Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

A strawman can only be created by willfully mischaracterizing someone's position. In your case, that is not what has happened. You are the one who created the false dichotomy that there either is a natural origin for life, or there is not a natural origin for life. Pointing out the implications of your rhetorical tricks does not constitute a strawman if it happens to accurately describe your position. I've pointed out repeatedly that you are sufficiently honest to acknowledge the implication of your dichotomous position. It's not a strawman if it's true, and the only possible implication of your attempt to create that dichotomy is that if there is not a naturalistic origin for life, the origin must be "supernatural," you've skated around saying as much on more than one occasion. That you continue to be cowardly and dishonest is not a reasonable basis to claim that i've created a strawman.

In post number 2883087, you wrote (i've removed your quote of me, but i've linked your post, so anyone can read to see if they think i'm being dishonest--i also removed your witlessly employed "emoticon," in the interest of good taste and adult discussion):

real life wrote:

I would love to hear your 'third' or 'fourth' options.

The first two are:

1. Life on earth originated by natural means.

2. Life on earth did NOT originate by natural means.

Treat us to 3. and 4. , willya?

Your option two posits that life on earth did not originate by natural means. There is more than sufficient evidence in these fora that you continually assert that there is a natural and a supernatural, and that you associate the supernatural with your god supersition. So, for example, in post number 2846949, on September 10th, in the "Is there proof God exists" thread, you wrote:

real life wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
there is no proof whatsoever god exists

if only because no one can satisfactorily define what they mean by god

Are you asking for 'natural' proof of the 'supernatural' ?

Seems an odd request.

So, once again, it's not a strawman if it accurately describes your position.

****************************************

While were on the subject of strawman, i've never said that "evolution is the 'only game in town.' " if anyone is creating strawmen, it's you. I have simply said that a naturalistic explanation is the only feasible explanation unless and until you can provide evidence that any such thing as the supernatural exists--something which you have signally failed to do.

0 Replies

Earlier you said it wasn't a strawman because you didn't claim that it was my position.

Now you say it isn't a strawman because it is my position.

Why can't you stick with one story? Laughing

0 Replies

It would greatly benefit this discussion if you, real life, would do us all the favor of re-stating your position.

It would certainly benefit my understanding of this issue and I would very much appreciate it.

Thank you.

Joe Nation

0 Replies

The question at hand was asked by parados:

Quote:

Simple question for you..
If you can show evolution didn't occur does it prove that life as we know it didn't come about by natural means? Yes or no?

To which I answered , no.

However, I haven't met any evolutionist who can articulate any other naturalistic explanation(s) if evolution is off the table.

Doesn't mean that someone COULDN'T come up with one. I've just never seen it done.

Does that help , Joe?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Earlier you said it wasn't a strawman because you didn't claim that it was my position.

It is true that i never claimed that you had said that " . . . if you can show evolution didn't occur does it prove that life as we know it didn't come about by natural means?"--which was the statement by Parados to which you responded that that was a strawman which i had set up. So i was pointing out that i had not said that, so i was responsible for no such strawman. So you responded by quoting me saying something different than what was implicit in Parados' question. Therefore:

Quote:

Now you say it isn't a strawman because it is my position.

This is misleading, because what you did quote me as saying is not a strawman because it is true. So:

Quote:

Why can't you stick with one story?

Is a rather typically stupid rhetorical question on your part, because you were attempting to claim that two different statements constituted "one story."

I have not ever said you have claimed that if evolution could be proven not have occurred that life as we know it did not come about by natural means, which is the question Parados asked, and which you then lied about when you claimed it was a strawman by me.

Allow me to emphasize that--you lied, because i have never made such a claim.

Then you quoted me pointing out that you so often imply that if you can cast doubt on a theory of evolution, you have shown that your poofism is the only plausible answer left. That is not at all the same as the question Parados asked you. That did not constitute proof that i had erected the strawman you originally accused me of erecting.

However, it is easily demonstrable that it is your position that if life did not arise from naturalistic means, then it must have arisen from supernatural causes. So that is not strawman, as you attempted to claim by offering my quoted criticism of your method as proof that i have erected a strawman, because it happens to be a faithful characterization of your position.

In the first instance, there was no strawman, because i've never said that. In the second instance, in which you quoted me, that was no strawman, because it is an accurate characterization of your position.

If there is anyone here unable to keep his stories straight, it's you. You accused me of having erected a particular strawman when you dodged the question Parados asked you. I never made any such statement, so i was not responsible for any such strawman. Then you quoted what i had written, in a brainless attempt to support your claim about a strawman, and i've pointed out that that is no strawman either, since is accurately describes the position you hold, which i've demonstrated by quoting you, with links to the posts.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Earlier you said it wasn't a strawman because you didn't claim that it was my position.

