Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biased Interpretation?
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 3 of 49 (190626)
03-08-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LinearAq
03-08-2005 11:49 AM


Where is the other interpretation of these?
Fact: Some rock has a certain ratio of parent and daughter isotope productions from radioactive decay.
Fact: The rate of decay for the parent isotope is known.
Fact: Methods exist for identifying problems with the system.
Mainstream Conclusion: Rocks can be dated by the ratio of radioactive isotopes and their decay elements.
YEC Conclusion: ???
Fact: Mutations happen that add/remove/change an animal's genes and therfore their characteristics.
Fact: Animals with characteristics more adaptive to their environment survive better and produce more offspring.
Mainstream Conclusion: The TOE
YEC Conclusion: ???

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 11:49 AM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by JonF, posted 03-08-2005 1:47 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 12 of 49 (190673)
03-08-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by LinearAq
03-08-2005 3:02 PM


Re: Where is the other interpretation of these?
I think what everyone is forgetting here is that these things that LinearAq suggest are not interpretations of the facts. They are addition of other mechanisms or just plain incorrect in the straight face of the evidence.
Radioisotope contamination is directly mitigated by tests that account for this.
Accelerated decay is an additional mechanism not and interpretation. It also has zero evidence. It also has a major problem with heat.
Most if not all of the "flood models" are additional constructs rather than alternate interpretations.
A barrier to macro-evolution is an additional constraint to genetics that has no evidence. Also not an interpretation.
My question is, where are the alternate interpretations of the facts? I don't care about the hypotheticals that often are the meat of any creationist argument. If you are claiming alternate interpretation then show how a different conclusion can be drawn from the same set of info without invoking some as of yet unknown process.

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 3:02 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 10:16 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 23 of 49 (190749)
03-09-2005 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by LinearAq
03-08-2005 10:16 PM


Re: Seeing in another...
Your reply along with Ned's and Jon's give the implication that there is no "real" problem with presupposition bias...only one perceived by one side.
Not exactly. My position is that bias has yet to be established. If the conclusions from science are based on bias then there must be some other conclusion that can be derived from the same set of facts. Since such conclusions are non-existant we cannot conclude that there is an interpretive bias.
Adding additional, often hypothetical, constructs to the evidence can lead to different conclusions but unless those additional constructs are fact then you cannot consider the original conclusion biased. Even if you could show that the original conclusion was biased minus the addition of some facts you then would have to show that that original conclusion is still being held despite the facts.
Are you suggesting that since they are constrained by a bias (Bible) that they feel evolutionists SURELY MUST BE constrained by some bias also?
No. I am saying that, until bias can be shown, all the claim of bias is just whining about mainstream acceptance of ideas that one does not like. Where is the other interpretation of the same set of facts with a different bias? No creationist has ever demonstrated it ever. All creationists do is apply additional, often wrong, suppositions from which they draw their different conclusions. They don't ever explain anything in the context of the original conclusion in light of only the actual evidence.
How can you know that you are not?
I very well may be wrong. But I cannot know until it can be shown that an alternative explanation for the evidence exists for a different bias. The hard part is that this alternative explanation must be about the exact same evidence.
Better yet, how can you convince those that accuse you, that you aren't constrained by inordinate presuppositions?
Simple. Innocent until shown guilty. As far as I know, no alternate explanation of the evidence exists so how can bias be shown? It is not my job to prove that I am not biased. If I am, it is the job of others to show that I am. So far this is lacking.

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by LinearAq, posted 03-08-2005 10:16 PM LinearAq 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