Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 210 (359491)
10-28-2006 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Straggler
10-28-2006 6:53 AM


Re: No creationist but....
The problem creationists have is that the rules of science are indeed stacked against them.
And this being stacked against science sometimes comes from themselves and sometimes comes from arbitrary rules about science that people of a anti-religious sentiments make up. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but that is my belief. There is much of it that I cannot prove. I also have serious doubts about the Darwinian model and find it to be incredibly implausible. In that way, I guess I'm a creationist. However, I find it completely counter-productive for pro-creation groups to find compelling scientific reasons why this or that adds up, instead of letting the evidence take them wherever it may lead. But evolutionists should know that certain creationists are not the only ones who cornered the market on conforming evidence to their basic beliefs. As indictable it is to say that creationist tailor the scientific evidence to conform to their core beliefs, many evolutionists are guilty of the exact same bigotry, only in the opposite direction. I'm growing more and more disillusioned by the whole argument.
There is no point discussing the nature of science or the motives of scientists without examining the underlying purpose that defines the scientific method in the first place. It is the methods, not the people, of science that enforce honesty and competence.
That's because if both groups are looking at the same piece of evidence, how can they come to such contrasting views on the interpretations? Obviously one or both groups are willing to abandon legitimate scientific inquiry as long as it makes the other group look bad.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Straggler, posted 10-28-2006 6:53 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 10-28-2006 1:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 99 by anglagard, posted 10-28-2006 1:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2006 4:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 109 by nator, posted 10-28-2006 4:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 114 by iceage, posted 10-28-2006 10:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 210 (359567)
10-28-2006 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dr Adequate
10-28-2006 4:01 PM


Re: "The same evidence"?
If for, example Noah's Flood had actually happened, the rules of science, which are not arbitrary, would permit you to prove it.
Then I guess you can rest easy with the knowledge that people are out there gathering evidence in order to prove it. Whether or not their evidence is compelling to you or not is the arbitrary part. You might be inclined to dismiss any evidence of it just because it is an inquiry that you have an aversion to. That would be the arbitration I was primarily speaking about.
You claim that "many" evolutionists are "tailoring the evidence"?
(1) Please name and shame the guilty men.
(2) In what way are they "tailoring" the evidence? Are they faking fossils? Lying about DNA sequences? Moving species about the globe so that they fit the Sarawak Law? Genetically engineering species so that their morphology fits with Darwinian ideas? What?
(3) How come you found this out and all the scientists I cited haven't noticed? Are they all less knowledgeable of science than you are, or are they all in on the plot?
As Straggler as duly noted there is not some grand scientific conspiracy going on, though I think we'd all agree that some demonstrable frauds have existed, but rather it just might be a complete misinterpretation of evidence from the get-go. When I mentioned certain evolutionists tailoring the evidence, I was not inferring 'tampering' with evidence, but more of them trying to find satisfying ways of re-interpreting evidence to suit their agenda. If you haven't noticed from my previous post, I indict certain creationists in a similar vein. It should be no mystery that both evolution and creation have cult followings and there is a sense of allegiance to them. The evidence of this is plain to see on this forum alone. I'm simply saying that perhaps this shouldn't be. Science is supposed to be objective when for so many its anything but.
But they aren't looking at the same evidence.
They are looking at the same evidence. If geologists are looking at specific stratum and one group concludes that it is relatively recent sediment and the other concludes that it is very old sediment, then they are looking at the same evidence. However, they are interpreting the evidence differently.
Wasn't it you (or was it Faith, I forget?) just the other day, who was telling me that scientists agreed that chimps were closer to macaques then to men?
No, I didn't say that. I don't know what the genome of the Rhesus looks like. I don't think it would be far off to say that they are extremely similar, however.
I don't know where you got this from, but clearly we are not looking at "the same evidence". When Buzsaw tells me about tropical zebras frozen in ice in the Arctic circle, we are not looking at "the same evidence".
What do you mean? Once tropical Zebras locked in a frozen tundra IS the standard definition of evidence. That's the strongest piece of evidence. There is no conjecture in that. The interpretation of that evidence is what differs. One group says that the area in question was tropical 4,000 years ago while the other group interprets the evidence to mean that it was once a tropical region 4 million years ago. You really don't see the difference between the two?
The links are missing. Nearly all the fossils are just our present animals, and the links between them are just not there. Few scientists today are still looking for fossil links between the major vertebrate or invertebrate groups. They have given up! The links just do not exist and have never existed.
Well, that is a bit of hyperbole mixed in for added effect. I think what the writer was probably referring to is the difference between punctuated equilibrium vs slight, successive gradations adding up over time. Most evolutionists today have abandoned, or at least placed on hold, the notion of a classic, Darwinian model. And this is because of the inadequacy of the fossil record. Now, most evo's seem to prefer long periods of stasis, with rapid punctuations in between. This is another example of interpreting the evidence differently. Both groups are looking at the same fossils, they are simply interpreting the evidence differently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2006 4:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by kuresu, posted 10-28-2006 11:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 117 by iceage, posted 10-29-2006 12:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 120 by CK, posted 10-29-2006 6:03 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 10:08 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 210 (359575)
10-29-2006 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by kuresu
10-28-2006 11:55 PM