It is true that i never claimed that you had said that " . . . if you can show evolution didn't occur does it prove that life as we know it didn't come about by natural means?"--which was the statement by Parados to which you responded that that was a strawman which i had set up. So i was pointing out that i had not said that, so i was responsible for no such strawman. So you responded by quoting me saying something different than what was implicit in Parados' question. Therefore:

Quote:
Now you say it isn't a strawman because it is my position.

This is misleading, because what you did quote me as saying is not a strawman because it is true. So:

Quote:
Why can't you stick with one story?

Is a rather typically stupid rhetorical question on your part, because you were attempting to claim that two different statements constituted "one story."

I have not ever said you have claimed that if evolution could be proven not have occurred that life as we know it did not come about by natural means, which is the question Parados asked, and which you then lied about when you claimed it was a strawman by me.

Allow me to emphasize that--you lied, because i have never made such a claim.

Then you quoted me pointing out that you so often imply that if you can cast doubt on a theory of evolution, you have shown that your poofism is the only plausible answer left. That is not at all the same as the question Parados asked you. That did not constitute proof that i had erected the strawman you originally accused me of erecting.

However, it is easily demonstrable that it is your position that if life did not arise from naturalistic means, then it must have arisen from supernatural causes. So that is not strawman, as you attempted to claim by offering my quoted criticism of your method as proof that i have erected a strawman, because it happens to be a faithful characterization of your position.

In the first instance, there was no strawman, because i've never said that. In the second instance, in which you quoted me, that was no strawman, because it is an accurate characterization of your position.

If there is anyone here unable to keep his stories straight, it's you. You accused me of having erected a particular strawman when you dodged the question Parados asked you. I never made any such statement, so i was not responsible for any such strawman. Then you quoted what i had written, in a brainless attempt to support your claim about a strawman, and i've pointed out that that is no strawman either, since is accurately describes the position you hold, which i've demonstrated by quoting you, with links to the posts.

Your strawmen appear in many forms, one of the more recent:

Setanta wrote:

his implicit (but never explicitly stated) thesis that the failure of science to explain something by default authorizes his poofism explanation.

is not much different from an earlier:

Setanta wrote:

it is necessary to point out that "real life" is not addressing us. Rather, he is reeling off the latest Creationist talking points in the hope that he will delude someone who comes here to read. The delusion he wishes to create and perpetuate is that if science cannot answer all questions, he "wins" by default, and claims to have demonstrated the intervention of his imaginary friend.

You try ever so carefully (but fail) to word your posts so that you can plausibly deny having erected a strawman.

Give it up, Setanta.

0 Replies

There is nothing to give up. You consistently assert that either there is a naturalistic origin for life, or there is not. You consistently deride people for asking for a naturalistic proof for what you allege is the supernatural when they ask for evidence of your poofism. The conclusion follows logically that you consider your poofism to be the supernatural explanation for all of that for which you deny that there is naturalistic evidence.

It's not a strawman if it is true.

0 Replies

Do you now assert, "real life," that there is not a supernatural origin for life on earth? Do you now deny that there ever were a creation?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

equally absurd, is your insistence that if you have discredited a theory of evolution (something you have never accomplished), that the only alternative left is your poofism

Setanta wrote:

I have not said that you would say that if evolution were "disproven," that it would constitute evidence that life did not arise by natural means.

0 Replies

Two different statements. You attributed the second statement to me as a strawman--i never made that statement.

0 Replies

This is the original exchange:

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Simple question for you..
If you can show evolution didn't occur does it prove that life as we know it didn't come about by natural means? Yes or no?

No. This is just a strawman that Setanta trots out. Not something that I have proposed.

I have not at anytime said that you could disprove evolution, or were trying to do so, and in fact have pointed out that you haven't done so, using expressions such as "in your dreams." Therefore, your claim about a strawman is, as is so much of what you post, a lie.

The first passage you quoted above clearly shows that all you feel you need to do is discredit, cast doubt on a theory of evolution, and the implication is that then you can claim that your imaginary friend created the cosmos and the life on earth.

That is not a strawman, because that is clearly your position. Otherwise, why all that crapola about how either life arose by naturalistic means, or it did not arise by naturalistic means? Just what, precisely did you mean in suggesting that life did not arise by naturalistic means?

You, "real life," are a liar, and worse, you are an habitual liar.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You, "real life," are a liar, and worse, you are an habitual liar.

