About this abiogenesis stuff...

[elliotfc]

From a purely literal standpoint, abiogenesis means life from non-life. Doesn't everybody (even the young earth creationists) believe this?

Adam was made from non-life, and Eve was made from biological material. Are these incidents of abiogenesis?

Of course there is the tacit understanding that abiogenesis excludes supernatural intervention. I was just looking at the word from it's most literal meaning.

-Elliot

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well, for one thing abiogenesis doesn't inherently exclude a creator. Nothing in current evolutionary thought inherently excludes a creator.

As far as abiogenesis goes, there's a fascinating at Talk.Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) about the subject. I cite it every time abiogenesis comes up and have yet to receive a substantive reply.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Well, for one thing abiogenesis doesn't inherently exclude a creator. Nothing in current evolutionary thought inherently excludes a creator.

As far as abiogenesis goes, there's a fascinating at Talk.Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) about the subject. I cite it every time abiogenesis comes up and have yet to receive a substantive reply.

I've read it. What are you looking for when you say substantive reply?

-Elliot

[hammegk]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Well, for one thing abiogenesis doesn't inherently exclude a creator. Nothing in current evolutionary thought inherently excludes a creator.



Science requires the added veneer of materialism to absolutely exclude a creator.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by hammegk
Science requires the added veneer of materialism to absolutely exclude a creator.

Wrong. Science requires no philosophizing to deal with facts. Care to deal with the facts or do you just wish to offer more platitudes?

Yawn....

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
Science requires the added veneer of materialism to absolutely exclude a creator. Does it? Science doesn't assume a supernatural influence, but how does it absolutely exlude it?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Does it? Science doesn't assume a supernatural influence, but how does it absolutely exlude it?

Oh come one Upchurch... you know that in Hammy's mind anything that doesn't explicitly include a supernatural frame of reference is not only subject to depravity but inherently shouts "NO!" at the possibility of a supernatural influence.

Yawn....

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Oh come one Upchurch... you know that {snip} Okay. Guilty. I do know better.

I was just playing a little Socratic Judo with hammegk in the hopes that he might deduce for himself that his preception of science isn't based on reality but on how he would like to believe reality is actually like.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Okay. Guilty. I do know better.

I was just playing a little Socratic Judo with hammegk in the hopes that he might deduce for himself that his preception of science isn't based on reality but on how he would like to believe reality is actually like.

Well I just had to comment as me - UnrepentantSinnerAthest - acutally knows more theists who accept evolution IRL than non-theists.

I'll hold my breath for his comments though... someone promise to give me CPR after a few hours... I don't want to risk any more brain damage than I already have.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Does it? Science doesn't assume a supernatural influence, but how does it absolutely exlude it?
It doesn't. Try reading what I said one more time, and maybe you will come to understand it.

Originally posted by US

Wrong. Science requires no philosophizing to deal with facts. Care to deal with the facts or do you just wish to offer more platitudes?

I suggest your problem is you are "brain-washed" rather than brain-damaged, but who knows?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

It doesn't. Try reading what I said one more time, and maybe you will come to understand it. What? So now you don't want me to have to interpret your statements? :rolleyes:

Fine, I'll restate: Science doesn't assume a supernatural creator, but how does it absolutely exlude it?

edited to add
Science requires the added veneer of materialism to absolutely exclude a creator. Also, I thought you considered materialism to be a philosophical basis of science, not a veneer, which presumably would be something added after the fact to, in this case, "absolutely exclude a creator." If strict materialism were the basis of science, on the other hand, that would imply that science excludes the existance of a creator by its very nature. Which is it? Basis or veneer?

Regardless, how can you show that this is the case? Frankly, science itself says nothing about the existance of a creator, pro or con. It merely explains the universe based on emperical observations. If science has now evidence for or against a creator, at best that implies that there is no emperical observation for or against the existance of a creator.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc
From a purely literal standpoint, abiogenesis means life from non-life. Doesn't everybody (even the young earth creationists) believe this?

Adam was made from non-life, and Eve was made from biological material. Are these incidents of abiogenesis?

Of course there is the tacit understanding that abiogenesis excludes supernatural intervention. I was just looking at the word from it's most literal meaning.

-Elliot


I thought that a long time before we got to the Adam and Eve stage, there was 'nothing' ?

So before we consider life evolving ( with Jehova's help or otherwise ) from non-life, shouldn't we deal with ' something out of nothing ' ?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Wrong. Science requires no philosophizing to deal with facts. Care to deal with the facts or do you just wish to offer more platitudes?

Yawn....

But science is a philosophy.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes



I thought that a long time before we got to the Adam and Eve stage, there was 'nothing' ?

So before we consider life evolving ( with Jehova's help or otherwise ) from non-life, shouldn't we deal with ' something out of nothing ' ?

Maybe. I was talking about abiogenesis, which itself comes after a whole bunch of other stuff.

Let me restate. Take all of the origin of life theories. Are they ALL abiogenesitic? Yes, they are all literally abiogenesitic.

And my point is that the word abiogenesis carries with it a certain spirit that goes beyond the literal meaning of the word. If that's the case, that isn't necesarrily a good or bad thing.

-Elliot

[Darwin]

Naturalism is nothing but a necessity,not a preferance (for an alternative opinion,be sure to ask the creation "scientists").

[swstephe]

Yes, everyone goes on the defensive when they hear a word like "abiogenesis". They automatically assume you are involving a creator in the process. Nothing you can do but ride out the storm of controversy now.

Think of it like the old faux-paradox: "what came first, the chicken or the egg". The answer is probably "the egg". If you go back in time far enough, regardless of your definition of "chicken", you will find that the first chicken egg produced the first chicken, but was laid by a proto-chicken that was not 100% according to your definition of "chicken". Creationist might *imagine* that God created chickens, but they would be wrong since the chicken was actually the result of human domestication of a Malaysian jungle fowl. Same with mules vs. horses and dogs vs. wolves. The parent need not produce an offspring of its same kind or name. Just because it has been around for ages, we give them different names but they were definitely part of the same family of animals. Some languages might not differentiate. You can avoid talking about evolution and still answer "the egg".

