|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 4491 days) Posts: 2 From: Livermore, CA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question Evolution! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
It is not a matter of point of view Mike, it is fact and reality. I agree. unfortunately, you, as a higher rank in this community, do not have to explain a thing, or prove anything you say, so I will do all the thinking for you, you just sit back and state the same ad-nauseum statements as though I didn't understand them in their entirety, the first time. Fortunately I know what facts and reality are, fully and in depth, and I also know that what you have stated about biological evolution being a fact, in and of itself is not a consequential statement. I can agree without it being a problem, which is a reality you are not aware of because you haven't thought of the logical implications whereas I have. Biological evolution is a fact. Reality is also not a matter of opinion. I agree on both counts with the overly simple statements that did not need to be voiced towards me, as though I needed to be educated on base-understandings. Nice try in making it look like I did, though. As you can see, I don't have to state anything else, both that fact and reality are not logically consequential. As you can see, for me, as a creationist to agree that evolution is a fact, might seem odd, but because I have a full understanding and I can differentiate between inferences/facts, premises and arguments in their various surreptitious forms then I can as a creationist state that biological evolution is a fact. You see, this in itself is a simple matter. But now you have to ask, "hang on a minute, if mike is saying biological evolution is a fact, and he is creationist, then doesn't he believe in evolution?" Logically, that is a question that must be asked. My answer is no, I do not believe in biological evolution in history, and yet I DO, because I believe evolution has acted on gene pools, (an example, an organism losing it's eye-sight as an advantageous evolution, as it lives in dark places). Is this what you were pressing me on? You see, the real question is, what do I mean when I say that evolution is a fact? Indeed, what do you mean, and do you know what you mean, specifically? The operative word, is specifically. Specific things fascinate me. Specifically, YOU mean that both a change in allele frequencies AND all lifeforms coming about because of this fact, are "fact". This is called, equivocation. When I say that evolution is a fact I mean that there is a change in allele frequencies in gene pools over generations. This fact does not mean I have to then believe that every organism on the planet it a result of biological evolution. As you can plainly see, to MERGE the two is fallacious. It's called, Bait and switch. Dawkins uses it on his proselytizing-quests, to bait the person listening, by showing the "fact" of evolution by appealing to a scientific bioloist. (Getting a Biologist to state, "evolution is fact") in the hope the person listening will then believe that they have to accept evolution in history. I can prove logically the two are merged, because when I make the following statement, it leads to confusion. (I am now using Reductio ad absurdum) Pay attention; (this requires some genuine thinking if you are not logically proficient)
I believe (mike) evolution is a fact, I believe evolution did not happen. As you can see, the statement is either breaking the law of non-contradiction, OR I mean two things, because two things are conflated in the term, "evolution". For how could I state this without meaning two things? Therefore Jar, I will do your homework for you, since this oppressive debate-board only insists that Creationists defend what they say, and lazy thinkers that are evolutionist, can get away with stating anything, despite their lack of knowledge. You see, with that statement I made, I MUST define the term, "evolution" hyper-specifically, or the statement is a contradiction because I would be believing a fact and not believing a fact. So, yes, I agree, biological evolution is a fact, but logically it does not prove anything. You MUST infer/argue and put forward a syllogism, in order to state something MORE ABOUT that fact. Technically, there is no getting around it. That is reality.
DISCLAIMER: If you want to make two separate claims, one that biological evolution, a change in gene pools, is a fact, and that lifeforms coming about because of this fact, is a fact, then that is okay, you can make those claims separately and fairly and make a topic defending YOUR claims, as you brought this subject up, not me. As you can see, in an oppressive atmosphere, the person kept under the thumb has to provide infinitely more effort, if he wants to make a simple statement, as the persons pushing the Rankism is basically the bully. I remember when I was a child, a group of bullies would come to our doorstep. They were big bullies but one bully was very, very small. Now the big bullies were fascinated to watch this small bully bully us, knowing that if we contradicted the small bully, the big bullies would beat us black and blue. So the small bully looked very grand. One day, the small bully came around without his friends, and I was sitting on the doorstep as we always did as children, and he started to bully me. I became afraid and punched him in the face. You see, without his big bully friends, he wasn't that big a deal. Of course, his big bully friends thought it proved a great deal when he bullied us when he was with his bigger friends to protect him, but in the end a short sharp shock educated him. I will not be responding to the big bullies, concerning this post. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Mike the Wiz writes: Luckily for the real world around you, "proving" is for maths and alcohol. Evidence is what counts.
