Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2017 8:54 PM
412 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,141 Year: 9,747/21,208 Month: 2,834/2,674 Week: 258/961 Day: 122/136 Hour: 3/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Evolution vs. Creation Interpretations (Jazzns, nemesis_juggernaut) (NOW OPEN TO ALL)
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1645
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004


Message 61 of 77 (379262)
01-23-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Hyroglyphx
01-23-2007 2:38 PM


Re: What have we learned about these so called alternative interpretations?
Lucy is an incomplete skeleton found over a large surface area, which seriously discredits the entire integrity of the study, does it not?

Lucy is a 40% complete skeleton found in a single location. Are you trying to bring up the long discredited "Lucy's Knee" arguement?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-23-2007 2:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 2370 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 62 of 77 (379288)
01-23-2007 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Hyroglyphx
01-23-2007 2:38 PM


Re: What have we learned about these so called alternative interpretations?
NJ writes:

Lucy is an incomplete skeleton found over a large surface area, which seriously discredits the entire integrity of the study, does it not?

No, because you are referencing an outright lie. This has been pointed out again and again at EvC.

The knee in question was from another individual.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-23-2007 2:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1291 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 63 of 77 (379292)
01-23-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Hyroglyphx
01-23-2007 2:38 PM


Re: What have we learned about these so called alternative interpretations?
The initial claim is that evo's and creo's are looking at the same evidence, only interpreting it differently. Which is right in their assessment and which is wrong is the part to debate. So, how could I possibly not have supported that? We've had a lot of discussion on Archy, right? Both evo's and creo's can clearly see the fossil and make their determination based on the anatomical structures. Its the same fossil! Its the same piece of evidence. How both groups come to their conclusions is where they differ. How then was I not able to make this distinction?

I brought up 3 particular instances where both your argument and the argument of other creationists have failed to address the issue of alternative interpretations. They are the following:

1. Denying the evidence is actually evidence.
2. Invention of false evidence.
3. Ignoring the body of evidence.

An example of 1 is your denial of the morphological hierarchy. The existence of the hierarchy is evidence. It is not in dispute anywhere that matters. It is NOT an alternative interpretation that say that this evidence does not count. An alternative interpretation would be explaining that this evidence should have us conclude something OTHER THAN heredity.

An example of 2 is helium diffusion in zircons used to try to show there was accelerated radiometric decay in the past. This is just a plain invention of facts. They are not trying to explain why radiometric dates come out the way they do or why they correlate the way they do which would classify as an alternative interpretation. It is inherent in the design of their argument that the problem they have is with the evidence AND what the simply conclusion is from that evidence.

There are many examples of number 3 but the one that comes to mind from the most recent discussion has to do with fossil intermediates from therapods to birds. You nor any creationists I have ever seen presented with the evidence has explained the progression of the many feathered small therapods that start out looking very much like regular therapods and as you ascend through the geologic column start looking more and more like archy. The only think creationists talk about is archy as if that was all there is with regard to bird evolution.

This example is interesting because you didn't actually even acknowledge the feathered dino information I presented earlier. So it appears you have an opportunity right now to redeem yourself. The wrong way to respond to this would be to continue in a position that ignored their existence, hence ignoring the body of evidence. The proper way to respond would be to talk about how their existence and their progression through time and morphology can be explained BETTER by something other than heredity. THAT would be an alternative interpretation.

Again, if I go off on a tangent, just specify. I have no aversion to it. As I write, examples pop into my head and I use them as illustrations to solidify my point why something alleged by evo's is inherently incorrect or shown to have been demonstrably false in the past.

NJ, I tried to get you back to specific points numerous times during the course of our conversations. Maybe I didn't convey it well enough or you didn't see it through the density that was some of our previous posts but it was there. Maybe a third party could offer some insight as to how apparent my attempts to get this debate on track were or were not conveyed clearly enough.

You have to understand it feels a little like the game keep-away. I don't mind playing ball back and forth but when one person simply continually dribbles the ball and moves in random directions it is highly frustrating. You may not have realized that you were doing it so much but I hope you take the opportunity now to accept some constructive criticism to improve your manner of debate. It is okay to go off on tangents. I have been known to do it too. But when you repeatedly do it as a pattern of behavior in lieu of addressing rebuttals or refutations it looks quite nefarious to your opponents and the readers. This is especially true considering how fervent you were to engage the sub-topics initially. I felt like we started MANY discussions and got into the meat of none of them.