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Darwin
Naturalism is nothing but a necessity,not a preferance (for an alternative opinion,be sure to ask the creation "scientists").

Necessity for what? Reality has already taken place, and does take place, regardless of theory.

Necessity for what exactly?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by swstephe
Think of it like the old faux-paradox: "what came first, the chicken or the egg". The answer is probably "the egg". If you go back in time far enough, regardless of your definition of "chicken", you will find that the first chicken egg produced the first chicken, but was laid by a proto-chicken that was not 100% according to your definition of "chicken".

If you go back in time far enough? Then this is a statement of faith.

-Elliot

[Darwin]

Necessity in science.

[Darwin]

Definitely it was the egg.
First egg probably appeared during carboniferous.
(hopefully,you found that funny).

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by elliotfc


But science is a philosophy.

-Elliot

no it isn't. it is a method. is brick laying a philosophy? both brick laying and science can be the basis for philosophy, but in and of themselves they aren't.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Darwin
Necessity in science.

Yes, I agree with you completely. If you are 100% scientific in outlook, you're absolutely right.

But it is possible, whether you care to admit it or not, to have a scientific theory with supernatural components. You can grind your teeth in disgust, but it is not only possible, but even common. And guess what. A reasonable person can even assume such a view and not be a complete idiot.

Would I expect a 100% scientific outlook type person to disagree with such a stance? Of course. Should I expect that disagreement to devolve into name-calling? No, I would hope people had better manners and more respect for their fellow man than to do such things. And no, I did not get such notions from the Bible.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


no it isn't. it is a method. is brick laying a philosophy? both brick laying and science can be the basis for philosophy, but in and of themselves they aren't.

Brick laying is brick laying. You pick up the brick. You lay the brick.

Science is a method of arriving at truth, not building a house. I don't confuse technology with science.

-Elliot

[Upchurch]

elliotfc

Science and religion are both subsets of philosophy, but that does not make science and religion synonymous. Science is no more a religion than religion is a science.

You say science requires faith and, by stretching the definition of "faith", you are correct. However, everything a scientist takes on faith is suspect and comes with the realization that it may be proven incorrect in the future and will most definitely need at least modifying at some point.

Religion, on the other hand, requires a faith in something that ultimately isn't questioned. There may be religious philosophers who question aspects of their faith, but underneath it all there is at least one core concept that is simply accepted as factual to the point that counter evidence (if any is available) will not change the believer's mind.

[Darwin]

Can you tell me more about alleged scientific theories with supernatural components?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
elliotfc

Science and religion are both subsets of philosophy, but that does not make science and religion synonymous. Science is no more a religion than religion is a science.

Agreed, I didn't mean to confuse or equate the two. Science can act, however, in ways akin to popular religious stereotypes. You can find excommunication, dogma, persecution, you name it, in science. See, human behavior cannot be separated from either science or religion. From pure methodological philosophy, I do agree that these are different ways of thinking. The problem is that, in practice, there is no pure methodological philosophy because its human that practice it.

You say science requires faith and, by stretching the definition of "faith", you are correct. However, everything a scientist takes on faith is suspect and comes with the realization that it may be proven incorrect in the future and will most definitely need at least modifying at some point.

Religion, on the other hand, requires a faith in something that ultimately isn't questioned.

But people are constantly asking questions in religion, and I don't know any religion that claims to know all of the answers. Are some things not to be questioned? No. If a Christian wants to question whether or nor Jesus existed that's fine. If he comes to the answer *no*, then he will hopefully find a new religion, or ditch it altogether. Same thing with a belief in God. Go ahead and question it, even ditch the faith. Then you will no longer be a member of the religion.

So a religion can contain a million people, all of whom questioned, all of whom have times where their faith is shaken. They are united by what they believe in common. And if they disagree with the powers that be, or feel their religion has been hijacked, they can start their own.

With science, there are heretics. There are scientists who eschew the views of the fellow members of their field and go in a different direction. Do you see the analogy? I think it helpful because I hate how we try to make each other out to be so radically different from ourselves. I don't think our behavior makes us difference...rather, it accentuates how similar we are.

There may be religious philosophers who question aspects of their faith, but underneath it all there is at least one core concept that is simply accepted as factual to the point that counter evidence (if any is available) will not change the believer's mind.

I don't see how you can make that statement. Do you understand people better than the people understand themselves? If individuals choose to express that sentiment I won't argue with them. Of course counter evidence can change anyone's mind, but it doesn't HAVE to. And if it doesn't it's no use blaming the person. The evidence works for you, and it doesn't work for others. I can blame that fact on a core concept within YOU, while you blame it on a core concept within ME. I don't see a difference in our behavior. And who is the ultimate arbitor for standards and evidence? What do we compare it to? A philosophy. That's why it's so hard to communicate.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Darwin
Can you tell me more about alleged scientific theories with supernatural components?

If you have an understanding of evolution that sees what happens around you, sees how their is variety within species, sees how species evolve to respond to environmental stress and what not, *but* do not magnify and extrapolate this knowledge to the past, and believe that a supernatural being was the direct source of the creation of life and/or the fundamentals of cellular life and structure and/or the origin of all species, what do you have?

You can't say that is 0% science. There is some science in the above position. The science is applied to what can be observed and tested. The supernatural components are invoked for what is not observed and what is untestable today.

You can, if you want, call it a supernatural theory with scientific components. Whatever.

Surely such theories aren't illegal. And I don't see how insulting such theories does any good. Since my understanding of the universe is not purely materialistic I can respect another understanding, while at the same time rejecting it.

-Elliot

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by elliotfc


If you have an understanding of evolution that sees what happens around you, sees how their is variety within species, sees how species evolve to respond to environmental stress and what not, *but* do not magnify and extrapolate this knowledge to the past, and believe that a supernatural being was the direct source of the creation of life and/or the fundamentals of cellular life and structure and/or the origin of all species, what do you have?

