Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 31 of 255 (293256)
03-08-2006 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
03-08-2006 10:34 AM


Re: Viewpoint
quote:
I agree with your post. But to understand and discuss the issues, it is often necessary to take baby steps.
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:
And to begin, the creationist has to outline more than a simple statement. They need to explain what would be seen and why that would indicate a flood.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 03-08-2006 10:34 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 03-08-2006 11:33 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 11:45 AM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 32 of 255 (293265)
03-08-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
03-08-2006 9:45 AM


Muddied Path
quote:
Let me also point out that I have agreed with you that the original OP wasn't very good, but there are posts in the thread that make good and valid points.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2006 9:45 AM PaulK has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 255 (293268)
03-08-2006 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by purpledawn
03-08-2006 11:03 AM


Re: Viewpoint
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 11:03 AM purpledawn has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 34 of 255 (293270)
03-08-2006 11:38 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 12:21 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 38 by roxrkool, posted 03-08-2006 12:23 PM Percy has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 255 (293274)
03-08-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by purpledawn
03-08-2006 11:03 AM


Re: Viewpoint
I appreciate your point of view on this thread, purpledawn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 11:03 AM purpledawn has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 36 of 255 (293276)
03-08-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 10:59 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 10:59 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 12:59 PM mark24 has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 37 of 255 (293281)
03-08-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Percy
03-08-2006 11:38 AM


quote:
What I was hoping to explore was where evolutionists are taking the wrong approach in presenting to creationists their evidence and interpretations.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 03-08-2006 11:38 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 03-08-2006 12:37 PM purpledawn has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 38 of 255 (293282)
03-08-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Percy
03-08-2006 11:38 AM


do we have to teach science, too?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 03-08-2006 11:38 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by DBlevins, posted 03-08-2006 12:56 PM roxrkool has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 39 of 255 (293285)
03-08-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by purpledawn
03-08-2006 9:21 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 9:21 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 4:53 PM mark24 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 255 (293286)
03-08-2006 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by purpledawn
03-08-2006 12:21 PM


Mea Culp
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 12:21 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 12:40 PM jar has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 41 of 255 (293287)
03-08-2006 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jar
03-08-2006 12:37 PM


Re: Mea Culp
So which one of the statements that "I" made in the OP does it relate to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 03-08-2006 12:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 03-08-2006 12:43 PM purpledawn has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 42 of 255 (293288)
03-08-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by purpledawn
03-08-2006 12:40 PM


Re: Mea Culp
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 12:40 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 1:00 PM jar has replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 43 of 255 (293290)
03-08-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by roxrkool
03-08-2006 12:23 PM


Re: do we have to teach science, too?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by roxrkool, posted 03-08-2006 12:23 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 03-08-2006 1:23 PM DBlevins has replied
 Message 116 by roxrkool, posted 03-08-2006 9:42 PM DBlevins has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 255 (293291)
03-08-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mark24
03-08-2006 11:50 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mark24, posted 03-08-2006 11:50 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mark24, posted 03-08-2006 1:06 PM robinrohan has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 45 of 255 (293292)
03-08-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
03-08-2006 12:43 PM


Re: Mea Culp
Still working with the flood thread.
This OP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 03-08-2006 12:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 03-08-2006 1:27 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 03-08-2006 1:28 PM purpledawn has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024