.

[Violet]

I expect less issue to be taken with this one (since it's about evidence). Regardless, if anyone cares to look it over and sees something I didn't (or doesn't see something they should), it would be awesome if they noted it for me

And maybe I should pull the bit about solipsism out... but I really hate them so I'm not sure about it

---

Part II: The next most important thing for us to agree upon is precisely what 'evidence' is. It would be truly unfortunate for me to provide a sea of what I consider to be evidence, only for you to dismiss the lot of it as not being such

Evidence as I am using it here is a modifiable term. There's your theistic evidence, scientific evidence, evidence from incredulity, logical evidence, and even evidence that tastes like strawberries. What all of of these has in common is that they are taken on faith to be true. Given enough evidence of a thing: that thing too is considered true. If data is not believed to be true: it is not evidence, but instead any number of such terms as 'fake', 'untrue', 'ridiculous', 'political', 'nonsugary'. Ultimately, this means that evidence is data that is considered true. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant to the process of belief.

And evidence is not necessarily individual. The likes of scientific evidence are intersubjective from the onset, whereas evidence from incredulity varies individually. The thing that an intersubjective evidence holds separately from individual evidence is that it is verified by more than oneself (And please don't argue solipsism here, their arguments are infallible, but their absence of faith in the 'reality' of others I find ridiculous. Even if they are not 'real', you must treat them as 'real' as if they were so if you are to accomplish anything at all, and it is therefore an entirely pointless observation). That is to say: it is evidentual to more than one person.

Here we are looking into a scientific issue (Biological evolution of species), and therefore should be using scientific evidence. That is: Data considered true in accordance with the scientific method (and peer reviewed). This is not theistic evidence (data considered true in accordance with 'God(s)'), nor is it individual (as that is not peer reviewed, regardless of methodology). As I hope that you understand what the scientific method is, as well as what verifiable implies, we can then move onto scientific evidence for the truth of biological evolution.

---

Edit: caught a spelling error ^_^

[Shell B]

You know, Sae, On the Origin of Species is very interesting, whether you are reading it to learn more about evolution or not. Darwin was one meticulous dude. I really do feel sorry for him having to attempt reconciling his ever-changing scope of knowledge with his backwards religion.

[Violet]

I've no capacity to sit and trudge along a book anymore. At least in video games I'm always doing lots of varied things, and that's fun. Books I can't read like I play video games, and often find my imagination wandering off to the point that there's no point bothering with the book anymore.

Tests would do that too, but they are a contest. I suppose that if reading a book was turned into a contest I might enjoy reading them again

[Shell B]

You just need to read very good books, I suppose.

[Justtristo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VVqL9etvU0

This video sums up the futility of debating creationists, wither they are Christian, Muslim, Hindu or any-other stripe.