You can't say that is 0% science. There is some science in the above position. The science is applied to what can be observed and tested. The supernatural components are invoked for what is not observed and what is untestable today.

You can, if you want, call it a supernatural theory with scientific components. Whatever.

Surely such theories aren't illegal. And I don't see how insulting such theories does any good. Since my understanding of the universe is not purely materialistic I can respect another understanding, while at the same time rejecting it.

-Elliot
Or one might call it argument from ignorance.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Or one might call it argument from ignorance.

You could call it anything you want, but you can't call it 0% science.

Some people need 100% science in their life, and some people don't. You can belittle the non-100% sciencers of course, but they will continue to exist despite their belief, or disbelief. They will be able to be happy, or unhappy. Have lots of children or no children. Be wealthy, or poor.

Ignorance is a subjective word. What is the standard for ignorance that you use? And why is it superior to other standards? Because it is your standard.

Is there anyone on this board who believes science is the ultimate standard, and also believes in God?

-Elliot

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by elliotfc


You could call it anything you want, but you can't call it 0% science.

Some people need 100% science in their life, and some people don't. You can belittle the non-100% sciencers of course, but they will continue to exist despite their belief, or disbelief. They will be able to be happy, or unhappy. Have lots of children or no children. Be wealthy, or poor.

Ignorance is a subjective word. What is the standard for ignorance that you use? And why is it superior to other standards? Because it is your standard.

Is there anyone on this board who believes science is the ultimate standard, and also believes in God?

-Elliot
Here's a link in case you want to read up on argument from ignorance. (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm)

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Here's a link in case you want to read up on argument from ignorance. (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm)

Fine. You can't prove that your theories of the past are false, therefore they are true to you. And since I can't prove my theories to be true, therefore they are false to you.

So your arguments are ignorant.

This is ridiculous. Why don't you call my position "argument from poopy-head" next, OK?

-Elliot

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by elliotfc

Fine. You can't prove that your theories of the past are false, therefore they are true to you. And since I can't prove my theories to be true, therefore they are false to you.

So your arguments are ignorant.

This is ridiculous. Why don't you call my position "argument from poopy-head" next, OK?

-Elliot
Grow up. "argument from ignorance" is a technical term, not a personal insult, and it was applied accurately in this case.

You should probably also read up on
God of the gaps (http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/god_of_gaps.html), you're likely to run into that term very soon.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Is there anyone on this board who believes science is the ultimate standard, and also believes in God?


I don't believe that science is any "ultimate standard". I do believe that it is so far the best tool we have for making testable predictions that turn out to be true.


Anytime, any time at all that religion can make a testable, falsifyable prediction that we can test, Elliotfc, you'll let us know, won't you?

Or anytime you have ANYTHING better than science to make such testable falsifyable predections, you'll share that with us, right?



Or the moment you have anything that's better than science at determining what happened in pre-history... you'll tell us that too, right?

Or is it still all "faith" with you, to the point that even contental drift has to be taken on "faith", because no human can observe it in their lifespan?


I'm using this tone with you, because I had such hopes for critical thinking from you, Elliot. But now I'm just disappointed.

Anyone with religious beliefs in a creation story is forced to insert miraculous intervention into every part of evolution that they don't understand, or they choose not to understand or they refuse to accept. They HAVE to insert God somewhere, and He just fits in so well in the areas you don't know, or you find offensive (some folks can't stomach the monkey-business!). It's MUCH harder for folks to insert Miracles into things that laypeople understand, which is why nobody believes that God puts up a tent with the stars sewn in it at night. What was a literal "tabernacle" has become a figure of speech.


The more ignorant you choose to be about science, the more room for God. By choosing abiogenesis as YOUR place to involve a Deity, you are raining on everyone who chooses a later stage for miraculous intervention!

As a thinking species, we can't give up and just rely on that answer as a solution.

As individuals, folks will do whatever they want, but usually they will use those beliefs, and folks with those beliefs to force religion to be taught in public school.

And that's when I get out my megaphone.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Fine. You can't prove that your theories of the past are false, therefore they are true to you. And since I can't prove my theories to be true, therefore they are false to you.



Okay, right there Elliot, STOP. Read what you wrote.

That's where my disappointment from you stems. The double-standard. Can't you see right there where you are lying to yourself?


The correct way to phrase it, if you were being equal would be:


"You can't prove that MY theories of the past are false, and I can't prove that YOUR theories of the past are false."

See, THAT would be an EQUAL statement.

Instead of that, you ADMIT that you can't prove your own theories (and nobody else has proven those theories either), but SOMEHOW you equate them with someone else's theories that he can't disprove (and nobody else has disproven either).


Here's an idea. How about you PROVE your theories, OR you disprove science's theories.


Don't just equate them in your mind as both being equally valid. Prove them.

If you can't prove your theories, they should be false to you. Don't sidestep the issue by somehow convincing yourself that a theory is a theory is a theory, and therefore yours is just as valid as one arrived at by examining data and testing hypotheses. (You DO know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, don't you?)




Anyway, that's why I'm disappointed in you Elliot. I thought your ability to reason would catch you in internal contradictions like that.

[Tormac]

Upchurch wrote

“Also, I thought you considered materialism to be a philosophical basis of science, not a veneer, which presumably would be something added after the fact to, in this case, "absolutely exclude a creator." If strict materialism were the basis of science, on the other hand, that would imply that science excludes the existance of a creator by its very nature. Which is it? Basis or veneer?

Regardless, how can you show that this is the case? Frankly, science itself says nothing about the existance of a creator, pro or con. It merely explains the universe based on emperical observations. If science has now evidence for or against a creator, at best that implies that there is no emperical observation for or against the existance of a creator.”

I just wanted to post this again, since you beat me to it Upchurch. The notion that science and materialism are locked in a perpetual embrace is absurd. I’ve typed with many scientists who are devote theists. It is very easy to take one step past the measurable that science can describe to the infinite that is immeasurable, and point to where god(s) may dwell.

