What type of skeptic are you?

AhahaI wish that was me on the streethawk bike. The reality is far more humble, looks like a toaster on wheels and sounds like a bee.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'creationist theory', I'm assuming you're not going for biblical creationism since that has already been disproved, so there's no need to look at any more theories.If it was supported by evidence, as opposed to rhetoric then, sure, I'd consider it. The trouble for any creationist theory is that it has to fight against a whole load of obstacles:1. The evidence against theism.
2. The radical success of naturalist explanations of the universe.
3. The compelling evidence of natural origins.
4. It's inherent weakness as an explanatory power.Basically naturalist explanations have worked so very, very much better than theistic ones for everything that has been explained so far, so any non-naturalistic explanation has to be really, really damn good.

You see, I disagree about theism. Yet I wasn't arguing for a creationist Theory. It's just an example.Here's another which I argued in the past as a YEC.Species "stuck in a rut" and that haven't changed morphologically in millions of years, seem to be better explained by a creo Theory, therefore opposing an evolutionistic one, yet USING evidence completely. I mean what else are we dealing with when we have a living species, and one that is stuck in a millions of years old rock, that is morphologically the same? I would say that even though normalized selection refutes this, the creo explanation of "no evolution for that species" is more accurate. Something to think about for you Mr.Jack. But do note, this isn't about arguing creo and evo. This is about skepticism. In that instance, you would probably still prefer the ToE, even though this "small" example is better fitting to reality when using the creo Theory. Afterall, that species hasn't changed in millions of years, even if normalized selection is the case. Which one still explains "truth"? The truth is that something hasn't changed in millions of years remember. A more realistic explanation which fits THAT reality, is the creo explanation. But could you ever be honest about such a point as that? It doesn't refute evolution, but the evidence is better fitted to the creo side in this example. Think! What am I saying?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-09-2004 10:36 AM

Well, of course you do. But that isn't the point. I'm saying that I'm not biased to reject creationism, per se, but that I am predisposed to reject it because it goes against things that have already been proven to me (to my satisfaction). Do you see the difference? You can't just cherry pick evidence; it doesn't work like that. morphologically stable genuses (I say genus rather than species, because the standard examples are not actually the same species throughout the time period, merely morphologically similar) are not a problem for evolution (their absence would be, incidently), but clear lines of decent are a killer problem for creationism.By analogy suppose I claim that the mathematical symbol ² doesn't mean 'squared' but '+2' - I imagine you'd be rather unimpressed if I claimed that the example '2² = 4' seemed to support my asserion.

I know this isn't a problem for evolution. So what am I saying?

You're claiming it suits creation better than evolution - it doesn't. And it would be irrelevant if it did. Why? Because once something is disproved it doesn't making any difference what supports it, it's still wrong.Let's take another analogy. Suppose someone is run over. Suppose multiple witnesses report that they were struck by blue V-reg Ford Mondeo Ghia X 2.0 Saloon with the numberplate of my car. Imagine the witnesses report that the driver was dressed in black, has long hair and was wearing glasses. Suppose further that, yes, my car shows signs of damage consistent with having struck a person - and DNA tests confirm that the blood in the grill is that from the struck person.All that evidence points to me having been involved in the accident, and then driven off.Now suppose that the is irrefutable evidence I was elsewhere at the time. Let's say I was on a plane and CCTV cameras have recorded me entering the plane, and leaving it in Glasgow - something nicely irrefutable like that.Now do you think I was involved in the accident? Of course not. I couldn't have been - the other evidence doesn't make any difference, once you've got something that proves it wasn't so it can't be so. Which is why falsifiability is such a big jazz in science.

You've fell into the skeptic number 2 trap. Which is no bad thing, as I think it's in everyone, which is the only thing I am trying to show. Look, I'll even state this: "Stuck in a rut creationism" is FULLY refuted by evolution and in no way rids the Theory.So what then have I shown? Mr Jack's gone and stated that;"You're claiming it suits creation better than evolution". Yet my point is that SO WHAT IF IT DOES? Remember my blue statement?So, even when a simple yet truthful reality is shown, people will deny it because of their fear of what that truth might say. EVEN THOUGH I stand by the blue statement. It's no big deal though, and your only as guilty/innocent as the rest of us. You see, I took the "stuck in a rut" example from reality, and a number 1 skeptic pointed out that certain phenomenal and rare evidences might fit a creo Theory better, but the overall picture/evidence - still fits evolution.I agree, evolution is still the best explanation AND also explains "stuck in a rut" with normalized selection. Don't take this the wrong way though Mr Jack, as I am not picking on you, I just want to show that the number 2 skeptic might be more prevailant in ALL of us, than we might realize.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-09-2004 11:11 AM

Either your trying to make a point that is going over me head, or we simply disagreeing. I'm not sure which.You claim 'stuck in a rut' creatures are evidence for creation, I claim they're not. Is there something else? Are you claiming simply because I disagree with you on this I must be doing so because I'm blinded by adherance to evolution?