Can I ask why you get to control the dialogue? Why must I only answer your questions without introducing some questions of myown? Again, if I go off on a tangent, its because something you've said has triggered a memory about other arguments that logically follow the premise-- in this case, about geological formations or occurances. Just say, "Hey, you didn;t really answer my question. I'd like to focus on that first, then we can address your points."

You CAN control the dialogue but what you can't do, without seeming dishonest, is to control the dialog towards one topic and then shift when it becomes convenient for you to avoid my response to your original topic. I am not saying that you can't bring up other issues that you feel are important to the debate, I am saying that it quite heavily impinges upon your reputation to start fights that you seemingly have no intention of finishing.

In my opinion, the proper way to handle the situation you mention would be to FIRST engage the point under dispute such as, "So in conclusion __________. Hey, that makes me think of a similar topic to this that supports my overall position. It is ________".

I am going to let some of the specifics go at this point unless you want to bring them up again. There are a few though that I WOULD like to discuss.


Exactly Jazzns, read what I wrote. Homologous anatomy IS subjective

You missed the big "NOT" (in caps and everything) in that sentence. Homology is very much NOT a subjective endeavor or else it would be trivial for you or any other creationist for the 150 years that evolution has been around to produce an ALTERNATIVE morphological hierarchy. PROVE that it is subjective. It should be easy. Just show us an alternative hierarchy based on morphology that takes into account all the characteristics that DIFFERS from the other nested hierarchies.

In other words, your bastion of hope is going to be on the genetic level, not the anatomical level. Why? Because the anatomy is subjective. And even of this, on the genetic level it still can show subjectivity. What wouldn't is shared mistakes only by two or a few species. That would be the best evidence for macroevolution. And if I were an avowed evolutionist, this is where I would look to make my case in its defense.

You are missing the primary point which is not just that the genetic hierarchies are sound but that they MATCH and moreover they MATCH with the hierarchies created from morphology. This is incredible confirmation that not only are they all correct but that they are certainly not subjective. Not you nor any YEC I have ever seen has yet demonstrated that they even understand this point let alone provide an argument against it. Forest for the trees man.

I have been somewhat scolded for letting you get away with this one for some time now:

Lucy is an incomplete skeleton found over a large surface area, which seriously discredits the entire integrity of the study, does it not?

The claim that lucy was found scattered over a large area is FALSE. It is a LIE. It is NOT TRUE. I don't know how I can say it any different to get you to notice. I gave you an pretty detailed treatment of this that apparently you ignored. Here is short version in case you find yourself too pressed for time to scroll up.


  1. Awhile back some opportunistic creationists CONFUSED the literal Lucy which was a specific find of australopithecus with the paleo anthropologist short vernacular "Lucy" meaning the entire genus.

  2. There were two finds involved, the actual Lucy and the knee of some other australopithecus.

  3. These CONFUSED creationists stared propagating the MISTAKE that mainstream science was claiming that the knee was from "Lucy" not knowing that there are two ways to use the word.

  4. People very fervently asked for corrections, retractions, and to stop propagating this MISTAKE.

  5. Most of the creationists even knowing the truth choose to continue to propagate the MISTAKE which turned it into LYING.

  6. These LYING creationists continue to post this LIE on their websites so that people like you would be tricked into believing this LIE. It is verifiably a LIE, documented to be a LIE in the links I presented, and continues to be a LIE as long as creationists fail to muster the conviction that they so often tout to stop spreading the LIE.

  7. Lucy the NAMED PARTICULAR find of australopithecus has NO KNEES!!!!!! If you are doubtful of this claim then all you have to do is scroll up and find the big section I wrote on the subject that took me a half an hour to write for which I provided a link to a picture so you could see for yourself.

  8. While you are there, you may want to take a look at the documented instances where creationists have not come clean on this issue.

  9. The longer you ignore these very clear and very direct revelations of your ignorance on this issue the closer you come to throwing your hat in with the verifiable liars.