The notion that science implies materialism, seems to be common in some quarters, and stirs up a lot of anger where none is needed.

Science has limits. It is the best thing that human kind has come up with within its limits, but science is not the "ultimate standard" in places that are beyond the limits of empirical measurement.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


Science requires the added veneer of materialism to absolutely exclude a creator.

Have you anything to add, or are you merely sneering again.

Please explain your position regarding "veneer of materialism" in regards to science, which is an empirical, not philosophical, undertaking.

Please avoid launching off into any of straw men, excluded middles, or your usual unconstructive histrionics.

[jj]

Originally posted by elliotfc


But science is a philosophy.

-Elliot

Science is an empirical undertaking. While it has basis in philosophy, certainly, I think that labelling an empirical process "philosophy" is rather an odd suggestion.

[jj]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Necessity for what? Reality has already taken place, and does take place, regardless of theory.

-Elliot

Really?

Hammgk? You going to let him get away with that? :roll:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tormac

The notion that science implies materialism, seems to be common in some quarters, and stirs up a lot of anger where none is needed.



Who considers that to be true? I don't. "Science" does not require or even imply materialism. Materialism -- to make any sense whatsoever-- certainly does require science. Ergo, veneer; get it?

Originally posted by jj

Hammegk? You going to let him get away with that?
I'd answer if I had any clue as to what you might think you're talking about with that blurb.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
Who considers that to be true? I don't. "Science" does not require or even imply materialism. Materialism -- to make any sense whatsoever-- certainly does require science. Ergo, veneer; get it?So, who was talking about materialism? they were talking about science, creationism and abiogenesis until you threw this straw man into the mix.

:tr:

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Fine. You can't prove that your theories of the past are false, therefore they are true to you. And since I can't prove my theories to be true, therefore they are false to you.

So your arguments are ignorant.

This is ridiculous. Why don't you call my position "argument from poopy-head" next, OK?

-Elliot
The Penguin is right, "Arguement from Ignorance" is a technical term. Arguement from Ignornace is at its simplest "You cant prove this one way, so it must be the other". From the link (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm) arcticpenguin provided:
(i) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.

(ii) Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.

(iii) Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

Its very easy to see why Arguement From Ignorance is an invalid form of debate or rationalizing.

Most Philosophical proofs are commonly known as "Arguement from [fill in the blank]". For example, there is an Arguement From Evil, Arguement From Nonbelief, Arguement From Morality, etc.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Grow up. "argument from ignorance" is a technical term, not a personal insult, and it was applied accurately in this case.

You should probably also read up on
God of the gaps (http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/god_of_gaps.html), you're likely to run into that term very soon.

And who came up with that term?

And it equally applies to your position as well.

And it serves no productive person other than to satisfy the notion that one is knowledgeable and the other is ignorant.

A person named "arcticpenguin" telling me to grow up. And I happen to dig penguins.

-Elliot

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by elliotfc

Science can act, however, in ways akin to popular religious stereotypes. {snip}Agreed, but it is not as prevelant in science as you make it out to be. Most scientists would give their left arms to make the discovery that changes everything we currently know about a given subject. The impetus in science isn't toward the status que but away from it.
But people are constantly asking questions in religion, and I don't know any religion that claims to know all of the answers.elliotfc, nearly all religions claim to have all the answers (except maybe Buddists). God knows all, right? And through faith, we find those answers in God, right? You've never heard these claims made by preachers on Sunday morning?

If anything, go search these boards for billiefan2000 or Paul Bethke for examples of those who claim religion has all the answers.
Are some things not to be questioned? No. If a Christian wants to question whether or nor Jesus existed that's fine. If he comes to the answer *no*, then he will hopefully find a new religion, or ditch it altogether.So, if a Christian questions if Jesus is, in fact, the son of God and further, God himself, but determines that there is no way of determining whether or not this is the case, why does not this questioning Christian come to the conclusion that they don't know rather than trusting that Jesus was what the Bible claims he was? If believers in religion were as intellectually honest and inquisitive as you believe, how could they come to such vastly different conclusions, unable to convince one another that theirs is right and all the others are wrong?
With science, there are heretics. There are scientists who eschew the views of the fellow members of their field and go in a different direction. Do you see the analogy?I do, but it is a poor one.

Scientists who move away from the status que of current theory are either vindicated by the results of their experiments or they are shown to be wrong. Diffenitively. If there are various factions of scientists, it is because there has not yet been a definitive experiment or evidence one way or the other.

Religion, on the other hand, has no definitive answer. There is no common measuring stick to compare who is right and who is wrong aside from each religions holy texts. So, that, each religion is correct according to its holy text(s) but wrong according to another's.
I think it helpful because I hate how we try to make each other out to be so radically different from ourselves. I don't think our behavior makes us difference...rather, it accentuates how similar we are.Perhaps, but I hate when people try to marginalize science and all the good its done by making it up to be nothing other than another opinion, another religion, just as valid as any other opinion or religion just so they can feel that their religion is not overshadowed the conclusions of science.
I don't see how you can make that statement. Do you understand people better than the people understand themselves?Tell me. How many Christians ultimately decide that Jesus was not the son of God and still remain Christian? How many Muslims decide that Mohammad was not the prophet of Allah and still remain Muslim?

Now, how many scientists decided that Newton was wrong and still remained scientists? How many scientists decided that the universe was not filled with ether and still remained scientists?

[swstephe]

Originally posted by elliotfc
And who came up with that term?

The term "ignorance" isn't meant to be insulting. It means an argument can not be made from *our* ignorance about a certain truth. You don't know, I don't know, so you can't say that something is true when nobody knows. You can only use it to prove that nobody knows and move onto the next premise. There are lots of names for different fallacies, some are meant to be easy to remember, (it is also called "argumentum ad ignorantiam" and "shifting the burden").

Check out this (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) for a pretty exhaustive list.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, who was talking about materialism? they were talking about science, creationism and abiogenesis until you threw this straw man into the mix.


