|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:But not until message 119 after Faith had already lost her temper and been suspended. I can understand why she didn't walk through it with you. That's not what she presented as her "evidence." I don't even understand why the grass question was asked. It wasn't tied back to the OP. I'm sure there is some scientific reason, but again I see a difference in knowledge level.
quote:A nonscience person (creationist or not) may only have a simple statement. Why can't baby steps start there? Personally, I wouldn't have answered the grass question, of course, I also wouldn't have made the original comments, but why couldn't that question have been presented as a narrative? Present whatever statement it was referring to and then generally state how it applied and where the grasses went or whatever the point was of it. Then Faith or anyone else has a chance to agree, disagree, or add to it in some way. Someone like me might have asked a question if it peaked our interest. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I guess this shows what a bad OP can do. I'm not saying there weren't good and valid points in the thread. The OT statements by Faith really weren't worth starting the battle over, IMO. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But not until message 119 after Faith had already lost her temper and been suspended. I can understand why she didn't walk through it with you. That's not what she presented as her "evidence." Actually, no, that is not quite correct. If you follow the chain back you will see that Message 47 is basically the same message, and it, the baby steps, and Faith's response to message 47 was what got her suspended.
I don't even understand why the grass question was asked. It wasn't tied back to the OP. I'm sure there is some scientific reason, but again I see a difference in knowledge level. The grass question was asked because it was one of the major evidences that supports an old earth. It's not the biggest, but it is one of the most convincing. It is also simple, and relatively easy to follow if someone will work through it.
A nonscience person (creationist or not) may only have a simple statement. Why can't baby steps start there? Personally, I wouldn't have answered the grass question, of course, I also wouldn't have made the original comments, but why couldn't that question have been presented as a narrative? The grass question IS a simple one. It just can't get much simpler. We are dealing with only one single facet, grasses. It was presented in that fashion because the thread is oriented towards letting someone who believes in the flood explain their support for that belief. The thread was specifically NOT about presenting the current geological evidence. It was an opportunity for a Flood Supporter to describe what we should find related to grasses if the flood story was true. One problem is that Flood supporters have seldom really described what should be seen. In the few cases where they do make such predictions, they have been shown to be wrong. So it has become very difficult to get them to commit to a clear prediction. That was what Percy, and to a lesser extent, myself, were trying to do. Percy did get Faith to admit that fossil ordering was a problem for the flood scenario. The exchange begins at Message 110 with a very simple question.
How does flood theory explain fossil ordering? Faith admitted that the flood scenario does not explain fossil ordering in Message 114.
The flood does not clearly explain fossil ordering. Percy then asked another simple question in Message 115 How does the flood scenario explain that all radiometric dating techniques consistently show that lower layers are older layers? Here response found in Message 118 was
They ARE older, just not as old as evo theory claims. I always opt out of radiometric dating discussions as I don't understand it well enough. So basically there she is just saying she doesn't understand enough to evaluate the evidence. So when baby steps are taken, time after time the evidence does not support her position. I was trying to get her to walk through the same process now concerning grass. She simply refused to discuss it. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
I didn't really intend this thread as a discussion of what should and shouldn't have been done to constructively engage with Faith. There are so many ways to go wrong with Faith that I just don't see it worth exploring. It's like trying to balance a pea on the edge of a razor blade - yeah, if you work really hard at it you might succeed at keeping the pea in place for a second or two, and yeah if you zigged or zagged at just the right moment maybe you could have kept it balanced another split second, but in the end it's nobody's fault that it fell off. It was inevitable.
What I was hoping to explore was where evolutionists are taking the wrong approach in presenting to creationists their evidence and interpretations. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I appreciate your point of view on this thread, purpledawn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
robin,
That's a different kind of prediction from the sort of thing you get with evolution. Your examples were predictions of the fossil record & DNA/morphology. You said:
Evolution might be true with no found fossils but evolution cannot be true if the DNA similarities between related creatures were not as they are. My point is that the same IS as true of predictions of the fossil record. If DNA evidence wasn't consistent with evolution & that scuppered evolution, then the same holds true for the fossil record, if we are being consistent. Mark Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:This one just mentioned by jar. The grass question was asked because it was one of the major evidences that supports an old earth. OK I've just posted my four statements (the ones in the OP) (Yes, I'm taking Faith's place for the moment) The first comment out of the bag is:I'd like to ask PD if she thinks that grasses ran for higher ground in the Flood? Somebody tell which of the statements I made in the OP this relates to. See I still haven't figured out what that has to do with the original statements. Jar says it is a support for old earth. Did any of my comments address old earth? I thought it was evidence for the flood. Please connect the dots for me. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1015 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I think I understand what PD is stating about what appears to be evidence to the non-scientists, and this is exactly the weakness
Creationist and YEC organizations exploit to the fullest. The main problem I see is that it's relatively simple for a YEC to offer up their evidence in the form of fossils being on mountaintops. To someone completely unfamiliar with geology and tectonics, the idea of water having to cover mountaintops for that to happen, makes perfect sense. How elso could fossils get up there? However, for a scientist to explain the mainstream version, they have to go into excruciating detail of processes of sedimentation, depositional environments, fossil occurrences and why certain ones are found in certain places, eustasy, then tectonics. That is extremely difficult to do in a written forum such as this. Pictures and/or illustrative images are a huge asset in these sorts of discussions, but often not possible. In order to start at the very bottom or easiest rung, scientists would have to basically teach the non-scientists science, possibly the scientific method, and then 100- to 400-level college biology or geology. Most people don't have the time to spend writing long posts, which are often requred to refute even the simplest Creationist/YEC argument. That's why I always feel it's best to keep these sorts of discussions with non-scientists as restricted as possible. Stick to the grass problem, or my favorite, the carbonate problem, and then explain how and why this is important. Fossil occurrence throughout the entire geologic record is just too complex. It's like discussing/debating the geologic history of the Grand Canyon. It can barely fit in a Ph.D. let alone here. This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-08-2006 12:24 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Purpledawn,
Faith states: The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood. Now to a basic nonscience Christian, not necessarily fundamentalist, who grew up in the church, that makes logical sense given the flood story. She has taken something that science has shown and used it to support the flood story. A point I laboured to convey, was that evidence isn't good if it is explained in other ways. For example, I have a rock in my back garden, I hypothesise that martians placed it there. Of course, it could have been the kid next door, but according to your logic, I have bona fide evidence of martians. Right?