    1. As for the thread. I suppose it is open to whomever wants to comment but there does seem to be a lack of interest. I would very much like to steer back towards the OP. If you are interested in continuing in this vein I will be here and we can keep it up. If the admins have a problem with a general thread in the GD forum I suppose it will get moved eventually.

      Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.


      Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
      This message is a reply to:
       Message 60 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-23-2007 2:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

      Replies to this message:
       Message 64 by Quetzal, posted 01-24-2007 8:28 AM Jazzns has responded

        
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3252 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 64 of 77 (379453)
01-24-2007 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Jazzns
01-23-2007 5:57 PM


Re: What have we learned about these so called alternative interpretations?
Jazz,

Is it still your intention for this topic to revolve solely around the theme

In the OP Jazz writes:

The main topic of this thread is if this idea that creationists explanations are merely different "interpretations" of the evidence. While we will inevitably need to discuss some examples such as above, the main thrust of this thread should be about NJ's main claim that the explanations only differ in their "interpretation".

If this is the case, might I suggest you pick one single example, present the evidence, facts, and observations related to that example, and then compare "interpretations" of the evidence? In other words, re-create the chain of inference that leads from observation to explanation. It could be kicked off by using one of the real world examples such as "Why are there cabbage trees (Melanodendron integrifolium, family Asteraceae (daisies and their ilk)) on St. Helena and nowhere else?", or "What is the explanation for the existence of tenrecs on Madagascar and nowhere else?", or even "What is the explanation for the observation that, traveling east and south from Lombok along the Indonesian Archipeligo the fauna become more and more 'Australian' (including kangaroos and other marsupials), whereas traveling west and north from Bali - only 20 miles away - the fauna is purely Asian, including tigers, etc?"

Anyway, this kind of discussion may come closer to generating the different "interpretations of evidence" you were looking for in the OP.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Jazzns, posted 01-23-2007 5:57 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Jazzns, posted 01-24-2007 9:10 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1291 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 65 of 77 (379457)
01-24-2007 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Quetzal
01-24-2007 8:28 AM


Re: What have we learned about these so called alternative interpretations?
That is what I was hoping some of these examples would turn into.

I can't guess what the alternative interpretation for something would be and I am not the one making the claim that alternative interpretations exist.

Hopefully NJ or some other aspiring creationist will come in and offer an alternative interpretation for the data that is the feathered therapod fossil record for example. Really it doesn't matter what sub-topic they pick.

My predictions are the same. That any claimed alternative will include a bastardization of the evidence in one of the 3 ways I listed especially the category of ignoring the body of evidence.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Quetzal, posted 01-24-2007 8:28 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 66 of 77 (380694)
01-28-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Jazzns
01-15-2007 1:46 AM


Re: What have we learned about these so called alternative interpretations?
As I mentioned before, this debate changed from a discussion about interpretation to a discussion of the validity of the evidence. Once that happened, you implicitly conceded your position that creationists merely interpret the evidence differently. In reality, creationists have their own "evidence" that they very much would like everyone else to accept. They also primarily attack sources of evidence that mainstream science uses it to come to conclusions. They are also well known for ignoring evidence as your readily demonstrated in the content of your debate.

Jazzns, I've said from the beginning of this thread that some evolutionists and some creationists are suspect to catering in their own dogmatic interests, rather than following the evidence wherever it leads. I'm not sure why you feel the need to protect every single evolutionist and demonize every single creationist, rather than proceeding case-by-case.

The plain fact is that the evo-creo debate has gotten out of hand, where an "Us vs Them" mentality has taken shape. Its to the point where I've grown so disenchanted with the whole debate, (not you and I, but in general), that I'm losing interest in the whole thing. Its to the point where I'm so disillusioned that exposing truth from falsehoods, bias from unbias, is exceedingly difficult to uncover.

But having said that, there should be no ambiguity that evo's and creo's are in fact looking at the same evidence, only interpreting it differently-- and indeed, perhaps skewing it to their advantage. If both groups are looking at the same supernova, but interpret their significance differently, they are looking at the same evidence, but are coming to different conclusions. If both groups are looking at Archaeopteryx, one group concludes that its evidence of therapod-avian evolution, while the other says that its nothing more than an extinct avian. They both are looking at the same evidence, but they are interpreting it differently.