Sorry you can't seem to see the link. Better luck next time.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Silicon
Anytime, any time at all that religion can make a testable, falsifyable prediction that we can test, Elliotfc, you'll let us know, won't you?

Religion doesn't make that claim. If that is your standard for acceptance (the ability to make a testable, falsifiable prediction) then of course you would reject religion.

Or anytime you have ANYTHING better than science to make such testable falsifyable predections, you'll share that with us, right?

Of course this is a straw horse. I never said that religion was in this sort of business.

Or the moment you have anything that's better than science at determining what happened in pre-history... you'll tell us that too, right?

We have existing written documents from the past, be they mythologies or histories or catalogs of sheep sold. I respect that science does the best it can, and I hope it continues to do so.

Or is it still all "faith" with you, to the point that even contental drift has to be taken on "faith", because no human can observe it in their lifespan?

No, because continental drift is, in fact, measured today. How the continents originated? Not exactly sure.

I'm using this tone with you, because I had such hopes for critical thinking from you, Elliot. But now I'm just disappointed.

It's cool. My expectations from this forum are quite minimum at the moment, but I'm sure they'll rise another day.

Anyone with religious beliefs in a creation story is forced to insert miraculous intervention into every part of evolution that they don't understand, or they choose not to understand or they refuse to accept.

I don't subscribe to a particular creation story. I don't insert "miraculous intervention" into every part of evolution that I don't understand. Yes, I refuse to accept some tenets of your faith. Of course I understand how the totality of Neo-Darwinism is reasonable from a pure materialist perspective. I don't see any reason, however, to have a pure materialist perspective. I claim no certain knowledge, no absolute exclusion of any theory. Other theories work much better, in my opinion. But again, we don't share the same parameters of acception and rejection.

They HAVE to insert God somewhere, and He just fits in so well in the areas you don't know, or you find offensive (some folks can't stomach the monkey-business!). It's MUCH harder for folks to insert Miracles into things that laypeople understand, which is why nobody believes that God puts up a tent with the stars sewn in it at night. What was a literal "tabernacle" has become a figure of speech.

I only find offensive the inability for some people to respect the opinions of others when it comes to this topic. I can't force you to accept that I do, in fact, understand the evolutionary position. I can show you grades I got in college courses, and I can list books I have read. Consider it this way. You all seem to desire to discuss theology/philosophy, ostensibly so that you can understand the other positions. But you reject those positions. Can you possibly see how the same can hold for me?

The more ignorant you choose to be about science, the more room for God. By choosing abiogenesis as YOUR place to involve a Deity, you are raining on everyone who chooses a later stage for miraculous intervention!

So you have more knowledge about the past than me? If I rain on anyone else's parade is besides the point. That you have to continue to say what I am ignorant about is amusing. Tell me what books I should read. Ask me to submit a book report to you to prove that I have read it. If you want to believe that I have no learning, or education, or enlightened status, or awareness, or lack of information or experience, that only confirms that people will believe what they want to believe. Understand, since I KNOW that you are wrong about what I know and don't know, it appears that you're only grasping at straws. Wishful thinking. Not persuasive. Better to bring out specific points to discuss than to fling a general "you're ignorant" net. That's just my opinion of course. I'm content that I've studied evolution in several university classes, and surely you can understand that I value the evaluation techniques of others more than yourself. I'm content that I have the intellectual curiosity to read twice as many evolutionary books than creationist books. You're content with what you want to think about me.

As a thinking species, we can't give up and just rely on that answer as a solution.

I agree. The more theories, the better.

As individuals, folks will do whatever they want, but usually they will use those beliefs, and folks with those beliefs to force religion to be taught in public school.

Is this what you are afraid of? Public schools are a mess, such a mess that I pray that they never teach religion.

And that's when I get out my megaphone.

I respect that you care what is taught in public schools. God knows enough money is pumped into them.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Silicon
"You can't prove that MY theories of the past are false, and I can't prove that YOUR theories of the past are false."

See, THAT would be an EQUAL statement.

Instead of that, you ADMIT that you can't prove your own theories (and nobody else has proven those theories either), but SOMEHOW you equate them with someone else's theories that he can't disprove (and nobody else has disproven either).

Correct. I can't prove my theories in a scientific manner. I can not travel back in time and observe things that happened millions of years ago. I only equated them to see how I can say exactly the same thing, from my perspective. In other words, I can trot out the *argument from ignorance* just as well as you can.

Here's an idea. How about you PROVE your theories, OR you disprove science's theories.

We're only talking about one theory. How can I disprove parts of a huge theory that happened millions of years ago?

Don't just equate them in your mind as both being equally valid. Prove them.

Of course they are not equally valid. If I thought they were equally valid I probably wouldn't be in this forum supporting one theory over the other.

If you can't prove your theories, they should be false to you. Don't sidestep the issue by somehow convincing yourself that a theory is a theory is a theory, and therefore yours is just as valid as one arrived at by examining data and testing hypotheses.

How can you test a theoretical abiogenesis that happened millions of billions of years ago and cannot be explained in detail?

(You DO know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, don't you?)

I think so. A hypothesis is a guideline for experimentation, a conclusion not yet proven or tested. A theory is a compilation of principles and rules, more speculative in nature yet grounded in knowledge. A theory is not tested in the same way as a hypothesis because it is more like a paradigm than a specific statement.

Anyway, that's why I'm disappointed in you Elliot. I thought your ability to reason would catch you in internal contradictions like that.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by jj


Science is an empirical undertaking. While it has basis in philosophy, certainly, I think that labelling an empirical process "philosophy" is rather an odd suggestion.

You have chosen the form in which to practice and understand (empiricism). There is nothing wrong with empiricism (of course). And given the choice, you proceed to inquire and study and think and learn. This makes science a philosophy. Philosophy is the love of knowlege, right? And science isn't a form of philosophy?

I respect that you may think that science is the only worthwhile branch of philosophy, and that all other branches may be less than insignificant.

-Elliot

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Sorry you can't seem to see the link. Better luck next time. Weak. Try again.

