I knew this thread would quickly turn into one of those in which each post is an incredibly long series of quotes and rebuttals. I find that style hard to read and even harder to write. I guess it is the only way to handle some of these topics in this kind of medium, but it makes me wish I could just sit down and talk some of this through, because it would go a lot faster and there woudl be fewer misunderstandings.

Anyway, I am not going to post a long series of quotes and rebuttals because it seems to take me all day to compose one of those. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Can someone tell me if there is a quicker way to quote a series of snippets than to quote the entire original post and then chop out the parts you don't want? And how do you do that 20 times in one post?

There is one quote I do need to rebut, because it is a complete misunderstanding of what I said, and the misunderstanding indicates that someone thought I said something idiotic, which is not the case:

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
Please, don't insult my intelligence by making irrational assumptions like this. Assumptions that my only logical arguments are derived from arguments found in the Spirituality section of Cannabis.com! But, based on this little quip, I'll just assume that this is the only place where you are able to make solid conclusions of your own arguments, and that you should also reach out to threads/websites/documents other than those presented here. There's a whole wealth of knowledge outside of Cannabis.com, you know...:wtf:
That quote is in reference to my statement:

Quote Originally Posted by dragonrider
I'm not going to get into the logical arguments and empirical evidence FOR evolutionary theory in this thread, because they are so well covered in other threads. But I will assert that if you go check the arguments in those threads, or better yet, research outside this forum, you will find plenty of empirical evidence for the theory.
If you read what I said, I think we are in agreement. This forum is the last place I would look for evidence for any of my beliefs! Gawd! I come here mostly to read about people's crazy stoned pot-smoking stories and get new cannibis recipes! Somehow, against my better judgement, I get sucked into these other discussions, but I do not come here to learn about science or religion!

My point in my original quote was that I didn't need to present a case here for evolutionary theory because it is well covered in this forum, and outside of it. If you look at the people who have posted in this thread, they are all the same people who have participated in those other threads I am talking about, so let's not waste time rehashing all of those arguments and stick to the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is that there is a logical fallacy in saying that if one thing is not true, then a particular alternative is true. That is not an argument rooted in Logic.

Like Mathematics, Logic is a codified system of reasoning with very strict rules. Those rules prohibit certain kinds of fallacies that everyone uses everyday. Many of the logical fallacies that people use everyday are accepted forms of reasoning, but they are not logical according to the codified rules of Logic. For example, someone might say, "George Bush is an idiot, and everything he ever said was a self-serving lie, so if he says Iran wants The Bomb, it's not true." First, you might not accept the premise at all, and I do not mean to open up a political discussion. (Please, God. No!) But if you were to accept the premise of the statement, that George Bush is an idiot, and everything he ever said was a self-serving lie, then you might accept the conclusion of the statement. But the argument is not rooted in Logic. According to the rules of Logic, it is a logical fallacy to say that just because a person has always lied in the past, that any particular statement they make is not true, even if that is an acceptable form of reasoning for most people.

The video points to a different kind of logical fallacy that is somtimes used in the argument for creationism/ID as a scientific theory. The video is limited in its scope, and the particular fallacy it discusses is the kind of argument that states: because evolution cannot explain this particular phenomenon, for example irreducible complexity, it is logical to conclude that the phenomenon can only be explained by invoking an intelligent designer. You may or may not accept the premise that evolutionary theory fails to explain the particular phenomenon, but even if you do, it is a logical fallacy according to the rules of Logic to arrive at the conclusion that the phenomenon can only be explained by invoking an intelligent designer. It might be an acceptable kind of reasoning for some people, but it is a logical fallacy.

Now I am not going to say that anyone here has made that kind of argument. So I do not want to hear anyone say that I have misstated their personal arguments for creationism/ID. I am just saying that I have heard those kinds of arguments before, and those kinds of argumants are rooted in a logical fallacy.

Another kind of logical fallacy that is not discussed in the video that I have sometimes heard used as an argument for creationism/ID is an appeal to authority. The appeal to authority fallacy is an argument that is sort of like the George Bush example I gave, but which takes a positive form, instead of a neagitve form. It's an argument based on the idea that a particular authority is always right, so anything that authority says is true. In some creationism/ID arguments, the authority is the Bible, scripture or religious authorities. Again, I am not attacking anyone's particular arguments made in this thread. And I accept that some people feel that appeals to the authority of the Bible, scripture or religious authorities are an acceptable kind of reasoning. I am just saying that those kinds of arguments are a form of logical fallacy according to the codified rules of Logic.

Personally, I do not care whether other people believe in evolution or in creationism/ID. I am not going to attack another person's beliefs. But if a person claims that their beliefs are scientific or logical, then I will take them seriously and discuss whether they have followed the methods required by these strict systems of reasoning. I object to arguments that claim to be logical, when in fact they are fallacies according to the strict rules of Logic. Science also has strict rules and methods, and I object when people make arguments that they claim are scientific, when those arguments violate the rules and methods of science. My objections are not an attack on that person's belief's, they are a defense of science and logic.

Likewise, I do not like it when people misuse science to desparage another person's beliefs. For example, I do not like it when a person argues that God does not exist simply because he cannot be proven to exist. That is a misuse of science. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, and science needs to be honest about its limits in order to maintain it's credibility.

I defend the separation of science and religion. Both are limited in scope and need to keep out of each other's turf, otherwise they both come away tainted. Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that there does not need to be a conflict between religion and science, and i think that is true as long as each keeps within it's own scope. Picture this kind of discussion:

"I believe that the universe began in a cosmic explosion and the natural processes of physics, biology and evolution shaped everything we see in the world today."

"Do you believe that God had anything to do with it?"

"It doesn't matter to me whether God exists. I can't prove it either way. I just like understanding how it all works, and I think that as long as we keep investigating the physical world, we will eventually understand all of the physical processes we see occuring in the universe."

"Well, I believe that God created all the heavens and the earth and all the creatures in it."

"Got any proof of that?"

"No, I have no physical proof. It's what I have always been taught by the people I respect most, and when I look at the awesome wonder of nature, I feel in my soul that it must be a divine creation and part of a larger purpose and plan."

"So it is not a scientific conclusion, it's a belief?"

"Yes, it is my belief."

"That's cool. Got any weed?"

"Got some of God's green herb right here!"

"Awesome! Want to get high and go look through my telescope?"