|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,364 Year: 3,621/9,624 Month: 492/974 Week: 105/276 Day: 2/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5279 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Punctuated equilibrium vs spontaneous generation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: i.e. you appealed to your prejudices. Thus your argument is self-defeating, because it is valid it must be rejected by the very criteria it uses.
quote: Your criticisms are entirely in error. Firstly theistic evolution is commonly taken as a faith position and thus it matters not if it is unscientific, unfalsifiable or even a less-good explanation than naturalistic evolution. Secondly none of these points proves theistic evolution false - a view may be less well supported by the evidence and still true. Thirdly since we are only considering one piece of evidence - the fossil record - my points do not rule out other evidnece (scientific or otherwise) which might be held to weigh more heavily in favour of theistic evolution. Thus your assertion that my argument asserts that "theistic aevolution cannot be true" rests on both an extreme form of Scientism and an incomplete consideration of the evidence. As to your other point, there are species-level transitions in the fossil record and thus any position that denies that they will be found is already falsified. Also the "absence" of species level transitions is a purely ad hoc assumption that would have never been included if they were commonly found. PE is also preferable since it is rooted in actual science rather than the religious hypotheses of progressive creation or ID.
quote: In other words you do not look at the evidence, you deny that it exists and then you accuse your opponents of ignoring the evidence.The mere fact that we are still discovering new transitionals - one was announced a few days ago - completely demolishes your argument. Finally on QM I suggest that you explain the specific effects you have in mind and - if you indeed have already explained how they can happen, using real science (and not your opinions) you should offer a link to the thread. Quite frankly as it stands there is simply no reason to take your argument as anything more than a desperate appeal to discount all the evidence without any real basis. Which certainly would be a very odd thing to do if you really beleived that the evidence firmly supported your claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4918 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You are not getting the point, as usual I might add. You claim my claim fits with any facts. I pointed out where you are wrong, and where those that believe God-did-it, but accept ToE's take on the facts are theistic evos.I thought you could have seen that without having to spell it out.So that proves you are wrong. People that want to credit God do not are not all IDers.
Why can't you see this? Let's stick with this before moving on to anything else. Why would you claim my position that the fossil record indicates an ID approach rather than standard evo models is something that exists regardless of any facts? Why can you now acknowledge that I am basing my beliefs on the facts as I see them? Also, do you think it was mere prejudice on my part to show where Pakicetus was presented with webbed feet? What? You don't believe that is what happened? This is what is so weird about discussing things with you guys. This is a fact, not prejudice. Evos presented Pakicetus with webbed feet/ Do you, or do you not agree that it is a fact they presented Pakicetus with webbed feet? And if you agree, how can it be biasness to bring it up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I cannot see that you proved me wrong because you did not. At the most you could see that the criticisms I made of your suggestion could also be applied to some forms of theistic evolution - but that neither disproves theistic evolution nor is it a valid criticism of my arguments. Moroever any individual who claims to be rational should understand that they cannot prove me wrong by refuting a claim I never made. Since I did not claim that only ID'ers wished to credit God, arguing otherwise is a mere red herring.
quote: Whether your view is in agreement with the facts as you see them is an interesting question. The fact that your make arguments directed at rejecting all evidence would suggest at the very least that you doubt that the evidence does support your view. Nevertheless when you accuse others of refusing to consider all the evidence when they disagree with you it should be reasonably be expected that you do have a good degree of familiarity with the whole of the evidence. If the "way you see" the evidence omits significant parts of it then it is clear that you lack such familiarity and are not in a position to render such judgements.
quote: It is evidence of bias in that you attribute great significance to such a trivial thing and with so little knowledge. Reconstruictions of the soft parts of fossils often involve a degree of speculation and thus will often have one error or another. The mere fact of an error in such a reconstruction - is of no great significance at all. Yet when your usage of this example is questioned all you can try to do is accuse your opponents of denying the facts. In other words the fact that you use this example is evidence of your prejudice. And the fact that you misrepresent the criticisms of your usage is yet further evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
Why can't you see this? Because it's ad hoc argumentation, & nothing you have said has changed this. And since we are supposed to be having a scientific discussion, according to you, there's no reason why anyone should respond to your theistic claims. In fact, everyone should refuse to respond to you at all, if they are consistent with your excuses not to engage. You refused to respond to me when I was misinterpreted as introducing theism, what's good for the goose, eh, randman?
Do you, or do you not agree that it is a fact they presented Pakicetus with webbed feet? Whether PaulK agrees or disagrees does not alter the fact that this line of reasoning commits a fallacy of composition, rendering it moot as regards getting you off the hook as regards your ad hoc argumentation, as described here, here, here, here, & here . It is also a diversionary in nature, failing to address the fact that the following passage is ad hoc argumentation, & is therefore also a red herring, also previously defined. Nothing you have typed has removed the conditions that meet an ad hoc logical fallacy, therefore you are still guilty of committing it & your argument lacks the logical support to be considered at all. The offending unrepentant "explanation" is quoted below.