You say that "Science requires the added veneer of materialism to absolutely exclude a creator." And that it's really materialism that requires science to be logically consistant (or in your words "make sense"). Further, that materialism absolutely excludes a creator, which you still have not attempted to justify.

1) Can you back your claim that science and/or materialism (I'll leave it to you which version you care to defend) absolutely excludes a creator?
2) What does any of that have to do with abiogenisis?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by elliotfc


And who came up with that term?



John Locke, founder of British empericism. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690


Book 4: Chapter 17:


20. II. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Secondly, Another way that men ordinarily use to drive others and force them to submit to their judgments, and receive their opinion in debate, is to
require the adversary to admit what they allege as a proof, or to assign a better. And this I call argumentum ad ignorantiam.

[elliotfc]

Is the following an argument from ignorance? -Elliot

Since you cannot prove that God exists, therefore God does not exist.

[swstephe]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Is the following an argument from ignorance? -Elliot

Since you cannot prove that God exists, therefore God does not exist.

Yes it is. You could also state it as:

Since you don't know whether God exists or not, therefore God does not exist.

Look at "innocent until proven guilty", (which I guess doesn't stand up logically). You get into statistics and probability with partial knowledge ... is something so incredibly unlikely or likely that you can make assumptions? Courts do it all the time with "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- and are sometimes wrong, but accept the consquences. You can't use that for a logical proof or statement of fact, but merely to find the most likely answer.

[Tormac]

hammegk asked (inresponce to a quote from me about people linking materialism and science)

Who considers that to be true? I don't. "Science" does not require or even imply materialism. Materialism -- to make any sense whatsoever-- certainly does require science. Ergo, veneer; get it?”

Forgive me if I implied that you did. I can see how your first post in this thread could mean the exact opposite. (i.e. science does not exclude a creator unless a veneer of materialism is added). I can also see how it could be misinterpreted. (shrug) Words are tricky things; meaning is certainly not always conveyed by them, but added by the reader.

I ment my post to be a response to the question of whether science was an “ultimate standard”. It was defiantly not meant to put words in your mouth hammegk. I do, however, run across the notion that science (or one of its disciplines) is a religion, because its foundation is built on materialism. Often it is applied specificly to evolution.

I quoted Upchurch, as I almost typed the exact same thing that he did, and it seemed redundant.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
elliotfc, nearly all religions claim to have all the answers (except maybe Buddists). God knows all, right? And through faith, we find those answers in God, right? You've never heard these claims made by preachers on Sunday morning?

Well...

No, I haven't. Of course I am most familiar with only one religion (Catholicism). The Catholic Church, yes only recently, has made it quite clear that they do not have all the answers. They have certain answers for certain questions, but they only offer answers within their own realm of relevance (faith and morals).

To be explicitly clear I do not have a problem with science and the present world. I wonder about cosmology and obviously I scratch my head about evolution.

If anything, go search these boards for billiefan2000 or Paul Bethke for examples of those who claim religion has all the answers.

They may differentiate between important/essential questions (why are we here, what is the moral condition of humanity, why does evil exist) with what can be considered material details (photosynthetic equations and ionic bonds). I can only guess, but does Paul Bethke speak with authority on microwave oven repair or canal building? The questions he is concerned with are of different type I reckon, but I could be wrong about that. And even if I was, I assure you that I do not pray for divine revelation to help me explain how a toaster works.

So, if a Christian questions if Jesus is, in fact, the son of God and further, God himself, but determines that there is no way of determining whether or not this is the case, why does not this questioning Christian come to the conclusion that they don't know rather than trusting that Jesus was what the Bible claims he was?

Of course some do. As for the others, it varies from person to person. In my understanding Jesus is necessary to reconcile humanity to God. That his historical existence is questioned I do not doubt, but what has been characterized as shaky historical evidence is bolstered by theological necessity. All Christians have to believe that they are in bad shape and in need of divine help. They have to believe this with the utmost conviction. That is why they trust the accounts.

If believers in religion were as intellectually honest and inquisitive as you believe, how could they come to such vastly different conclusions, unable to convince one another that theirs is right and all the others are wrong?

Of course there are many believers that aren't intellectually honest. I don't know the percentages, and I try to be charitable and assume that people I don't know are, in fact, intellectually honest unless they prove otherwise. I think different conclusions has a lot to do with your upbringing and life experiences. I think that people get hung up and turned off by certain analogies or ways of thinking that work for some individuals, and obviously not for others. Since this is such a personal subject, of course there will be attachment to *your* opinions over those of others. Do people get comfortable with their beliefs? Absolutely. I am continually tweaking my beliefs, and over the course of several years my beliefs were frankly all over the place.

Scientists who move away from the status que of current theory are either vindicated by the results of their experiments or they are shown to be wrong. Diffenitively. If there are various factions of scientists, it is because there has not yet been a definitive experiment or evidence one way or the other.

Fair enough. Given that science is a concrete endeavor, that talks of concrete things, you aren't going to have as wide a range of opinions as people under the umbrella of religion.

Religion, on the other hand, has no definitive answer. There is no common measuring stick to compare who is right and who is wrong aside from each religions holy texts. So, that, each religion is correct according to its holy text(s) but wrong according to another's.

At some point is has to go beyond holy texts. Even people who theoretically share the holy texts have differences of opinion. The best we can do is share general principles I think. The measuring stick or standard will and has developed over time, and it differs with each religion and even within each religion.

But the true standard? The true standard lies within each of us. Each person has to decide what options of understanding in this world satisfies oneself. You can place a measuring stick outside of each of us, yet it is only a measuring stick if it is compared to something else. We have to compare measuring sticks to our own intellects and beliefs. The questions that science attempts to answer are, for me, important but not essential. I happen to like science, but am not fascinated with it as I am fascinated by theology. If I didn't exist the various -ologies would all still exist. Therefore, for me, I have to be true to what questions most concern me. And frankly, since science does not have much to say regarding my most important questions, of course I will look elsewhere. I can appreciate other religions, but they don't speak to me as well as the religion in which I was raised. That is only natural I think. I'm not the type who would condemn other people of other religions to hell. We all, however, have to make the best of what we've been given.

