Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 46 of 255 (293294)
03-08-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
03-08-2006 6:53 AM


Re: Know Your Audience
PaulK,
...or simply have asked Faith to explain the evidence and the reasoning underlying her claims.
The OP was simply a continuation & reply to a post Faith made, & rather than go OT I went to another thread. It weas not intended to be a great exposition.
If it wasn't implicit in asking for an explanation in the OP, then she certainly WAS asked for explanations soon afterwards. It would have made no odds whatsoever whether I asked her for the above in the OP, or not. She's not capable of supplying.
I do hold my hands up to "not the greatest OP in the world", however. I should have been far more explicit in what I wanted & why that was right, but again, when I was there was still not an ounce of sense in evidence, just denial, & that's not my fault, Paul. The main problem with the thread wasn't the OP, it was Faith.
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 16 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2006 6:53 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 1:07 PM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 47 of 255 (293295)
03-08-2006 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 12:59 PM


robin,
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.
But you do. A DNA sequence is genealogical snapshot. Morphology the same.
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 44 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 12:59 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 3:09 PM mark24 has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 48 of 255 (293296)
03-08-2006 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by mark24
03-08-2006 1:05 PM


Re: Know Your Audience
The main problem with the thread wasn't the OP, it was Faith.
Of course it was Faith. It's always Faith. And I agree in this case. I shouldn't have posted one word on your follow-up thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by mark24, posted 03-08-2006 1:05 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 1:29 PM Faith has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 255 (293302)
03-08-2006 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by DBlevins
03-08-2006 12:56 PM


Re: do we have to teach science, too?
quote:
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 know. There have been occassions when members like Sylas would post rather long and detailed explanations of the principles involved, and it rarely seemed to help. In fact, one thing that I notice about myself is that my posts are far shorter than they were in the past; including a lot of detail and explanation tended to be a lot of wasted effort since it would either be ignored or demolished by a simple "Nuh-uh!" (And not even a POTM nomination, neither!)
I don't know if this is what you meant exactly, but on four or more occasions (several on this very message board) I have posted a more-that-usually detailed synopsis of what the theory of evolution actually is, trying to provoke some sort of discussion as to what exactly in the theory of evolution that they object to, the intention to not only show the theory in its entire context, but also to decide where more detail is required to explain things.
To date, on the several instances that I have posted this same exact message on several message boards, the only response I have ever gotten is by iano (responding with his New Age epistomological problems with "knowing" something that cannot be directly observed. And contradicts a literal reading of the Christian Bible, as interpreted by fundamentalist Protestants.).
It's not that I disagree with your point; if one is going to make an argument, then one is required to do as much as possible to explain the reasoning behind the argument, including giving detailed explanations of the scientific principles involved, and reasons why we accept those principles as valid. But it is a practical observation that when these explanations have been made in the past they are ignored or simply dismissed with a wave of the hand.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by DBlevins, posted 03-08-2006 12:56 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by DBlevins, posted 03-08-2006 2:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 50 of 255 (293304)
03-08-2006 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by purpledawn
03-08-2006 1:00 PM


What does it relate too?
Okay, pretty much all of them.
The problem with the statements in the OP is that absolutely none of them really are evidence. They are simply assertions.
I think that goes to the heart of the issue. The creationist says "The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood."
Well, no, that is not evidence of a flood. It is only evidence that fossils are found all over the world. They have made a leap of faith with nothing to support it.
That is why I brought up grasses (and yes, there are grass fossils, particularly of pollens).
The logical progression should be
  • fossils are found all over the world.
  • if those things were distributed by a world-wide flood, what should we see?
  • how will they be ordered?
  • what types should be found?
  • what will the layer put down by the flood look like?
  • how can the flood layer be distinguished from other layers?
If you look at what I laid out initially in Message 47 and again in Message 119 you will see that is exactly the formula I took.
The Creationist made a claim,
Faith writes:
I think that grasses were already on the land and the land flora and fauna are what were preserved in the upper strata laid down by the Flood. The lower strata preserved the marine life.
Since it was all inundated, marine life also ended up in the higher strata.
Fine, In this instance the claim is that grasses already existed, there was a flood, and then a period after the flood.
My question, which still has not been answered is "If that is the case, what should we see in the record?"
I laid out one possible scenario of what would then be seen,
jar writes:
So grass pollen and grass seeds should be found on the lowest level. they are already there and growing before the flood and have been doing so for some time. The land then gets flooded. Then a layer of marine fossils and no more than a few thousand years of other material above the marine level cover the original layer that had the grasses.
I then outlined a test that could be used to verify or refute that scenario:
jar writes:
Your scenario is now something that can be tested. Do we find grass seeds and pollen at the lowest level with nothing but marine fossils and a very small post flood level above.
Further, I suggested that if the scenario outlined was not correct, the creationist could revise or correct the picture and we would then see how the new version might be tested.
jar writes:
If this is not an accurate description of your grass scenario, then please expand or correct it and we can look at the next version.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 1:00 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 2:15 PM jar has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 51 of 255 (293305)
03-08-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by purpledawn
03-08-2006 1:00 PM