I agree. unfortunately, you, as a higher rank in this community, do not have to explain a thing, or prove anything you say,..... Mike the Wiz writes: I, for one, do understand Jar's posts. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not. At least I can understand the message he tries to convey. ... so I will do all the thinking for you, you just sit back and state the same ad-nauseum statements as though I didn't understand them in their entirety, the first time. However, I have absolutely no idea of what you're aiming at in your word salads. Do you have a point, anywhere? Edited by Pressie, : Spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There is some ranking system at EvC?
Do you ever tire of trying to tell people what they think? What specifically did all that word salad mean? I appreciate your offer to think for me but fear that is something you are not capable of performing. Finally, what bullies are here?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Mike writes: I have pretty much vowed to be quiet, so we will leave it.Mike writes:
I sincerely wish you would keep your vows. *wall of nonsense text* ...or, alternatively, post something that makes sense. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
When I say that evolution is a fact I mean that there is a change in allele frequencies in gene pools over generations. Getting back to the OP . . . The major problem with the 15 questions is that it inserts lies into the questions. For example, it asks why there are living species that are identical to long dead fossil species. This is a lie. They are not identical. Very similar, yes. Identical? Absolutely not. There are quite a few questions within the 15 that follow this pattern. We are simply pointing out the intellectual bankruptcy of creation science given the fact that they have to lie about the facts in order to have a point. As a more general point, ID/creationism ignores the facts and reality. I have gone on and on about the nested hierarchy in several of these threads. My point in doing so is to show that ID/creationism does not address this issue. It never has. It simply can not explain the facts. Evolution does. So the problem is two fold. First, ID/creationists make up facts (i.e. they lie). Second, they ignore the real facts. Then we also have "Gould" facts. Stephen Jay Gould once defined fact as "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". If we accept this definition then we also bring many other facts to bear, such as the fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. As Gould stated it: "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" The genetic evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. Withholding provisional assent is perverse in this instance. It is a fact. Many ID/creationists refuse to accept this fact based on religious dogma. Any model of life's history must include the fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. If the model does not include this fact then it is a failed model.
As you can see, in an oppressive atmosphere, the person kept under the thumb has to provide infinitely more effort, if he wants to make a simple statement, as the persons pushing the Rankism is basically the bully. That's not it at all. You have to produce the same amount of evidence to support your claims as has been produced for evolution. The problem is that you have to counter 150 years of accumulated evidence backing evolution. You are complaining that the facts don't back you. Perhaps you should think about that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Asgara tracked down and linked to this topic here at the "Conservapedia declares victory over EvC Forum" topic.
AdminnemooseusOr something like that. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
driewerf Junior Member Posts: 29 Joined: |
quote:No. I think that the major problem with the 15 questions - and scientists are mssing this point too - is that science needs unanswerd questions. CMI believes that if they can find 15 questions that we can't answer, this means the death of the ToE. Nothing is further from he truth. A scientist embraces unanswered questions, because this means more research is necessary. Open any scientific journal about any science - physics, chemistry, anatomy etc. You will find phrases like "more research is needed", "still unsolved problem", etc. With a little bit malevolence youy can phrase the 15 questions chemistry can't answer, then 15 questions embryology can't answer. Of course, CMI did a very poor job, but even if the 15 questions were without answers it wouildn't be a catastrophe. Sadly enough, creationists and scientists alike missed that point. Edited by driewerf, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
No. I think that the major problem with the 15 questions - and evolutionists are mssing this point too - is that science needs unanswerd questions.
More importantly, science needs HONEST questions. CMI is not providing honest questions. Instead, CMI is offering loaded questions that are more rhetorical in nature, and they are based on a serious misunderstanding of the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
I can't completely endorse your post because of your use of the word "evolutionists." Change that to "scientists" and you're much closer to the truth.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Of course, CMI did a very poor job, but even if the 15 questions were without answers it wouldn't be a catastrophe. Sadly enough, creationists and evolutionists alike missed that point. Not so fast. If you look through this thread, you'll note that there is a fairly complete critique of the questions. It is in fact the case that nearly all of the questions themselves have easily exposed flaws. The questions themselves are an attempt to raise issues that scientists should find their ability to answer the question problematic. It is certainly possible to pick a set of questions that if unanswerable, would create significant problems for the theory of evolution. If indeed, CMI had managed to come up with those questions, then those failure to answer the questions should not be simply dismissed as not reflecting poorly on what is claimed to be a theory. I agree that there are going to be some open questions and that scientist should just acknowledged that they cannot answer them. But that approach is not appropriate for every single question CMI might ask.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024