Perhaps, but I hate when people try to marginalize science and all the good its done by making it up to be nothing other than another opinion, another religion, just as valid as any other opinion or religion just so they can feel that their religion is not overshadowed the conclusions of science.

No, it's not exactly an opinion, is it? When it is NOT an opinion, that's when I don't have a problem with science, see? I'm only all hot and bothered about science when it is opinion. Opinion founded on facts? Sure! Jesus, all opinions are founded on one fact or another. When it is valid it is valid. When it offers conjecture about the distant past...

Let me put it this way. If we lived in a world where abiogenesis happened in every stream, under every pillow, between our teeth, I don't think this conversation would be taking place. Is this a hang up on my part? Sure, from your perspective I'm sure it is.


Tell me. How many Christians ultimately decide that Jesus was not the son of God and still remain Christian? How many Muslims decide that Mohammad was not the prophet of Allah and still remain Muslim?

Now, how many scientists decided that Newton was wrong and still remained scientists? How many scientists decided that the universe was not filled with ether and still remained scientists?

Excellent. You got me there.

Let me submit this. Newton is NOT science. Jesus IS Christianity. Mohammed IS Islam. You can completely chuck Newton, and you'll still have science. You can't compeltely chuck Jesus or Mohammed.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by swstephe


The term "ignorance" isn't meant to be insulting. It means an argument can not be made from *our* ignorance about a certain truth. You don't know, I don't know, so you can't say that something is true when nobody knows. You can only use it to prove that nobody knows and move onto the next premise. There are lots of names for different fallacies, some are meant to be easy to remember, (it is also called "argumentum ad ignorantiam" and "shifting the burden").

Check out this (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) for a pretty exhaustive list.

Hmmm...am I guilty of taking this all too personally?

Sorry for overreacting.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Silicon



John Locke, founder of British empericism. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690


Book 4: Chapter 17:


20. II. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Secondly, Another way that men ordinarily use to drive others and force them to submit to their judgments, and receive their opinion in debate, is to
require the adversary to admit what they allege as a proof, or to assign a better. And this I call argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Funny, argumentum ad ignorantiam doesn't sound nearly as offensive as argument from ignorance.

Thanks for dropping the knowledge on this one, see you guys in a while.

-Elliot

[Silicon]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Correct. I can't prove my theories in a scientific manner.

Can you prove them in any manner?


I can not travel back in time and observe things that happened millions of years ago. I only equated them to see how I can say exactly the same thing, from my perspective.


Again with the time travel!! Is that the only method of knowing something?


Tell me why the following isn't an accurate characterization of your point of view: "Because there's no time travel, ANY CRAZY theory I come up with is as plausible as any theory science finds from actually looking at rocks, fossils, geological data, life-science, chemistry, biology, etc, because they have no time machine!!!"


It's not the same thing. You aren't applying the same tests to your own theories that you require of scientific theories. That's you hiding behind double-speak.


That's what your quote said. It said "I can't prove mine, and you can't disprove yours." Those are two different standards.

We CAN prove ours. You CAN'T disprove ours, you CAN'T prove yours,

...and you won't really tell us what yours is, so WE can't disprove it, can we? What is it, anyway? What is your abiogenesis theory? Tell us all about it, how it happened, what day it was on, etc. What was the first creature? What did it eat? What was it made of?

This should be the easyist one: When did your theory of life on Earth start? Give us a date! (No fair looking at science's numbers, that's peeking!) We should be able to test that.

Tell us the date, and how you came upon it.

And don't say 4004 B.C., cause we'll just laugh. ;-)



We're only talking about one theory. How can I disprove parts of a huge theory that happened millions of years ago?


Disprove ANY of it, and it all falls apart. Find a human skeleton with t-rex bitemarks inside a dinosaur's stomach and the whole thing falls apart.


How can you test a theoretical abiogenesis that happened millions of billions of years ago and cannot be explained in detail?

You duplicate it in a lab.

When you say it "cannot be explained in detail" do you mean right now, or that it's impossible for anyone to ever explain it in detail?

And how do you know that? Your time machine?



Of course, you don't mind me asking for you to prove your theory. Scientifically, or any other tool that can make testable predictions.



I think so. A hypothesis is a guideline for experimentation, a conclusion not yet proven or tested. A theory is a compilation of principles and rules, more speculative in nature yet grounded in knowledge. A theory is not tested in the same way as a hypothesis because it is more like a paradigm than a specific statement.

Pretty close.

hypothesis
In science, an idea or proposition that is based on certain observations about the natural world. Hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation.


Theory
In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere
speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments.


For example, a hypothesis might be: If I expose this cow to mycobacterium tuberculosis, it will catch the disease.

You test that hypothesis, and it is shown to be true or false.

A theory explains why, such as the germ theory of disease.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by elliotfc



Let me put it this way. If we lived in a world where abiogenesis happened in every stream, under every pillow, between our teeth, I don't think this conversation would be taking place. Is this a hang up on my part? Sure, from your perspective I'm sure it is.


Dude, you have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of time.

Here's an analogy for you:

Let me put it this way, If we lived in a world where glaciers moved more than an inch, I'd believe you on how those valleys got carved in Canadian mountains. But we all know that glaciers don't move, or barely move at all! Plus, without a time-machine, there's no way to REALLY PROVE they were carved by glaciers.


Again, a human-centric view. "If I can't observe something in my lifetime, with my own two eyes, it didn't happen."

I guess when you believe that God created it all for our benefit, anything that God hides beyond the ken of the living senses is to be out of our understanding.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by swstephe
Think of it like the old faux-paradox: "what came first, the chicken or the egg". The answer is probably "the egg". If you go back in time far enough, regardless of your definition of "chicken", you will find that the first chicken egg produced the first chicken, but was laid by a proto-chicken that was not 100% according to your definition of "chicken". Creationist might *imagine* that God created chickens, but they would be wrong since the chicken was actually the result of human domestication of a Malaysian jungle fowl. Same with mules vs. horses and dogs vs. wolves. The parent need not produce an offspring of its same kind or name. Just because it has been around for ages, we give them different names but they were definitely part of the same family of animals. Some languages might not differentiate. You can avoid talking about evolution and still answer "the egg".