Two cents (Canadian)
Hi purple,
In Message 24 you quoted Faith:
quote:
The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.
To me, it seems that the confusion is between "evidence" and "evidence that supports a specific conclusion".
I don't know if this will help, but allow me to bring in "The Dreaded Analogy":
Suppose a person is found shot to death in my house. My fingerprints are all over the place.
The fingerprints are "evidence", but they do not support any specific scenario. I live here, so my fingerprints will be everywhere. It is only in the details of where they are and where they are not that we have evidence for any specific scenario.
Similarly, fossils being everywhere is not evidence for a specific scenario. There are lots of possible ways in which fossils could have been distributed all over the world. Only by studying the details can we form a valid conclusion on which scenario is most probable.
So, while the fossils are evidence, in and of themselves they are not evidence "for" anything.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 1:00 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 1:46 PM ringo has replied
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 03-08-2006 1:52 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 76 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 2:50 PM ringo has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 52 of 255 (293306)
03-08-2006 1:28 PM


Where it all started.
As is referenced in the OP (that bad, bad OP ).
This is what kicked the thread off:
quote:
There is so much evidence for a global flood it's staggering. It has to be a very strange blindness that keeps people from acknowledging it. Not even agreeing with it, just acknowledging that the amount of evidence is enormous. Just another case of flat out denial.
  —Faith
Now Faith decides that she should never have posted in the thread designed to allow her to show HOW there is staggering evidence. Of course, not posting would be utterly intellectually dishonest.
In fact, as the thread unfolded and Percy notes one by one Faith backed off pieces of evidence and then decided that she should never have posted.
She shouldn't have. She should have never made the statement about evidence in the first place when she has nothing to support it that stands up to the simplest scrutiny. She should have stuck to her view that evidence and science doesn't matter.
Instead she couldn't resist trying to play the science game to support her faith. Then as it became too difficult to play she realized that she doesn't like that game and got hostile.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-08-2006 01:28 PM

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 53 of 255 (293307)
03-08-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
03-08-2006 1:07 PM


Re: Know Your Audience
Since you didn't prepare your ideas to be debated you were at a disadvantage.
IMO, you shouldn't feel pressured to respond to those types of threads.
Pick your battles.
Fencing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 1:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 1:36 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 88 by NosyNed, posted 03-08-2006 3:43 PM purpledawn has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 54 of 255 (293312)
03-08-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by purpledawn
03-08-2006 1:29 PM


