Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8123 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2014 12:04 AM
84 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 83 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Post Volume:
Total: 736,285 Year: 22,126/28,606 Month: 1,213/1,410 Week: 0/415 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9944
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 121 of 210 (359615)
10-29-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 12:12 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.

Creationist interpretations are made with a predefined cnclusion in mind.
Scientific interpretations are made based on the conclusions of the scientific method. The unstated aim of the scientifc method is unprejudiced, unbiased, objective conclusions.

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.

The very basis on which the two interpretations have been made are not equal. As such the interpretations themselves should not be given equal validity.

Edited by Straggler, : Spelling etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 12:12 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 11:45 AM Straggler has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1075 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 122 of 210 (359626)
10-29-2006 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 12:12 AM


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 message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 12:12 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 12:12 PM nator has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12745
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 123 of 210 (359629)
10-29-2006 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2006 11:34 PM


Re: "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.

You have missed my point: creationists frequently cite as "evidence" stuff which has no basis in fact.

Like this:

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.

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.

We are clearly not looking at "the same evidence".

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.

A piece of evidence which contradicted the predictions of the theory of evolution could not be "reinterpreted" so that it did. Evidence is evidence.

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 11:34 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 1:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
sidelined 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 124 of 210 (359631)
10-29-2006 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 12:12 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
nemesis juggernaut

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?

Since there is evidence available for the latter

{http://www.hi.is/~oi/svalbard_geology.htm

but none for the former then I guess the former is wishful thinking


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 12:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12745
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 125 of 210 (359636)
10-29-2006 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 12:12 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
I don't know whether or not Zebras have been found in arctic regions. That really wasn't the point.

But it makes my point beautifully.

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.

In this case, we should compare the predictions made by the two theories to find out who is right.

For example, if you hypothesise that the whole world was tropical before the flood, and that the flood is the cause of fossils, then we should find only tropical animals preserved as fossils. This can be tested. It is false.

Again, the theory of plate tectonics makes the prediction (for example) that the continents should still be in motion. We have instruments today sensitive enough to measure this directly, and they are.

The difference between a creationist "interpretation" and a scientific interpretation is that the scientist is not allowed to stick in suppositions ad hoc: every hypothesis has to have its predictions checked against reality. We are talking about scientists: they know this: this is their job.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 12:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 10:54 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12745
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 126 of 210 (359641)
10-29-2006 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
10-29-2006 10:31 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
A description of Spitzbergen when it was tropical, from sidelined's link:

This was the Age of the Amphibians, and the swamps teamed with life. Amphibians were common, but fish, insects and scorpions were also numerous. The swamps of Carboniferous Svalbard have no modern analogue anywhere in the world: not only were seedless plants and ferns extremely important in this community, but there were no birds singing or insects with humming wings. The first birds did not emerge in the evolution of life until in Jurassic times, more than 100 million years later, and all insects of the Carboniferous swamps had fixed wings.

Now, if someone could find, say, a tiger in the Carboniferous strata, there would be no way to "reinterpret" that: it would be goodnight Darwin. But on the contrary, the rocks show us just what we would expect to find: first primitive fish, then an age of amphibians, then reptiles.

Meanwhile, the tropical pre-deluge Earth takes another knock. We do not find anything corresponding to modern tropical fauna in the fossil record: nor indeed a single set of fauna and flora.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 10:31 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 5140
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


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 responded

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

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 5140
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


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 responded

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

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12745
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 129 of 210 (359649)
10-29-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 11:24 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
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.

Agaun, you make my point beautifully. This is wildly inaccurate.

The poles certainly do shift. This is not an alternate theory to that of continental drift; both are true. No-one has ever advanced the shift in the poles as an explanation for fossils of tropical plants in an arctic region. How could it be?

You are not looking at "the same evidence" as me, you're looking at half-baked tripe. Where did you get this stuff from? Who told you this nonsense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12745
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 130 of 210 (359650)
10-29-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 11:45 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
For instance, both evo and creo have certain satisfying philosophies if they prove their theories right.

And yet in fact we find that whereas creationists do have philosophical views in common, supporters of real science have widely disparate philosophies.

That right there undermines the integrity.

That is a strong assertion. Again, I ask you to name and shame the guilty men. Which scientists have been behaving without integrity? What actions have they committed which lacked integrity?

They have been trying to do that for along time, with only nominal success.

Is that a new term for "failure"?

It really wasn't until an agnostic, Michael Denton, came along that people seriously reconsidered the validity of the Darwinian model.

Ah, yes, Michael Denton:

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. (Nature's Destiny, pages xvii-xviii).

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 ...

Who on earth told you that?

Good grief, you'll swallow anything, won't you?

Are we looking at "the same evidence"? I think not.

Your sole example of the "exodus" appears to be a man who has, in fact, become an evolutionist.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : 'Cos I still can't spell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 11:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by CK, posted 10-29-2006 12:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 5140
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


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 responded

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

    
CK
Member (Idle past 561 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 132 of 210 (359655)
10-29-2006 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dr Adequate
10-29-2006 12:00 PM


Re: "The same evidence"?
quote:
And then ID came along to propel the argument further to where there is a significant scientific exodus underway ...

It's interesting isn't it - the name in bold changes but the claim is always the same "Evolution is a theory in crisis". If anything people are dropping Intelligent design and moving onto the next scam (and some back to good old fashion creationism) - it does have a name but I forgot it for the moment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 12:00 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 12:46 PM CK has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12745
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 133 of 210 (359657)
10-29-2006 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 12:12 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
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.

There is no reason to think that, since their arguments against ID are the same as those of theist scientists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member
Posts: 5047
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 134 of 210 (359658)
10-29-2006 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 11:24 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

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.


Having some background in research and calculations/computer modelings of actual data from space probes on planetary magnetic fields as well as some background in working in plant labs, I must admit that I am quite ignorant on how magnetic polarity shifts can explain tropical plant life being found in arctic regions, and as far as I know I have not heard of a single proposal for such a "theory". Mind explaining how it works or who proposed it?

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.

What does finding tropical plants in arctic regions tell you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12745
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 135 of 210 (359660)
10-29-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by CK
10-29-2006 12:14 PM


Whacky Creationist Myths
It's interesting isn't it - the name in bold changes but the claim is always the same "Evolution is a theory in crisis". If anything people are dropping Intelligent design and moving onto the next scam (and some back to good old fashion creationism) - it does have a name but I forgot it for the moment.

The legend that evolution is just about to collapse has been handed down from generation to generation.

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

It doesn't get any truer, does it?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by CK, posted 10-29-2006 12:14 PM CK has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014