It
is easy, so please do! I recommend the following Talk Origins essay
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
First of all: Sigh...
No arguing by links please, it's to easy to just post a few links and expect me to do your homework. If you have any evidence, testability, falsifiability to bring, then post it in your own words and give the link only as back up. I'm not going to spend hours forming up a reply to every single website you'll post an URL for.
Secondly: sigh...
I've already replied to that site several posts ago.
Thirdly: If you had followed the no-arguing-by-link-rule, if you had posted the gist of the arguments rather then only reading over the titles and posting the links; then you would have noticed that those aren't evidence for common descent at all! Those are evidence for macroevolution. If you read the titles carefully you can see what they attempt to do on that site:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
So basically, they want to claim that common descent is a scientific case, based on evidence for macroevolution. Sorry but that is unscientific! In science each theory is judged by its own merits. Just because there's evidence for macroevolution doesn't mean that common descent is also proven that's a huge sweeping generalization.
So My statement stands, there is no evidence, empirical data, falsification or testability for common descent. Again, if you want to claim that there is, you 'll have to show and tell, not just tell.
Doing a quick Google search will bring up a lot of websites and if you don't feel like looking elsewhere you can check Wikipedia which not only has a page on common descent, but a page devoted solely for the evidence to suggest common descent is true.
And if you would take the time to actually read those sites you will find that it's all false. Again, I'm not going to go and refute every article out there. But if you feel confident about any proof, then bring it here and I'll show you why it's false. I repeat my previous posts. It's easy to tell me to go and look somewhere. But the point in debate is that you bring your own evidence, rather than asking your opponent to look for evidence in favor of your view. If you can't find any, or you are to lazy to do that, then don't come here claiming that there is evidence. In here you've gotta back up what you claim.
No, I’m not being biased. It’s scepticism.
No it is not, skepticism is refusal to accept something without proof. But skepticism is still neutral. When you say that belief is irrational you go way beyond skepticism into the field of bias. I've already illustrated in depth why your claim was biased. Simply denying it and hiding behind skepticism won't defeat my arguments.
It’s irrational to explain something as supernatural as people reach that conclusion often with no good reason,
Now you are being irrational. There's no less than 4 logical fallacies in that single conclusion of yours!
1.
Fallacist's fallacy: even if someone uses a flawed argument to reach a conclusion, doesn't mean that the conclusion itself is wrong or flawed. It's perfectly plausible for people to reach an accurate conclusion based on false arguments. Or in this case a rational conclusion.
2.
Sweeping generalisation: Just because people "
often" reach to the conclusion of supernatural based on no good reason, doesn't mean that
every conclusion which suggests to the supernatural is therefor without good reason.
3.
Slippery slope: Just because you do not
know of a good reason does not mean that there doesn't exists a good reason. There's a difference between what you know, and what other people know. Are you really that vain and arrogant that you think you know more then millions of people do?
4.
accent fallacy: there is no such thing as a "good" reason. Reasons are reason. If you have a reason, that is sufficient. All judgments of "good" or "bad" reasons are obviously going to be biased by personal opinion.
See, 4 logical flaws combined in a single conclusion! So don't you tell me I'm the one who's irrational kiddo.
much less anything to back up their claims aside from anecdotes.
Yes obviously believe in something means that there is no proof. Otherwise it wouldn't be believing but rather "knowing". So now you are defending your earlier statement (belief is irrational) because there is no proof. So in other words, in your opinion accepting something as true without proof is irrational? That's a very narrow minded view. And an unsubstantiated by the way, just because something is devoid of proof does not mean it's devoid of rationality also. Again a slippery slope fallacy.
Also, to explain something as supernatural is to not explain anything. The supernatural isn’t a consistent set of laws that can be observed.
Just because it's not a consistent set of laws doesn't mean that it isn't an explenation. Explanations don't always come in consistent set of laws. This fallacy is known as the false dilemma. Either it's observable in a consistent law or it is not explained. You're simply closing your eyes for a whole set of possibilities. Again this is bias and not skepticism. A skeptic would say that he doesn't accept/believe in explanations that aren't observable as consistent laws. To go even farther and say that those explanations aren't explanations at all is just bias.
It’s not an explanation as putting it down to the supernatural doesn’t get you closer to a coherent description of what is true.
What?!? So basically your saying that any explanation that isn't scientific doesn't reveal the truth? What if the truth is something that cannot be examined within the field of science? Again; bias and not skepticism.
Why not simply say you don’t know instead of reaching an unreasoned conclusion
It is not an unreasoned conclusion. In fact an unreasoned conclusion is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. By definition conclusions are reasoned. Otherwise they wouldn't be called conclusions but rather be called assumptions. And no, creationism isn't a baseless assumption. It's very much reasoned. You might disagree with or dislike the reasoning. But it is nevertheless reasoned. By the way, I could just bounce the ball back. There's no evidence for common descent either. Why don't most scientists simply admit (like some do) that at this point science is simply unable to tell whether or not we all evolved out of the same ancestor or not. My initial claim has always been, that common descent does not belong in science.
for which there is nothing to suggest it’s anything besides wishful thinking?