Re: "The same evidence"?
quick point, NJ. No zebras have been found in antarctica. To boot, antarctica's been where it's at for quite some time.
I don't know whether or not Zebras have been found in arctic regions. That really wasn't the point. The point is, if you have a tangible piece of evidence, i.e. a fossil, how two or more groups interpret the evidence is at the heart of the issue. I'm merely distinguishing the difference between evidence and the interpretation of the evidence.
Lets use an example that we do know of. Tropical plants have been found on Spitsbergen island, which is well into the arctic circle. Now, do we interpret that evidence to mean that earth was once wholly tropical or is that interpreted as that region was once closer to the equator and drifted from continental shifting? This is what I mean by interpreting the evidence. We are all looking at the same piece of evidence, (tropical plants in an arctic region), but clearly there are varying opinions on how and why that piece of evidence exists in that region.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by kuresu, posted 10-28-2006 11:55 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Jazzns, posted 10-29-2006 2:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2006 9:03 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 122 by nator, posted 10-29-2006 9:33 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 124 by sidelined, posted 10-29-2006 10:15 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 10:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 210 (359647)
10-29-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Jazzns
10-29-2006 2:20 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
The only possible way of coming up with a different explanation than continental drift is if you ignore the other geologic evidence. The find in and of itself is one piece of evidence but what you also have to consider is its depth, the kind of rock it was found in, etc. Once you have all the pieces there is only one BEST explanation. The alternative, that the arctic was simply tropical at one time, does not explain all the evidence and therefore must at this time be rejected.
I'm sure the consensus is that it is attributed to continental drift. There is another theory that the magnetic polarity shifts every few thousand years and the poles reverse. Some have tried to make persuasive arguments in defense of it to explain why tropical plants are in an arctic region, but this particular claim lacks some backbone.
In any case, the point I'm trying to make is we are all looking at the same evidence, we are just interpreting it differently.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Jazzns, posted 10-29-2006 2:20 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 11:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 134 by Taz, posted 10-29-2006 12:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 136 by nwr, posted 10-29-2006 12:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 141 by Jazzns, posted 10-29-2006 4:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 168 by Jazzns, posted 10-31-2006 11:04 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 210 (359648)
10-29-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Straggler
10-29-2006 9:03 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
Your strong implication is that a creationist and a scientific interpretation of the same evidence are somehow equal when in fact they are not.
If that's what I portrayed then I have been misunderstood. Some theories are held together better than others, but the one thing everyone can agree on is the piece of evidence. Again, one theory may be better supported than another, but they are still interpreting the same evidence. There methodology is what differs so dramatically.
Creationist interpretations are made with a predefined cnclusion in mind.
For some of them, yes, that has been a problem-- a big problem in my best estimation because it emasculates scientific integrity. But, the same can be said of certain evolutionists who 'look' for satisfying reasons to have one piece of evidence conform to their preconceived notions.
Scientific interpretations are made based on the conclusions of the scientific method. The unstated aim of the scientifc method is unprejudiced, unbiased, objective conclusions.
They are supposed to be, but sometimes that it seldom seen. The question is whether someone can gain some philosophical satisfaction for their answers. For instance, both evo and creo have certain satisfying philosophies if they prove their theories right. That right there undermines the integrity. But if you look at cancer research, there is no ulterior motive behind the inquiry. They just want to eradicate disease.
Creationists either need to explain why the scientific method is not the best means of obtaining the truth (and provide an alternative) or they need to show how evolutionary conclusions have not been made scientifically.
They have been trying to do that for along time, with only nominal success. It really wasn't until an agnostic, Michael Denton, came along that people seriously reconsidered the validity of the Darwinian model. Creationists have had alot of trouble being taken seriously for the reasons you share. And then ID came along to propel the argument further to where there is a significant scientific exodus underway to make headlines.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2006 9:03 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 12:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2006 2:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 149 by FliesOnly, posted 10-30-2006 7:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 210 (359653)
10-29-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by nator
10-29-2006 9:33 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
I really don't want this question to be overlooked:
You claimed:
quote:
:And this being stacked against science sometimes comes from themselves and sometimes comes from arbitrary rules about science that people of a anti-religious sentiments make up.
And then I replied:
Such as?
This means that certain creationists have turned their own scientific methodology against themseleves by trying to conform scientific evidence to their basic ideological tenets. Some evolutionists are in the same boat when they immediately reject any notion of ID on the basis of it running counter to their personal irreligious beliefs. Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins come to mind.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by nator, posted 10-29-2006 9:33 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 12:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 142 by nator, posted 10-29-2006 4:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 210 (359665)
10-29-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Dr Adequate
10-29-2006 10:08 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
How confidently you announce that these "tropical zebras" exist! With what massive complacency you assure me that there is "no conjecture in that". One would almost suppose that you had some actual knowledge.
Oh dear... No, you misunderstand me, as did Kuresu. I don't whether or not Zebras have been found in arctic regions, nor does it matter much to me either way. The zebra is just an example of hard evidence-- meaining the piece of evidence is the zebra in an arctic region. Its a hypothetic scenario. The interpretation of why its there and how it came to be there is a matter of interpretation of other existing pieces of evidence.
A piece of evidence which contradicted the predictions of the theory of evolution could not be "reinterpreted" so that it did. Evidence is evidence.
Yes, it can, and it does all the time. For instance Ernst Mayr once stated that macroevolution is just a magnification of microevolution. There is zero hard evidence to support the assertion. None. The entire theory is supported by inference and circumstantial evidence, at best. And yet, people interpret this to be truth all the time.
But he did not say that. He said there are no intermediate forms and that scientists have given up looking for them. If he knows better, he is a liar. It is only charitable to suppose that he knows no better, and is in fact merely totally ignorant of the subject he's discussing.
That was hyperbole. Obviously no evolutionist gives up looking for missing links. Even the staunchest creationist knows this. It was hyperbole for effect. I won't disagree with you that he shouldn't have said it, but I highly doubt it spawned from ignorance.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 10:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2006 1:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 2:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 210 (360154)
10-31-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Jazzns
10-31-2006 11:04 AM


