Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[general_re]

And speaking of "appeal to authority," how many people here can explain the logic behind using an exponential decay function in radiometric dating? Can you derive this yourself? Can you list the assumptions necessary to derive it?

An interesting point, and one that demands the attention of "Mr. Logic." ;)

In truth, the article posted is wrong on this point, as far as it goes. The appeal to authority (argument ad verecundiam) is really only a logical fallacy when it is an appeal to an inappropriate authority. It is perfectly legitimate for me to cite Doctor Stochastic (and you) as authorities on the mathematics of radiometric dating, assuming I examine your credentials and find you to be bona-fide experts in this matter. This does not mean that you must be correct, of course - even experts are mistaken or wrong sometimes.

The logical fallacy arises, as I said, when we make the inappropriate appeal to authority. For example, assuming for a moment that you are an expert on the mathematics of radiometric dating, it would be inappropriate to cite your opinions on, say, constitutional law, and to then give those opinions undue weight based on your expertise in some other field. You are, of course, entitled to your opinions about constitutional law, but as a non-expert in that field, your opinions have no more weight than those of any other non-constitutional law scholar.

But, if we were to rule out this sort of argument entirely, we might as well stop discussing much of anything, since virtually no-one is a bona-fide expert in everything. Since we are fairly specialized these days, we must be permitted to refer to the arguments and logic and conclusions of experts in fields outside our own. It is still incumbent upon us all to examine the credibility of experts, and to examine arguments for obvious logical flaws, of course, but beyond that, all of us have little choice but to accept the conclusions of actual experts in some fields - which fields those are will vary from person to person, naturally.

[Aracelis]

Again with the same tired arguments! Can't you think of anything new? How many times have you copied and pasted this drivel?

[JediGirl]

Sarah, someone said earlier, "To study science, is to study God." Being a professional scientist, I am not exactly sitting in a cave and grunting. There is no conflict between God and science. He is the very author of every scientific discipline. The more we learn about the natural world, the more we learn about God and His creativity.

I'm not saying that the people who believe in God are sitting in a cave and grunting. I am currently debating the existence of God in my mind as far as whether or not religion is just a concept created in the minds of humans to comfort us lest we be faced with the harsh reality that there is no purpose. If that is your belief, so be it. I'm not trying to discredit God. If anything, I think it's a good progressive belief to believe that God works through science. Which is why I don't understand the arguments against evolution. There may be certain people who say that evolution means there is no God, but that is simply an opinion. And I feel free to state my opinion here.

[JediGirl]

Hundreds of times. The same discredited, debunked, junk science websites and claims made on each thread. No matter how thoroughly debunked, he posts it again. So not many people bother with the guy, yknow?

[Hunble]

Medved is an intelligent guy, and I love his stimulation. Sometimes his arguments are interesting, and it forces me to study that much harder.

Is the quest for knowledge not what science is all about?

I have nothing but respect for people that force me to think and questions my beliefs. So far, Medved is batting about zero, but in the process, he has educated me beyond my wildest dreams.

In a way, that is a "teacher!"

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's time to invoke Godwin's Rule on medved again. The first person to accuse opponents of being Nazi's automatically loses.

[general_re]

Didn't she do what the article above was warning us not to accept from Creationists?

I composed #61 before I saw your #53, but allow me to amplify a bit. In truth, I think the problem is less with JediGirl that with the article itself. This article miscasts the fallacy of argument ad verecundiam into a much stronger and broader form than it is generally understood. There is nothing generally wrong with appealing to authority, so long as the authority is an appropriate authority for the topic at hand.

I have little use for creationism myself, but I think that it would be best to re-write this article, as it betrays something of an attempt to blatantly stack the deck in favor of evolutionary arguments.

[cogitator]

Don't know how many times, but how long: decades.

[JediGirl]

Ok, I may not be reading what you said correctly but you'd re-write the article because you think it's trying to set up an argument for evolution instead of allowing people to make their own decision?

May be totally off, but help me out here :-D

[Darth Reagan]

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for some sort of evidence that maybe you know what you are talking about and didn't just pick up a few scientific words from some creationist website. Was there an ad hominem attack in anything I said?