On the contrary, there are many things that suggest it. You're just not willing to accept those suggestions. I don't mind, you're free to accept/decline any suggestion. But to ignore it and then claim it doesn't exist is just acting blind.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
In that case, you still owe me some extremely extraordinary evidence for common descent.
Don’t bother with dismantling the example, it’s the principle that matters.
Still going with denial I see. I already dismantled it and showed the flaw in your argument. and that flaw isn't just for that specific example, but can be extrapolated to the general principle as well. Just because you can't
reproduce your personal experiences to use them in debate, doesn't mean that you can't base your ideas on it. And sorry for being so frank again, but you're being immensely arrogant and narrow minded when you say that people who do believe something without evidence are deluded. Deluded implies that they are wrong. When you refer to faith as delusion, you imply that atheism is inevitably true. Which in turn means that you are arrogant and narrow minded, not to mention offensive. There isn't any proof that shows that there doesn't exist a god. In fact people believe things on good faith on a daily basis. People believe that they have a brain without ever having had an MRI or dissection to prove it. are all those people deluded since they believe something that isn't proven? People believe on good faith that their partner doesn't cheat on them, also without evidence. Are you going to tell me that all those people who believe that their spouse is faithful are deluded to? Are you gonna claim that everybody cheats on his/her partner? Of course you aren't. Then I ask you, why the double standard. Why say that in one case, accepting something without faith is delusion but in another it is not?
The fact is any material object is substantially more real and palpable than all the Gods history has given us. That’s all I wanted to show with the example.
If that is true then you picked a very odd way of saying it. There's a huge difference between saying:
"Material things are more substantial than faith."
and:
"Accepting your faith as factual means you are delusional."
If you believe God is as real as, say, the computer mouse you’re probably using now, I think you’re deluded.
And if that's what you think, I think you are arrogant, narrow minded, and offensive.
If God was as real as a material object, there would be no reason to doubt its existence.
So god can be partially real, but not equally real? Either something is real or it is not. If you believe in God, you believe he is real. It's as simple as that. So now you're saying millions of people are deluded because they believe God is real? Secondly, just because something is real, equally real as a material object, doesn't mean that there would be no reason to doubt its existence. Just because we can't see God doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
This is again a false dilemma, you claim either there is no doubt about his existence, or he does not exist. There exist more objects in this universe then we are sure off that exist. That's a cold hard fact. So that means obviously there exist some things of which we are not sure of their existence.
I know religious people don’t see God as a material person, but when you say don’t just consider your faith “very plausible” but “instead [I consider] it factual” you’re saying it’s an undisputed fact.
No, I'm not saying that it is an undisputed fact. I'm saying that I consider it indisputable for myself, on a personal level. However I still acknowledge that other people have other ideas. And I acknowledge, that I can't prove what I am convinced of.
Again with the baseless denial. How about replying to my argument rather then just saying I'm wrong and leaving it at that.
By all means, say you’re religious because you find meaning; because you enjoy the solidarity; or indeed because you believe in God. You would have to have been duped, however, to say you’re religious because of all the evidence for it.
People can be religious because of multiple reasons. It doesn't have to be just one thing, but in most cases it's the sum of many things.
As someone pointed out to me on this board, if there was evidence for Islam, everyone would be Muslim.
The problem is that the evidence is to weak to convince on it solely. Changing religious views is quite an endeavor and you would need pretty strong undeniable evidence to convert the whole world. In fact, I think
undeniable proof doesn't even exist. No matter how convincing something might be, there will always be people who will be able to deny it, since most people accept what they
want to accept, and not what convinces them. So as I said, people can be religious due to more then one reason, and these evidences by them self are not enough to convince someone. But that doesn't mean that they are useless, because they aren't always "by them self". So like I said, they can be a push in the back and aren't useless.
Be that as it may, that still leaves the issue: even if for the sake of argument I grant they are useless, who are you to come here and tell us what we should or shouldn't do?
There aren‘t different right answers and interpretations to 7+3, but there are different views of how and why we exist as shown by the myriad faiths which exist in the world.
That's because the different faiths are wrong, not because my faith is wrong. Islam is the only religion with evidence. A fatwa is always based on verses from the koran or hadeeth. The Koran itself functions as proof for the prophecy of Muhammed (peace be upon him). In other religions people accept what they want to accept. In Islam we accept only that which can be proven. I can't help it that all those other people with other faiths have such low standards on what they accept or not. But that has no merit on Islam.
