Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 196 (155567)
11-03-2004 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
11-03-2004 12:50 PM


Re: Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists
I think it's more than that. Creationists do tend to think that they know everything and seem to find it quite painful to read opposing views. In this forum for instanc Lysimachus more than often claimed to be "sickened" by opposing views. On another forum I saw a creationist accept a challenge to read a popular book on evolution - and fail
Aside from the repeated misreadings and misrepresentations he never made it beyond Chapter 1. (The book was Steve Jones' Darwin's Ghost aka Almost Like a Whale).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-03-2004 12:50 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2004 6:58 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 10 by GoodIntentions, posted 11-03-2004 8:10 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 196 (155716)
11-04-2004 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed
11-03-2004 6:58 PM


Re: Shoes on different feet.
I still think it is different. Are you sickened just by opinions that disagree with yours ? You're half-way through the book - and apparently without even the incentive of a direct challenge.
And I bet you would carefully check all your criticisms. The guy I'm talking about called Jones a liar for saying that fixity of species had been disproved - when even he accepted that species could evolve (but not "kinds"). And he stuck with it even after his error had been pointed out.
The point is that many creationists are incapable of learning the science firstly because of their habit of twisting everything they read to fit their own preconceptions and secondly because they have an extreme dislike of reading material that contradicts their beliefs. Evolutionists in general are simply not dominated by bias and anger to the same extent.
This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-04-2004 12:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2004 6:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 87 of 196 (158282)
11-11-2004 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
11-11-2004 12:41 AM


Re: Where is the conflict?
For reference we are talking about Message 32
quote:
...do try to comprehend all you can as to how wonderfully complex living things are and the extremely low the odds of it all coming about without an intelligent designer and creator to make it happen so precisely and so complete
Since the claim of "extremely low" odds is presented as a fact it is certainly reasonable to ask for support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 11-11-2004 12:41 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 115 of 196 (158995)
11-13-2004 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Buzsaw
11-12-2004 9:22 PM


Re: Where is the conflict?
Here's a basic fact about evolutionary theory Buz. Everything animal or plant should be a "complete" animal or plant. How could it be otherwise ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2004 9:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2004 10:58 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 127 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2004 11:16 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 138 of 196 (160853)
11-18-2004 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Buzsaw
11-17-2004 10:58 PM


Re: Where is the conflict?
There is no purpose in evolving. Evolution simply means that naturally ocurring variations that improve reproductive success - directly or indirectly - tend to spread.
"Complete" does not mean "perfect". There is absolutely no problem with the idea that a "complete" creature might be changed in ways that would improve its reproductive success. I am amazed that anyone could suggest otherwise.
Evolution can never be said to be complete for any living species. There is always room for small scale change and if the environment were to change in the right way even major changes are never completely out of the question.
This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-18-2004 02:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2004 10:58 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 180 of 196 (161721)
11-20-2004 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Buzsaw
11-19-2004 11:26 PM


Re: Buz, let me try again.
I would say that it is primarily an apologetic argumnet - i.e. one intended to back up a preconcieved view rather than assessing the actual evidence.
The essential problem is that it utterly refuses to even consider the capabilities of the processes it is supposedly about. Instead it assumes that human intelligence must do better than any natural process could ever achieve. However genetic algorithms, using processes similar to those of evolution are used precisely because human design skills are inadequate and can be bettered
(an example) http://tetra.mech.ubc.ca/CFD03/papers/paper29PB2.pdf
While not so obviously wrong as invoking the 2nd Law of Thermodynaimcs to limit Natural Selection, the argument still lacks any value and certainly cannot be used as a valid excuse to set aside the evidence for evolution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Buzsaw, posted 11-19-2004 11:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 194 of 196 (162002)
11-21-2004 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Buzsaw
11-20-2004 8:56 PM


Faith, not observation
As I pointed out in a previous post your use of "evidence" is incorrect.
1) THe evidence you choose to use is only relevant if you assume that the mechanisms of evolution cannot acheive results that other natural mechanisms do not
2) The evidence you choose to ignore shows that this is false - with some very limited guidance analagous processes can achieve results superior to those that we can achieve with ID.
Clearly the evidence directly dealing with analagous processes is more relevant than that dealing with processes that are simply grouped under the label "natural". Therefore the argument rests on a highly selective use of evidence to reach the desired conclusion. Moreover since it relies on ignoring evidence of greater relevance than that accepted the conclusion cannot be said to be based on a rational evalutation of the evidence. Rather it is an apologetic argument which misrepresents the true stae of the evidence to reach a conclusion already held as a matter of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2004 8:56 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024