And, no, I don't know the assumptions behind exponential decay and radiometric dating. Care to make your point regarding these assumptions, and is your point based on mathematics or physics? If based on mathematics, I will assign it more credibility than if based on physics. If based on physics, I'll ask the opinion of Physicist or 1/1,000,000th% and then compare the answers before making a decision on whom I believe to be right.

Maybe its because I'm a lawyer, but I do like to weigh the credibility of the evidence and the experts offering it. And unlike a judge, I admit prejudice and it lies with the non-creationists.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I am currently debating the existence of God in my mind as far as whether or not religion is just a concept created in the minds of humans to comfort us lest we be faced with the harsh reality that there is no purpose.

While the existence of a God may imply that humans have a purpose, nonexistence need not mean that humans have no purpose.

[Dimensio]

The scripture is right "the fool in His (or Her) heart says there is no God.

The heart is just a muscle that moves blood about. It can't be used to say anything.

[Dimensio]

So dear friend, why does the Creationist side of the debate rely upon half-truths, selective facts, or down right lied to support thier side?

You need to understand that only a few creationists are lying or presented slanted facts and distortions of reality. The majority of them honestly believe the inane babble that they were taught by the lying few, so when a creationist tells you that the earth's magnetic field decay rate is such that the planet would have been uninhabitable even one-hundred thousand years ago it is more likely that they believe it to be true rather than that they are simply lying and hoping you won't already know that the earth's magnetic field oscillates regularly.

[massconservative]

The argument isn't really with evolution, but more with the theorized method of evolution...natural selection. If anything, cosmology and astrophysics have shown us that God does work through science and created everything within very narrow tolerances that made any life possible. Naturalistic or Darwinian evolution assumes that complex and interrelated systems such as eyes, hemoglobin, the avian lung, etc. are all the product of thousands or millions of tiny, imperceptible mutations that nature selects from populations.

Belief in an Intelligent Designer can certainly be reconciled with a "directed evolution", meaning that progressive increases in complexity have been preordained with the ultimate manifestation in the human.

[medved]

[Dimensio]

It's time to invoke Godwin's Rule on medved again. The first person to accuse opponents of being Nazi's automatically loses.

I'm not sure that it applies, because this isn't USENET and Godwin's Law was written specifically for USENET. Still, a web-forum might be a suitable analogue, as such might not have existed when the Law was first written. Perhaps it needs to be revised.

In any case, medved's collection of links is nothing more than argument from the consequeneces. He brings up unpleasant people and tries to link their alleged belief in evolution with their abhorrent behaviour and he tries to link bad ideas to evolution (when at most they were the result of morons trying to turn a biological system into a social construct -- which doesn't work) and apparently trying to argue that somehow evolution is falsified because it can give people bad ideas. Unfortunately for medved, reality doesn't work that way: even if believing that evolution is true turns a person into a sociopath (and I personally think that they'd just be using their likely incorrect version of evolution as justification) it doesn't mean that evolution is false.

[medved]

Until somebody convinces me that no more newcomers will ever see it for the first time.

[f.Christian]

I am currently debating the existence of God in my mind as far as whether or not religion is just a concept created in the minds of humans to comfort us lest we be faced with the harsh reality that there is no purpose.

Watched the flight of the "good ol lady"--or something or other last night on a return bombing run it overshot the base and went 400 miles into the Libyan desert. One parachute didn't open---the navigator was thought to be airsick or incompetent---seven survivors didn't have a chance of walking out or being found until 15 yeras later...follow the Truth/star---many things--especially evolution--will mislead--kill you!

[medved]

There's more to it than that. Evolutionism poisons morality, politics, and science equally. The state of denial you see from official science bastians when cities are discovered beneath the waves off Cuba, under the Antarctic ice, and on Mars, arises from the fact that these things are all incompatible with the uniformitarian/evolutionist paradigm. Establishment scientists would rather trash the evidence than the paradigm.

[JediGirl]

Thank you for that um...profoundly undecipherable answer to my post.