I've read up as far as msg 22, and while I think you may have a point, the problem I'm having is that your example doesn't support it. I think Mr. Jack is arguing against the point made by your example, which is a fairly poor argument, rather than against the point you'd like to make and keep hinting at, but which you haven't made yet.About your example, Mr. Jack already provided an appropriate example involving falsification, and let me provide a simpler one. Say there are two theories about the weight of books. One theory says all books weigh less than a kilogram, while the other theory says that a book can weigh anything. You go around and gather evidence. According to the way you've argued your example, every book that weighs less than one kilogram is evidence for your theory. And since more books weigh less than one pound, you'd go on to argue that the "less than a kilogram" theory has more supporting evidence. What's terribly wrong and obviously wrongheaded with this approach is that the theory was falsified the first time you picked up a decent dictionary or the complete works of Shakespeare.Your example of morphologically stable species has the same fallacy: it is falsified the first time you find an evolutionary progression, and in this case many more species show change than stability.You need an example that is actually consistent with and supports the argument you're trying to make.--Percy

You make a very good point here. (though how you got around to it seems to have sparked an entirely different debate.) I think our classification as a number 1 or 2 skeptic depends entirely on the topic being discussed. If you are passionate about one theory, you may become skeptic number 2, but on all other topics and ideas you may be number 1. When it comes to creo/evo debates, both sides have become so engrained to dismiss the other that it is much easier to find number 2 here, especially considering everyone here is passionate enough about it to continue posting here as long as some of you have.

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

You're both missing the point. I KNOW IT'S FALSIFIED! I am not arguing for creationism, yet you think I am. I am arguing that if we only ever found stuck in a rut species, would it be unreasonable to deduce that the creo explanation would far better explain it,BUT WE DON"T find that evidence only. Therefore, evolution is NOT refuted by this. This IS supporting my argument if you read through properly with message one in mind. I haven't mad any mistake, you're both concentrating on the evolution versus creationism aspect, which I am not interested in.Even if the creo Theory fits this particular evidence better than evolution, you cannot admitt this. Let's even pretend that this evidence (stuck in rut) shows us a reality of only one thing; that species can remain the same for long periods of time. Can you admitt that that reality in itself, can be expressed as a truth more so and/or better than evolution could describe it, by creation?(OBVIOUSLY, if animals were created, sheesh!) If you can't admitt it even when I've said it won't falsify evolution in any way whatsoever, then just what skeptic are you, 1 or 2? Please think about this as focusing on the only reality we would have, as being the "stuck in a rut" example(species can remain the same for long periods of time). Rather than seeing this as an attempt to refute evolution. Oh dear guys, please show some attempt to be a number one and grasp this soon.THIS CANNOT REFUTE EVOLUTION because of the points raised by Mr Jack. Sheesh, it was silly of me to use a creo evo analogy, I should have known the focus would leave the point I am trying to make.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-09-2004 12:24 PM

Very good point because you are an independent observer who doesn't come here much! So actually, that' a very helpful point to the discussion, I should have actually requested a lurker or new person who has a fresh perspective.With evo/creo being the main argument here, I shouldn't have used that example, as it looks like I am a YEC which I am not.

Okay, Percy and Mr Jack. I seem to be AWFUL when trying to show a link or analogy to back my point up. I will think of a new analogy shortly, which will focus entirely on skepticism. It's a shame I am so un-articulate.

Mike it still isn't clear what you are arguing.If you are arguing that the evolution side WON'T say that if you look only at those few species which haven't changed for long periods of time and DON'T consider then in a wider context that creation would appear to be a better explanation then you are wrong. I'm quite happy to admit that. In fact historically the failure of the idea that species were fixed and did not change was one of the driving forces that lead to the rejection of creationism and the discovery of evolution.However when we do consider the wider context we see that it is only a relatively few species that are involved (and this is widely known). Creationism offers no reason as to why these cases should be the exception rather than the rule and it does not offer any way to predict which creatures should appear remain unchanged for long periods of time. So creationism is NOT a better explanation for these species unless the wider context is deliberately ignored. But a refusal to consider the wider context WOULD be the action of a type 2 skeptic - a deliberate refusal to take relevant evidence into account.The only way to make your argument valid would have been to expressly state that the only evidence to be considered is those few species. But you didn't. So in effect you are suggesting that others are acting as type 2 skeptics for the reason that they AREN'T acting like (creationist) type 2 skpetics.

Mike says,

quote:

---

Don't get me wrong, I'm not even against [evolution] anymore, I'm just Christian, so I see both sides a bit more clear. But I am confident in my mind, that some here are so against the other side that they would refute truths even if they knew it was truth. And don't lie, because I've done it myself. Go on, you know it, some issues you would go against as you are simply "for" them whether they are true or not.

---

This merely sounds like projection. Believers such as yourself aren't concerned with the effect of disconfirming evidence on their long-held beliefs, while rational people can't ignore such evidence. The very existence of 'religious mysteries' such as the Trinity is meant to make sure followers believe in something they cannot rationally affirm. If you're convinced God has something to do with biology, you'll squeeze Him in there regardless of how unnecessary or inappropriate it is to do so.regards,
Esteban Hambre