Presumably, you are saying that creo's will ignore one piece of evidence in order to make their claims more appealing. But a creationist could say the same thing about an evo. Indeed, this little cat and mouse game is always going on. And I for one am disillusioned by both parties. Maybe I'll get back into again, but as of now, its rehashing over the same stale points only to have no resolution.

I will go though the examples here but it is worthwhile to point out that in the end reality wins. You comment about the half life of fact in science is testament to your profound and fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for something to be a fact versus a theory. A fact is something that is not up for debate. A fact may be incomplete. A fact may lead to an invalid theory if it is sufficiently complex but in the end, the facts don't change.

Science is tentative, including scientific "fact." It was a fact that the earth was flat and it was also a fact that the earth is round. Obviously, only one or none could be right. It was once a fact that caffeine was neutral. Then it was a fact that caffeine is terrible for you. Now its a fact that it has legitimate medicinal purposes. Do you understand what I'm saying? And, yes, its great that science can keep evolving in order to uncover the truth, whatever it may be, but this "truth" or "fact" may be supplanted the following year, which makes people leery of committing to anything.


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Jazzns, posted 01-15-2007 1:46 AM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by anglagard, posted 01-28-2007 1:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 68 by RickJB, posted 01-28-2007 4:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2007 8:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 70 by Jazzns, posted 01-29-2007 11:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 2157
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 67 of 77 (380703)
01-28-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
01-28-2007 1:02 PM


NJ Says the Craziest Things
NJ writes:

Science is tentative, including scientific "fact." It was a fact that the earth was flat and it was also a fact that the earth is round. Obviously, only one or none could be right. It was once a fact that caffeine was neutral. Then it was a fact that caffeine is terrible for you. Now its a fact that it has legitimate medicinal purposes. Do you understand what I'm saying? And, yes, its great that science can keep evolving in order to uncover the truth, whatever it may be, but this "truth" or "fact" may be supplanted the following year, which makes people leery of committing to anything.

I don't mean to burst your bubble but the earth was never flat. Also, I'm certian it won't be flat tomorrow.

Science can reach conclusions that to all intents and purposes are irrefutable. It is not a matter of 'tentative opinion' that a solid lead ball thrown into the air will return to earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-28-2007 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 2370 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 68 of 77 (380737)
01-28-2007 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
01-28-2007 1:02 PM


Re: What have we learned about these so called alternative interpretations?
NJ writes:

Its to the point where I'm so disillusioned that exposing truth from falsehoods, bias from unbias, is exceedingly difficult to uncover.

Or are you just disillusioned with the huge amount of evidence that destroys your claims?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-28-2007 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18251
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 69 of 77 (380796)
01-28-2007 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
01-28-2007 1:02 PM


fact vs belief
Science is tentative, including scientific "fact." It was a fact that the earth was flat and it was also a fact that the earth is round.

Science is tentative in what it accepts as the current ideas of reality - and does not regard those concepts as "fact" - but it is not at all tentative about rejecting concepts that are shown to be invalid.

Science has shown that the concept of a flat earth is invalid - there is no way you can refine a flat earth concept and make it compatible with the facts of the shape of the earth. You can refine the 'round' earth concept -- it is an oblate spheroid, flattened between the poles due to the revolution of the planet (which also confirms that the planet is revolving and not at rest at the center of the universe). Likewise there will be no revision to the shape of the earth into a rhomboid or a cube.

Greeks had estimated the diameter of the earth based on the length of the shadow at different latitudes and the distance between those latitudes, so a flat earth was never a universal "fact" concept (using a loose definition of fact - #4 below).

fact -noun1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

The age of the earth is a fact. The concept of the actual age has changed over time as we know more about the issue - knowledge lets us refine our knowledge. We are honing in on the actual factual age of the earth, but the fact of it's age is not changed.

If both groups are looking at Archaeopteryx, one group concludes that its evidence of therapod-avian evolution, while the other says that its nothing more than an extinct avian. They both are looking at the same evidence, but they are interpreting it differently.

Presumably, you are saying that creo's will ignore one piece of evidence in order to make their claims more appealing.

As in ignoring the non-avian characteristics of Archy. Those characteristics are there, they are part of the factual evidence of what Archy was. Denial of these elements does not invalidate them, nor does it confront the reality of these elements. Denial is necessary for delusion. Denial is not an alternative explanation. An interpretation based on denial is not an alternative explanation but a delusion.