I'm glad I'm not the only one who makes this argument. :)

You state it almost exactly like I have in the past.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tormac
.. I do, however, run across the notion that science (or one of its disciplines) is a religion, because its foundation is built on materialism. Often it is applied specificly to evolution.



That is a notion I share, and it applies as much to abiogenesis as it does to evolution. Either make as good as or better sense when approached scientifically but minus the faith that materialism is a necessary condition for the utility of science.

As to abiogenesis, the current answer is "we have no clue". I do find it interesting that apparently it was a one-of event on earth.

[jj]

Originally posted by elliotfc


You have chosen the form in which to practice and understand (empiricism). There is nothing wrong with empiricism (of course). And given the choice, you proceed to inquire and study and think and learn. This makes science a philosophy. Philosophy is the love of knowlege, right? And science isn't a form of philosophy?


By invoking Popper, you can quite rightly argue that science is THE RESULT OF PHILOSOPHY.

It is, however, not philosophy, as it deals in the empirical, falsifiable, and testable.

Philosophy need not be any of those, and no philosophy, including parts of Popper's that created the scientific process, remains entirely in the scientific realm.

Science is a PRODUCT of philosophy, not a philosophy, except perhaps in a very limited, simple way, hardly befitting the word. (That does not, by the way, suggest that I think there is a problem with science.)

I respect that you may think that science is the only worthwhile branch of philosophy, and that all other branches may be less than insignificant.
-Elliot
Please do not presume what I think. What you have written is placing a position I do not hold at my feet. This is, strictly speaking, the "straw man" fallacy, although you've been polite so far and not burnt your straw man.

As you may notice, I do not regard science as a branch of philosophy, rather a product of a particular kind of philosopy, related to materialism, empiricism, and so on.

Your position as to what I regard as insignificant is incorrect, however it's not a simple or short discussion.

[jj]

Originally posted by Silicon



John Locke, founder of British empericism. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690


Book 4: Chapter 17:


20. II. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Secondly, Another way that men ordinarily use to drive others and force them to submit to their judgments, and receive their opinion in debate, is to
require the adversary to admit what they allege as a proof, or to assign a better. And this I call argumentum ad ignorantiam.

But did he in fact coin the phrase? I can't believe that's the first time the idea was illuminated.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by hammegk


As to abiogenesis, the current answer is "we have no clue". I do find it interesting that apparently it was a one-of event on earth.


Actually, we have a great many clues. It's not a totally solved question, but the RNA world model has been quite useful in terms of a whole field of study.

Those clues are yielding results.

And I don't think it was a unique event. Different parts of the process may have happened zillions of times. But the last time, it stuck, and we haven't seen *the entire process* repeated since. Parts of it happen all the time, though.

Remember, we aren't talking about a bunch of chemicals swirling in a pool and then ZAP, bacteria. We're talking about millions and millions of years of slow, incrimental change, step by tiny step, from simple non-living things to simple living things. At one end of the scale you have things that very certainly aren't alive, and on the other end you have things that absolutely are alive. In the middle (millions of years of middle!), you get a foggy, "well, it MIGHT be alive, in some aspects".


Why hasn't it happened again? Well, let's look at the question from the point of view of competition. Surely the most fit organism to survive would change the environment to the point where competing proto-organisms couldn't survive.

Things that eat rna, for example. Those would be able to populate the earth, and make sure that nothing got too far along behind it to compete!.


There are a lot (A LOT) of those microorganisms today, which eat amino acids (like RNA). So that's why the process hasn't repeated. Photoheterotrophs were among the very first life on earth, and they devour amino acids.

So nothing new gets started!

[Silicon]

Originally posted by jj


But did he in fact coin the phrase? I can't believe that's the first time the idea was illuminated.

Without a time machine, I guess we'll never TRUELY know!

;)


But yeah, he's credited with giving us that name for that argument. I'm sure someone thought of it sooner, but they just called it "Argument from poopy-head" and it didn't catch on.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Silicon



Actually, we have a great many clues. ..

clue
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of clew
Date: 1596
: something that guides through an intricate procedure or maze of difficulties; specifically : a piece of evidence that leads one toward the solution of a problem

What you have are a great many SWAGs (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses). I'd say you can't even define the problem, that being "what is life?".

[Silicon]

And I can see that you can't define your problem. Which is, "why is my head up my ...


HEY KIDS!!!


Pardon me for responding to your post, Hammegk, I thought you wanted to discuss the issue, rather than hide behind your own (really crappy, ancient, useless) pseudo-philosophy.

"What is life?" Please. Next you'll be wanting a re-evaluation of "reality".

I shant ever respond to your posts again.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Silicon
..
"What is life?" Please. Next you'll be wanting a re-evaluation of "reality".

Just one point; this is the R & P Forum. And no, I don't see or hear you defining "life", not even the Terran variety.


I shant ever respond to your posts again.

Your choice. Did you actually think your sophomoric thoughts on abiogenesis had merit?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by swstephe
The term "ignorance" isn't meant to be insulting. It means an argument can not be made from *our* ignorance about a certain truth. You don't know, I don't know, so you can't say that something is true when nobody knows. You can only use it to prove that nobody knows and move onto the next premise. There are lots of names for different fallacies, some are meant to be easy to remember, (it is also called "argumentum ad ignorantiam" and "shifting the burden").

Check out this (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) for a pretty exhaustive list.
Awesome list, I've seen so many of these arguements before in reality, now I have something to call them. Of course, I've known some people that are a bit reluctant to accept that they have committed a logical fallacy and they usually defend themselves with "How do you know?" (Which is an arguement from ignorance actually :D...)