Now sci-guy response: Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there. The first thought that came to my mind when I read that: "Hello, the mountains were already there when the flood happened, duh." So how did the flood get the fossils inside the mountains if they already existed in situ, is the obvious response. But that's an aside. This is the other explanation I talk about. The real crux of the issue is, what evidence does the flood story adequately explain that no other explanation can? Fossils in mountains clearly fails this test, so does the global existence of fossils.
Now when I asked about the mountains: I never said it was, because land is observed to rise, then we expect to find marine fossils in highlands. Their existence there is not indicative of a flood. My duh comment still comes to mind.
Why does your "Duh" come to mind? The existence of fossils in mountains isn't indicative of a flood, there is another explanation. Imagine you have two balls, one red, one blue. They both make the same sound when they roll off of the table. You put both balls on the table, close your eyes & hear a thud. This is not indicative that the red ball fell off of the table. See what I mean? Fossils in mountains does not indicate that the flood put the mountains there when there is a perfectly valid alternative explanation. We need to test between them. You obviously feel I provided a glib, off the cuff reply. But the thread topic was for flood evidence to be presented, if evidence is being presented that is explained elsewhere, then it doesn't inform us of much, unless I get to make the papers with my martians, that is. All that was required of me was to point out that an adequate evidence based explanation already existed, not falsify the flood scenario, but to nullify the presented evidence as uninformative for what it is supposed to indicate. As others have pointed out, the problem with the flood scenario is that, although it has "evidence" that is on some levels consistent with it, on many many others it is directly contradicted. In that thread Admin had stated that this sort of presentation was off-topic, so you weren't getting the other side of the story. Perhapds that's why you weren't finding the evo side convincing. Perhaps another thread where the two scenarios have their evidence presented, & see which one presents the most parsimonious explanation in terms of both its evidence & potential falsifications? In fact, you seem to be unbiased & open minded, I think it would make a great experiment. Admins? Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 03-08-2006 12:52 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jar says it is a support for old earth. Did any of my comments address old earth? I thought it was evidence for the flood. Yes I did say that unfortunately. It should have referenced that it is evidence that there was no flood. AbE: The point is not even so much grass as an example of how any determination should proceed. I was trying lay out one such example. This message has been edited by jar, 03-08-2006 11:40 AM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
So which one of the statements that "I" made in the OP does it relate to?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm not at all sure what 4 statements you are talking about. If I look in the OP of this thread there are a bunch of statements.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3801 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
The problem I think I have seen with many explanations that are given by the scientists on this board is that they neglect to address the basic misunderstandings that creationists have. It might be time consuming to go over Lyell's Principles, or explain Malthus, but it may have to be done to help bridge the gap in knowledge between the scientist and the creationist.
I don't think its unfortunate that indeed, we'll have to 'teach' science. It may be tedious but at least there can be some communication going on. The flood hypothesis doesn't need a PhD to explain why it won't work. A presentation of the data, much like you did for faith earlier, can help but you may also need to explain 'why' we came up with those conclusions. What does aeolian mean. What does it reflect in climate. Why would we see carbanaceous rock in the middle of what is a desert now. The scientist may need to reach back in memory to her or his early college or high school years to present those first inferences made to support the data they have now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
the same holds true for the fossil record, if we are being consistent. Ok, if you are talking about placement of fossils, ok. If the fossils were in the wrong place, that might be a falsification. But what's important about the fossils is that you actually see snapshots or sculptures of transitionals. That's positive evidence. You don't get that with DNA/morphology. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-08-2006 12:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Still working with the flood thread.
This OP
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024