The answer could be the "lining up" is unreliable as scientists have been persuaded, as is endemic in ToE in the past, to essentially interpret data according to the existing paradigm and leave out data that does not fit, creating a self-fulfilling illusions. Personally, I think there is a good bit of this going on, and I base that on other areas where evos clung to false ideas for decades despite criticism and then finally lamented here and there. Please do something about it, randman, your claim you know more about logic than I do depends on it. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 11-19-2005 07:03 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4918 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
YOu guys can call it ad hoc all you want, but it's not. It's fruitless to continue if instead of responding to my points, all you do is ignore them with bare assertions. After awhile, I feel I am arguing with people that wouldn't admit the sky was blue without insisting it was an ad hoc argument or some other weasel statement to avoid intelligent discussion.
No facts, no logic, nada can be presented to you, period, without you simply writing it off as nonsense and refusing to deal with the facts, logic, etc,... This message has been edited by randman, 11-19-2005 08:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5214 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
randman,
YOu guys can call it ad hoc all you want, but it's not. Yes it is, I have cited the conditions that need to be met for an argument to be ad hoc, & shown how your arguments meet those conditions. Nothing you have since said has changed this, as outlined & linked to in my last post.. Simply claiming you aren't committing logical fallacies without support is just descending into childish playground, "is-too, is-not" whining. Grow up.
It's fruitless to continue if instead of responding to my points, all you do is ignore them with bare assertions. I have responded to all your points, & shown why they do not counter the charge of fallacious logic laid at their feet. You have yet to counter them sufficiently. And a declaration that your arguments are not ad hoc does not cut the mustard. You need argumentation that does not meet the criteria necessary to be considered fallacious logic. Your bad. Not mine.
No facts, no logic, nada can be presented to you, period, without you simply writing it off as nonsense and refusing to deal with the facts, logic, etc,... What relevant facts did you present? What relevent valid logic have you presented? And only the most obtuse illiterate would claim that I have merely written off your arguments as nonsense. Your arguments are ad hoc, I have shown why, & you haven't changed the conditions of your arguments so that they are not ad hoc. Ergo, they still are. Point #1 Was ad hoc because it initially provided no support for it's claims. Your attempts you conflate poor conclusions & issues of trust committed a fallacy of composition & can be discounted. It is therefore still ad hoc. Point #2 is goddidit ad hoc. Point #3 requires support, & until you do provide, is ad hoc. Nowhere have you provided relevant facts or logically valid explanations that remove the ad hoc nature of your initial response. If you feel I have glossed over or ommitted anything, please feel free to draw my attention to it. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 11-20-2005 06:17 AM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
quote: I swear, Randman, have you ever actually read the Eldredge and Gould paper? Or are you just repeating claims about what it was about? Nowhere in that paper do they talk about changes between major taxon. It was not an answer to the lack of transitional fossils, it was an explanation as to why SPECIES tend to remain constant over time before changing abruptly (~1000’s of years). It was based on cases like Cerion snails and ammonites where we have actual species transitions recorded. It was meshing fossil evidence to the growing science of population genetics. That you believe that the paper was to explain the lack of transitional fossils is clear evidence that you are not basing your conclusions on real research but repeating old (bad) creo sources. And about your “John Wheeler and Anton Zellinger” posts. Here I can call you on bad scholarship. A google search on the above reveals a large number of creationist/ID websites. Which undoubtedly are your sources. What you probably don’t know because you do not look at primary sources is that the Anton you are referring to is Anton Zeilinger, note the spelling difference. You might claim that your misspelling of his name is an accident, but it is hard to explain that this identical misspelling is found on creo websites over and over again. I CAUGHT you! Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Of course the real fact is that you aren't up to intelligent discussion. You complain that ad hoc exccuses for discounting contrary evidence are called what they are. You misrepresent your opponents positions so that you can claim that they are wrong. And now, because you have lost so badly you run away leaving this ill-tempered and completely false rant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Randman,
You did not at all answer my post which is typical. Did you read the Eldredge and Gould paper? Did they ever say anything that supports your idea? This topic is about PE, you feel strongly enough about it to post abundantly. So defend your position. Where in their paper do they try to explain the lack of transitional fossils? Where do they address macromutational transitions? I am going to stand by the idea that you have never read the original paper or any subsequent literature. Likewise, I would be very surprised if you read any physics literature by Anton Zeilinger, but only know of intepretations by ID websites who know him as Anton Zellinger. I also did note that you changed the spelling of his name in subsequent postings after my calling you on it, at least it shows you are paying attention. I used the wonderful 'search' function on EVC to find "Zellinger" and "Zeilinger". After my post you use the proper spelling, before you don't. Very funny.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024