The way we hone our knowledge is by not denying the evidence that says your current concepts are wrong, whether it is the age of the earth or the non-avian characteristics of Archy.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-28-2007 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1291 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 70 of 77 (380897)
01-29-2007 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
01-28-2007 1:02 PM


What have we learned? Creationists can't tell fact from theory.
Jazzns, I've said from the beginning of this thread that some evolutionists and some creationists are suspect to catering in their own dogmatic interests, rather than following the evidence wherever it leads. I'm not sure why you feel the need to protect every single evolutionist and demonize every single creationist, rather than proceeding case-by-case.

NJ, why do you feel it is necessary to make accusations like this?

I dont need to protect evolutionists nor do I necessarily feel that all evolutionists are right. In fact I am pretty sure that science does not have all the answers when it comes to both the history and mechanics of life.

Creationists though are wrong WAY more often then they are right. In fact, I cannot think of a single case where the weight of evidence rests on the creationist side.

I do think we can go case-by-case using examples but the problem is you kept changing the subject! Whenever we brought up a topic I explained how creationists misuse evidence in one of the three ways I listed. Here they are again.

1. Denying the evidence is actually evidence.
2. Invention of false evidence.
3. Ignoring the body of evidence.

Then you would simply say, Well what about this instead! That is called shifting goalposts NJ and it is pretty much your MO for most of the threads you are in that require discussion of evidence.

If your claim is that all that differs is the interpretations, then you have to respond to my charges that those items above are not true for the particular case we are talking about. You systematically failed to do this throughout the thread.

The plain fact is that the evo-creo debate has gotten out of hand, where an "Us vs Them" mentality has taken shape. Its to the point where I've grown so disenchanted with the whole debate, (not you and I, but in general), that I'm losing interest in the whole thing. Its to the point where I'm so disillusioned that exposing truth from falsehoods, bias from unbias, is exceedingly difficult to uncover.

I think that you perceive the debate as such simply because you cant support your position and you therefore interpret anyone who just doesnt take your opinion as gospel as polarizing. This whole paragraph is just a crappy cop-out NJ. This is a DEBATE. You have a position and if you are not prepared to defend it then dont say it. Dont make the claim that creationists are only interpreting the evidence differently if you dont feel you have the wherewithal to DEBATE it!

But having said that, there should be no ambiguity that evo's and creo's are in fact looking at the same evidence, only interpreting it differently-- and indeed, perhaps skewing it to their advantage.

So you basically want to come in here, presumably to wrap things up, and you simply restate your position having not supported it or even consciously engaged it for the entire thread?

Color me unimpressed and a little distressed that you continually avoid actually providing support for the things you claim.

If both groups are looking at the same supernova, but interpret their significance differently, they are looking at the same evidence, but are coming to different conclusions.

If that were actually true then you would have a case. MY CHALLENGE was that the above is not true because creationists mangle the evidence by either:

1. Denying the evidence is actually evidence.
2. Invention of false evidence.
3. Ignoring the body of evidence.

If both groups are looking at Archaeopteryx, one group concludes that its evidence of therapod-avian evolution, while the other says that its nothing more than an extinct avian. They both are looking at the same evidence, but they are interpreting it differently.

Actually, almost all of the time with regard to Archaeopteryx, creationists are doing all 3 cases above:

1. They deny that the extent of the morphological similarities of Archy as transitional.
2. They invent false cases of fraud. (see Archeoraptor)
3. They completely ignore all the other transitionals such as microraptor etc.

Presumably, you are saying that creo's will ignore one piece of evidence in order to make their claims more appealing. But a creationist could say the same thing about an evo.

Okay sure. Now put your money where your mouth is. Show us an example of an evolutionist doing any one of the three evidentiary no-nos. I think you will either be unable to or the list will be so short as to be quite unimpressive.

Indeed, this little cat and mouse game is always going on. And I for one am disillusioned by both parties. Maybe I'll get back into again, but as of now, its rehashing over the same stale points only to have no resolution.

Why do you think this is NJ? Do you feel it is because the discussion has no direction? Do you think that might be because you continually changed the subject? Do you really feel disillusioned or merely unable to bring your game up to the level of debate that would actually require you to support your claims?

