Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8780 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2017 1:41 AM
361 online now:
CRR, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 357 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,387 Year: 20,993/21,208 Month: 1,426/2,326 Week: 762/345 Day: 0/124 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
ringo
Member
Posts: 13435
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 151 of 215 (660533)
04-26-2012 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by angletracks
04-26-2012 4:35 PM


Re: What I See
angletracks writes:

History is full of abandoned theories and projects that were "almost" and "so close."


Certainly. And if the road we're on turns out to be a dead end, we'll abandon it. But for the moment, there simply is no alternative. It's the only road we have and it would be silly to stop in our tracks just because there may be some unforseen obstacle ahead. Instead, we should be prepared to handle the obstacles when we do meet them.

angletracks writes:

If one is willing to consider that there may be realities that extend beyond the material, then a similar tweaking of natural processes by a divine mind can be inferred quite easily.


You're just adding another unknown. Why not go with what we do know instead of hypothesisizing some spooky miracle?

You seem to be suggesting that because there might be some impassible stretches on the road, we should rely on aliens to teleport us to LA. I'm suggesting that we should just get in the car and drive until we can't drive no more.

Edited by ringo, : Add'd an apostrohe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 4:35 PM angletracks has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 5:50 PM ringo has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 152 of 215 (660535)
04-26-2012 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by angletracks
04-26-2012 4:35 PM


Re: What I See
If one is willing to consider that there may be realities that extend beyond the material, then a similar tweaking of natural processes by a divine mind can be inferred quite easily.

And we needn't stop there. I wonder how I lost my spectacles. Now, if one is willing to consider that there may be magic fairies, then the theft of my spectacles by magic fairies can be inferred quite easily. As Smacco's Rozar has it: "Let's multiply entities, because that's fun!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 4:35 PM angletracks has not yet responded

  
angletracks
Junior Member (Idle past 1850 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 04-24-2012


Message 153 of 215 (660539)
04-26-2012 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by ringo
04-26-2012 4:51 PM


Re: What I See
Ringo: You seem to be suggesting that because there might be some impassible stretches on the road, we should rely on aliens to teleport us to LA. I'm suggesting that we should just get in the car and drive until we can't drive no more.

What I intended to insist was that we should not say we have arrived until we actually have, and that calling abiogenesis a fact seems inaccurate to me. I have no problem with going as far as we can - it is an interesting quest.

Ringo: You're just adding another unknown. Why not go with what we do know instead of hypothesizing some spooky miracle?

Perhaps. I rather think that I am positing one unproven entity instead of another less plausible one, and I don't find believing in a personal Creator spooky at all.

Gonna check out for now. Thanks for being a civil interlocuter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 04-26-2012 4:51 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by ringo, posted 04-27-2012 12:02 PM angletracks has not yet responded

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 215 (660541)
04-26-2012 7:35 PM


If macro-evolution went on trial who would the witnesses be that it indeed does happen? If it's really happening as to how the ToE says it does then this shouldn't be so hard. That the evolutionists can't even agree on this says something.

Evolution within species particularly land mammals like dog, fox, cat, horse ect depending on the real seperation of the species/kinds does happen. To what extent I don't think is known exactly but the land to water, water to land mammal transition I believe is all speculation including a common ancestor for chimp and man. The cat to fox for example you still see similar traits that show evolution could have occurred. Chimp and man there is to much seperation and it doesn't fit with the other groupings as neatly as the canine or feline classification. It's the odd ball out IMO as well as land to water and water to land mammals.


Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by jar, posted 04-26-2012 7:55 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 156 by Panda, posted 04-26-2012 8:40 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-26-2012 10:32 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 158 by Modulous, posted 04-27-2012 8:05 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29183
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 155 of 215 (660543)
04-26-2012 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Chuck77
04-26-2012 7:35 PM


The witnesses
The witness would be ALL the biological scientists that exist, all of the fossils that exist, all of the genetic data that exists...

The problem is that there are NO witnesses to present evidence that there are any unnatural, supernatural or nonnatural models, explanations, theories ...


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Chuck77, posted 04-26-2012 7:35 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 156 of 215 (660544)
04-26-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Chuck77
04-26-2012 7:35 PM



Chuckles writes:

...the land to water, water to land mammal transition I believe is all speculation...



Chuckles writes:

It's the odd ball out IMO as well as land to water and water to land mammals.



Well ... colour me unconvinced by your doubts.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Chuck77, posted 04-26-2012 7:35 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 157 of 215 (660545)
04-26-2012 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Chuck77
04-26-2012 7:35 PM


If macro-evolution went on trial who would the witnesses be that it indeed does happen? If it's really happening as to how the ToE says it does then this shouldn't be so hard. That the evolutionists can't even agree on this says something.