One of the truest things you could have said.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
equally absurd, is your insistence that if you have discredited a theory of evolution (something you have never accomplished), that the only alternative left is your poofism

Setanta wrote:
I have not said that you would say that if evolution were "disproven," that it would constitute evidence that life did not arise by natural means.

Two different statements. You attributed the second statement to me as a strawman--i never made that statement.

the first statement is a strawman

the second statement, in which you try to deny the first, is here

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2884630#2884630

0 Replies

Well, we have come full circle to RL's argument that the origin of life is part of evolution.

Rolling Eyes

This takes us back to Shapiro and your unanswered implication that Shapiro agrees with you that the oceans were frozen 3 billion years ago.
And all the other statements you have never clarified.

So.. lets recap.

you claim that "evolutionists" say the origin of life is part of evolution.
When I pointed out your statement was a strawman because I never said it you claimed your statement did not include me. When I asked for your definition of evolutionist, you snottily sent me to the dictionary where the definition DOES include me. Rather than explaining yourself you change the topic. Then you claimed evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. When pressed on it you claimed you were only asking questions but never really said evolution violates the 2nd law. I then pointed to your statment where you seemed proud you had made the claim more than once. You have never told us why you were suddenly denying making the statement. But of course you accused "evolutionists" of applying the 2nd law incorrectly when they included energy transfer. When it was pointed out to you that you can't apply the 2nd law without using energy transfer you changed the subject again and never did deal with the mathematical proof that shows that evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law. But you also declared that life can't come from energy alone using Shapiro's article as an argument against the RNA theory of how life began. You failed to address the fact that Shapiro's version of how life came to be is a thermodynamic theory and only requires energy be added to create life. You are full of dodging and weaving a failing to complete any of your arguments.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

This takes us back to Shapiro and your unanswered implication that Shapiro agrees with you that the oceans were frozen 3 billion years ago.

I never said, nor implied this.

Nor have I stated or implied that I agree with Shapiro on every point, nor that he agrees with me.

In fact, the very first time I referenced Shapiro , I made it clear that I did not agree with him on every point.

What a bunch of nonsense. Laughing

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Well, we have come full circle to RL's argument that the origin of life is part of evolution.

If you are uneasy discussing origin of life, don't.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
This takes us back to Shapiro and your unanswered implication that Shapiro agrees with you that the oceans were frozen 3 billion years ago.

I never said, nor implied this.

You have never explained it. 1. You were suggesting Shapiro thought the oceans were frozen. 2. You were changing the subject because you couldn't provide any evidence of frozen oceans.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2884747#2884747

Quote:

Nor have I stated or implied that I agree with Shapiro on every point, nor that he agrees with me.

Since you don't agree with Shapiro on ANY point why did you attempt to use him to support your opinion?

Quote:

In fact, the very first time I referenced Shapiro , I made it clear that I did not agree with him on every point.

Which point DO you agree with him on? He says there is another alternative to RNA origins of life and then gives an alternative. Are you saying you agree there is another alternative but don't agree with any of the alternatives he proposes? If that is your only argument then you are being completely and totally intellectually dishonest.

Quote:

What a bunch of nonsense.

Yes, you are filled with nonsense. Never ending nonsense because you refuse to answer simple questions and we are left with your implications.

So.. answer the SIMPLE questions.

WHICH POINT DO YOU AGREE WITH SHAPIRO ON? Be specific and do NOT ignore what else he says to support that point.

What evidence do you have that the atmosphere was the same 3 billion years ago as it is today?

How can you argue about the composition of the atmosphere 3 billion years ago if you think the earth is not that old?

Tell us how "evolutionist" does not include me in the definition.

Tell us where the math is wrong in the proof that shows evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Well, we have come full circle to RL's argument that the origin of life is part of evolution.

If you are uneasy discussing origin of life, don't.

I am fine with discussing the origins of life.

I am not fine with letting you redefine terms so you can try to score some petty point. My point is we are back to the area you RAN away from earlier when cornered. Like I pointed out earlier on this thread, you don't debate from a solid base, you merely run around the room hoping no one will notice you aren't standing still.

You have redefined "evolution", "evolutionist", the second law of thermodynamics, Shapiro's hypothesis, amongst others. Go ahead and be a complete moron. I certainly don't care. I'll just stand here and point at you again and again knowing full well you will NEVER answer any of the question you are asked because you can't and certainly don't dare.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Since you don't agree with Shapiro on ANY point why did you attempt to use him to support your opinion?

You apparently don't read my posts before you respond to them.

0 Replies

Obviously you will never answer the questions asked of you.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know