Science is tentative, including scientific "fact." It was a fact that the earth was flat and it was also a fact that the earth is round.

Actually it was NEVER a fact that the earth was flat. That is how badly you are ignorant when it comes to knowing fact from theory. No matter how much people though the earth was flat it was never actually flat.

It was once a fact that caffeine was neutral. Then it was a fact that caffeine is terrible for you. Now its a fact that it has legitimate medicinal purposes. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Yea. What you are saying is that we are discovering new facts about the properties of caffeine and our THEOREY of the beneficial versus negative uses for caffeine is changing.

But where you are wrong is in claiming that those theories are facts. The facts are the properties of caffeine. The facts are what those properties do to humans in certain quantities. Those are not up for debate. Anyone of any religion, culture, background can go out and run the same tests those scientists did to discover those same exact facts about caffeine.

And, yes, its great that science can keep evolving in order to uncover the truth, whatever it may be, but this "truth" or "fact" may be supplanted the following year, which makes people leery of committing to anything.

And of course one again what you are describing is the ever-changing face of scientific theory. As we discover new facts those theories change which is of course why science is currently the best method for investigating the practicalities of the real world. But it is still theory and not fact no matter how much you keep saying it.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-28-2007 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2279 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 71 of 77 (451296)
01-27-2008 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jazzns
11-03-2006 3:44 PM


sort of testing if I can post
Thread says open to all and so seeing if this works. You commented:

I know that the fossil record for marine invertebrates IS complete

This comment seems way over the top. A "complete" fossil record would at a minimum mean every transition of evolutionary change would be visible. This is, of course, not even remotely true. I doubt you can present even small continuum of evolutionary change, say species A evolving into species B and then into C and into D, etc,...and leading to major morphological and genetic change.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jazzns, posted 11-03-2006 3:44 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Wounded King, posted 01-27-2008 6:07 AM randman has responded
 Message 75 by Jazzns, posted 01-28-2008 11:12 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 72 of 77 (451304)
01-27-2008 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by randman
01-27-2008 3:42 AM


Yes you can
I agree that Jazzns was exaggerating since it will be hard to ever make a case for having a 'complete' fossil record for anything.

That aside I'm not quite sure how you expect to have a record of genetic changes in fossil species, except to the extent they can be inferred from morphological ones.

Its good to see you back on the board Randman.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 3:42 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 8:20 PM Wounded King has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2279 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 73 of 77 (451476)
01-27-2008 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Wounded King
01-27-2008 6:07 AM


Re: Yes you can
For a minute, I thought you were making an Obama post.....thanks for the welcome back.

Well, if you can, please do. Let's see the species to species transitions leading to new genera in any posited evolutionary sequence, as a small starter. It'd be better to show that continue to new, major morphological change and families of species.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Wounded King, posted 01-27-2008 6:07 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Wounded King, posted 01-28-2008 8:58 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 74 of 77 (451623)
01-28-2008 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by randman
01-27-2008 8:20 PM


non sequitur
Well, if you can, please do.

Sad to see your reading comprehension doesn't seem to be at full power.

If I 'can please do' what? All I was doing was commenting that there is no way to show a record of genetic change from the fossil record, with possible rare exceptions. We might infer some things about genetic change, but that is all. And the degree to which people agree on the strength of these inferences depends to a large extent on how significant they see the contributions of genetics to determining a final form.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 8:20 PM randman has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1291 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 75 of 77 (451659)
01-28-2008 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by randman
01-27-2008 3:42 AM


To Clarify
In hindsight I definitly overstated that case. My point is that evolutionary history of many marine species (I misspoke when I mentioned invertebrates) is vastly more well understood than what we classically discuss on this board which seems to only be land vertibrates. The fossil record for marine life is enormous and many of the issues that creationists bring up such as the infamous "no transitional fossil" argument are simply not true when you consider many examples of marine fossils.

Creationists simply, and arbitrarily, don't consider transitions within this domain to be "big enough" because they simply don't understand the ramifacations of some of the changes. They want to see a giraffe turn into a buffalo, not an unfamiliar marine thingi turning into another unfamiliar marine thingo.

This would fall into either category 1 or 3 of the evidence issues I described.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 3:42 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017