Re: Know Your Audience
You are right, and I knew it at the beginning, but I sometimes fool myself into thinking Well maybe if I say it again... Doesn't happen. The pressure is pretty fierce too, not that I can't ignore it. Just see NosyNed's post 52 above yours, where he refuses to give me the slightest benefit of the doubt about anything, claims I decided later I shouldn't have posted there, claims it was because I couldn't deal with the evidence later presented. No, it's because I'd said my piece and there was nothing more to say, as you have understood. And I've been on this same merry-go-round a million times already, even conceded the same old points Percy brought up, out of politeness, that I've conceded many other times.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 01:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 1:29 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-08-2006 4:00 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 255 (293313)
03-08-2006 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ringo
03-08-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Two cents (Canadian)
I'll say it again, and I could have said the same thing again to a dozen other posts on this thread already so I'm sure it's hopeless, but the existence of the humongous abundance of fossils worldwide really is SPECIFICALLY TERRIFIC evidence for a worldwide FLood. Just because there are other explanations for various particular fossil collections does not make those other explanations right. ALL of it is speculative. ALL OF IT. There is no PROOF possible with questions about these ancient events. There is ONLY conjecture. And the evo science explanations are less elegant than the explanation of a one-time flood event to explain ALL the fossils. Fossilization is beautifully supported by this explanation, and otherwise you need umteen hundred ad hoc explanations for specific fossil collections.
And again, just because there AREN'T obvious explanations for some formations within the Flood scenario, such as roxrkools carbonate and the white cliffs of dover and all the gazillion other specific examples people bring up, does not prove there was no worldwide flood. Again, ANY explanation is conjectural.
But I understand that nobody is listening. As Percy himself said in his opening post. YOu just KNOW there was no flood and you don't have to think about anything offered in argument for it. Sure does explain what actually happens around here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 03-08-2006 1:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 03-08-2006 1:51 PM Faith has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 56 of 255 (293314)
03-08-2006 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
03-08-2006 1:46 PM


Re: Two cents (Canadian)
Faith writes:
As Percy himself said in his opening post. YOu just KNOW there was no flood and you don't have to think about anything offered in argument for it.
I didn't say there was no flood. Don't be so eager to jump on everybody and make enemies.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 1:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 1:53 PM ringo has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 57 of 255 (293315)
03-08-2006 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-07-2006 3:18 PM


...I think to a lot of us that when Faith says, in effect, "The presence of fossils everywhere around the world is strong evidence for a global flood" that she may as well be saying, "That fire is hot and ice is cold is strong evidence for a global flood." In other words, we can't see how one (global flood) can in any way follow from the other (fossils everywhere).
Obviously our knowledge of other evidence (and what Faith would call our preconceptions) is what leads us to not for even a second consider the fossils as flood evidence, so *we* know that we dismiss the evidence for good reason. But how are others unfamiliar with this evidence specifically and with science generally supposed to know?
The bolded part explains the madness that prevails here.
I think Purpledawn has recognized something about this madness, although I don't expect anyone else to get the point, which seems to be amply borne out by the posts on the thread.
It's nice to see you have taken note of this at least, but I think in the end you don't have to worry about being insensitive to creationists losing you adherents. Those with truly tough hides and truly strong faith will always weather the bullying, but undergrads are easily bullied and you will always win support in each new generation through the usual methods of evidence-giving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 3:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 03-08-2006 2:06 PM Faith has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 255 (293316)
03-08-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ringo
03-08-2006 1:28 PM


Credit where credit is due.
Good point, but NosyNed has made essentially the same point.
(Not that the point isn't good enough to be repeated; I just hate seeing someone not get credit for saying something.)

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 03-08-2006 1:28 PM ringo has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 59 of 255 (293317)
03-08-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by ringo
03-08-2006 1:51 PM


Re: Two cents (Canadian)
OK, maybe I misread you. Sorry. But I think the fossils ARE fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood. BEAUTIFUL fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 03-08-2006 1:51 PM ringo has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 255 (293318)
03-08-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
03-08-2006 9:24 AM


Re: Seeking Evolution's 2LOT
Pursuing my own search for evolution's 2LOT, what we need in this context is a simple and effective argument against the flood. Perhaps this one would work:
Creationist:Ocean sea shells atop mountains are evidence for the flood.
Evolutionist:But the ocean sea shells aren't just atop the mountains, they're *all through* the mountains. That because layers and layers of sea shells were deposited on ancient sea floors where they were gradually compressed into stone by the weight of the layers and water above. Later these sea floors were pushed up by tectonic forces into mountains. Not only will you find sea shells atop these mountains, but dig as deep as you will and you'll continue to find sea shells.
Suggestions for improvements?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 03-08-2006 9:24 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 1:56 PM Percy has replied
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 03-08-2006 1:58 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 103 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 5:17 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2006 10:26 PM Percy 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