That was so obscurely expressed that I can't even tell what you're trying to be wrong about.

Chimp and man there is to much seperation and it doesn't fit with the other groupings as neatly as the canine or feline classification.

But there is in fact very little separation. You can find much more genetic distance between species that creationists will admit are related. Compare, for example, the genetic differences between chimps and humans with those between members of the cat family, and there's no contest.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Chuck77, posted 04-26-2012 7:35 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7417
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 158 of 215 (660573)
04-27-2012 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Chuck77
04-26-2012 7:35 PM


If macro-evolution went on trial who would the witnesses be that it indeed does happen?

We don't rely on witnesses. We instead would refer to the overwhelming DNA evidence: and all the other forms of evidence besides that.

To what extent I don't think is known exactly but the land to water, water to land mammal transition I believe is all speculation including a common ancestor for chimp and man.

I think it is faulty reasoning to suppose that we should have witnesses for an event that almost by definition, precedes the existence of witnesses.

I think that calling it 'speculation' because of the lack of witnesses is very unfair. Science is pretty much all about establishing facts and explanations with more reliability than witness reports.

Chimp and man there is to much seperation and it doesn't fit with the other groupings as neatly as the canine or feline classification.

How have you ascertained that the separation is 'too much'?

As far as I am aware the most distantly related cats are about as equally related to one another as chimps are to humans, in fact cats may be more diverse. I have a feeling you've come to this conclusion on a 'gut instinct' level and probably haven't done or seen any analysis that would lead to that conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Chuck77, posted 04-26-2012 7:35 PM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Chuck77, posted 04-28-2012 4:32 AM Modulous has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13435
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 159 of 215 (660599)
04-27-2012 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by angletracks
04-26-2012 5:50 PM


Re: What I See
angletracks writes:

What I intended to insist was that we should not say we have arrived until we actually have, and that calling abiogenesis a fact seems inaccurate to me.


Saying that abiogenesis is a fact is not the same as saying that we've "arrived". Abiogenesis is a fact in that there once was no life and now there is life. Abiogenesis happened, whether by ordinary every day chemistry or by God-given miracle. We haven't "arrived" at a complete expanation yet but we do know a lot about how it could have happened naturally. We know absolutely nothing about how it could have happened miraculously - and we never can know.

angletracks writes:

I rather think that I am positing one unproven entity instead of another less plausible one....


I find it odd that you consider partial knowledge of how chemstry works "less plausible" than zero knowledge about how God works.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 5:50 PM angletracks has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6121
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 160 of 215 (660642)
04-27-2012 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Modulous
04-25-2012 7:47 AM


Modulous responds to me:

quote:
I am saying that macroevolution, when used by a creationist in the context of 'it hasn't been observed' does not mean 'speciation' in most cases.

Why are we beholden to people who don't understand what the term means? After all, creationists used to mean speciation. They've moved the goalposts. Why should we let them?

quote:
What I am saying is that when addressing the meaning of someone's utterance, it is vital to establish what they mean when they say the words they use rather than trying to argue against what someone else more competent would mean with the same words.

And since we know that they don't know what they're talking about, why should we kowtow to them? To them, "macroevolution" functionally means "evolutionary processes that I don't think have ever been seen." That's not a definition. That's a defensive stance. It's an argument out of ignorance. After all, look at how the conversation goes. The original claim is that we've never seen a new species arise. We then show them that no, we have seen speciation such as in fruit flies. Their response is, "Yeah, but it's still a fly!"

They just moved the goalposts. They were absolutely certain that speciation had never happened and upon proof that no, it has happened, we've watched it, and we've even made it happen, they start redefining everything, hoping to high heaven that we don't notice until they get to a point where what they're asking for is for an ostrich to be born out of an alligator's egg...which would demolish evolutionary theory.

They don't know what they're talking about. They don't get to be the arbiters of what "macroevolution" is. If they use it wrong, we will happily point it out, but we do not allow them to continue in their erroneous vein.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2012 7:47 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2012 1:15 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6121
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 161 of 215 (660643)
04-27-2012 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2012 11:39 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:
More like: they've had the goalpost in the wrong place.

Incorrect. "Kind" used to mean "species." Then we saw speciation and they decided that "kind" was something else. You can see this in the reactions creationists give to seeing it happen. We show them the data for speciation in such things as fruit flies and they respond, "Yeah, but it's still a fly!" hoping that we don't notice that they just moved the goalposts.

quote:
But you can't shoot the ball over there and claim a point because that's where you think the goalpost should have been. That's not going to work.