Re: Calling nemesis_juggernaut!
Can you comment on my suggestion for a new thread about your claims?
Calling nemesis_juggernaut! (Message 14 of Thread Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics)
Yeah sure, set it up in Great Debate. I see that you have some very broad questions that spans across many different disciplines. I've never debated GD before and I'm unclear on the rules of that forum. Are we allowed to argue about many different topics without being Off Topic?
Anyhow, just post it again in Great Debate at your earliest convenience and we can start a dialogue.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Jazzns, posted 10-31-2006 11:04 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Jazzns, posted 10-31-2006 6:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 175 by Jazzns, posted 11-01-2006 9:50 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 210 (360392)
11-01-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Jazzns
10-31-2006 6:16 PM


Re: Calling nemesis_juggernaut!
We can talk about the parameters of the debate once the thread opens.
Thanks for responding. I only mentioned a GD because it seemed like you were getting pounded on here and didn't have a chance to reply to all the points raised.
Yes, sometimes the IDist members become inundated by replies and its difficult to keep up. I generally try to answer all the questions directed towards me for a couple of reasons. But mostly its just a common courtesy to address somebody that has taken the time to write to you.
That doesn't always happen that way. Sometimes for every post I write, I have 6 or 7 replies. I'm still on, you know, page 3 or 4 answering questions while everyone else is on page 10 or 11. When I get that far behind, I usually have to not answer questions that seem redundant. Sometimes I get into another debate and forget about a previous one. Then I stumbled back into it. And then other times I become disinterested in the topic and become engaged in another debate(s).
Great Debate will be fine. Just let me know when its up. I'll check back in here periodically to see if its open for service.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Jazzns, posted 10-31-2006 6:16 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024