Precisely. That's why we don't let creationists define the terms.

quote:
The word "macroevolution" is also used to describe things that aren't speciation events.

Logical error. You've got the implication backwards. Not all rectangles are squares but all squares are rectangles. Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary processes at or above the species level. Thus, there are plenty of macroevolutionary events that aren't necessarily speciation since they occur higher up the taxonomic tree, but that doesn't change the fact that speciation, by definition, is macroevolution.

Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles.

quote:
You're supposed to be offering points in your own words.

Oh, so I'm supposed to show you original research that I've done in my own bio lab. Unless I personally wrote up the abstract, then you've got a problem? I give you precisely what it is you were asking for and you're complaint is that I wasn't the one who wrote the article in the first place?

Yeah, you just want to be angry.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2012 11:39 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2012 5:07 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6121
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 162 of 215 (660644)
04-27-2012 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by angletracks
04-26-2012 4:35 PM


angletracks writes:

quote:
If you cannot drive from NY to LA on the road, you cannot get to LA by that means.

But that's not the argument made by creationists. They are claiming not merely that we haven't figured out all the details yet. They are insisting that it is physically impossible to ever create a road from NYC to LA. "Manhattan's on an island! There's no way to cross the water!" And when we discover that there are bridges, they insist that the mountains are impassable. But then we discover tunnels and alternate routes.

That's what this "irreducible complexity" nonsense is: Nothing more than a way from a creationist to claim, "I'm not clever enough to figure out how to do it, so it must be impossible."

Every single example that has ever been given of this "irreducible complexity" has been shown to be not only reducible but actually evolved where we found the pathway.

Don't confuse "don't know" with "can't know."

quote:
Isn't tweaking the natural process precisely how we are able to interact purposefully with our world?

Do you have evidence of such? Remember, "I don't know how it happened" is not evidence.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 4:35 PM angletracks has not yet responded

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 215 (660649)
04-28-2012 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Modulous
04-27-2012 8:05 AM


Modulous writes:

We don't rely on witnesses. We instead would refer to the overwhelming DNA evidence: and all the other forms of evidence besides that.

Yeah, I get that. And some interpret a common ancestor. We Creationists interpret a common designer. Not a random process that is non-intelligently non-directed.

I think it is faulty reasoning to suppose that we should have witnesses for an event that almost by definition, precedes the existence of witnesses.

Ok. So then macro-evolution cannot be witnessed the way the ToE describes then?

I think that calling it 'speculation' because of the lack of witnesses is very unfair. Science is pretty much all about establishing facts and explanations with more reliability than witness reports.

Establishing "facts" to fit the theory maybe. If you cannot provide examples of micro-evolution happening with evidence of witnesses then how is it factual? Or is it just assumed and speculated?

How have you ascertained that the separation is 'too much'?

Modulous, just go find a chimp that can write a book, fly to the moon, etc etc etc...

You think us and the chimps (other than genetics created by a common designer) are similiar in what way that you think we should be classified together?

As far as I am aware the most distantly related cats are about as equally related to one another as chimps are to humans, in fact cats may be more diverse. I have a feeling you've come to this conclusion on a 'gut instinct' level and probably haven't done or seen any analysis that would lead to that conclusion.

Not really. I can witness how chimps act and how humans act. It's not a "gut instinct". It's reality. My conclusion is that chimps/apes should be classified seperatly than humans.

Other than the genetics why do you think chimps/apes and humans should be classified together?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Modulous, posted 04-27-2012 8:05 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-28-2012 4:52 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 165 by Tangle, posted 04-28-2012 5:01 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 166 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2012 6:45 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 167 by Theodoric, posted 04-28-2012 8:09 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 168 by Granny Magda, posted 04-28-2012 8:12 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 169 by Panda, posted 04-28-2012 11:44 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 170 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2012 12:29 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 164 of 215 (660652)
04-28-2012 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Chuck77
04-28-2012 4:32 AM


Establishing "facts" to fit the theory maybe. If you cannot provide examples of micro-evolution happening with evidence of witnesses then how is it factual? Or is it just assumed and speculated?

Once again, I have to daydream about how one of you guys would function as a defense attorney. It amuses me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Chuck77, posted 04-28-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4966
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 165 of 215 (660653)
04-28-2012 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Chuck77
04-28-2012 4:32 AM


chuck writes:

just go find a chimp that can write a book, fly to the moon, etc etc etc

Early man could do neither of those things. How far back in time do you think we could go before your gut would allow you to see similarities between apes and men?

My conclusion is that chimps/apes should be classified seperatly than humans

and of course they are classified seperately. Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Chuck77, posted 04-28-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 5:50 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017