Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

This means that DNA/morphology is not direct evidence as fossils are, and so less convincing.If evolution is true, DNA arrangments among live species would have to be somewhat as they are (example: humans 97% similar to chimps). Such is in fact the case. So evolution is not falsified. It doesn't follow from this that evolution is true. It just might be true.But it's hard to explain those fossils without resorting to some sort of evolutionary explanation.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-08-2006 05:36 PM

Your conjecture that there were too many fossils is amusing. Typical "scientific" thinking. How would you know? How would anyone know? It's just amazing how you guys will do your calculations and think you can say based on your own jottings what REALLY REALLY happened in the distant past when there isn't any way to test/verify/falsify any of it.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 06:45 PM

Of course. That has been mentioned 100's of times around here.It is just that no one can come up with a nice, tidy, explanation that is nearly as good as the evolutionary one. So true or not it is the best we have, by a very wide margin, for now.We can each decide then to just stop hedging and decide it is "true" for "sure enough" for ourselves or that is just looks pretty good but wonder about a better answer.Personally, when I'm not being all nit picky I'd call it "true" in the colloquial sense. It just covers the bases too well.If I'm talking in a more philosophical tone then I might avoid "true" and use something like "dammed good bet -- where to I lay my money down".

The Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and PersuaSion as per the title of this thread, appears to be browbeating, bullying, harassment, ridicule, snowjobbing, demanding submission to your rules, upbraiding failure to meet your nightmarish standards, general abuse, rudeness, personal attack and character assassination --in the name of science so it gets by the Forum Rules, changing the subject, refusing to think about what the creationist said, "knowing" that the fossils aren't flood evidence so not needing to give it a second's thought, as you have admitted in your OP, and I'm sure I've missed quite a bit more. PD had the perspicacity to recognize some of this.I'm sure it's a very effective strategy for making evolutionists of high schoolers and undergrads, so why you would give a moment's consideration to possibly changing your tactics is beyond me.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 12:46 AM

Ofcourse, you're not obliged to to say true or false, if the circumstances render you as a valid exception to bivalence.What matters, is that by tentative means, you don't have to observe bivalence, as it is unknown. As you say, what matters is that it is the best theory, by far. That's all that's being claimed. No scientist ever claimed that evolution is absolutely true anyway. Since you lack knowledge at this time, you are genuinely an exception to the law, as far as I know. (i respect yuor approach because it's honest, which is why I came over to the dark side )SOURCE: Principle of bivalence - WikipediaFor readers: LawThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-08-2006 07:20 PM

quote:

---

So we get to another question. Can a superficial statement of the evidence be considered "staggering" evidence at all, unless it is something very exceptional?

---

Nope. The evidence is what it is no matter how many adjectives are used. What is staggering to one person is not so staggering to another.I don't really worry about someone living up to their adjectives.Fortunately we can ignore bully type behavior and Admins take care of the rest.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

It's called "ecology", Faith. One of the things it can study is how many organisms can live in a certain place.Percy has already referred to the example of hundreds of feet of fossils of an organism that can only survive in the top 10 feet of the oceans. In this case, for instance, there's far more fossils of these organisms than could ever fit in the only biome they could live in. Everything's in the past, Faith. If your assertion is that we can't study the past then we can't study anything at all. And I don't particularly put much stock in the conclusions of someone who asserts, boldy, that nothing can be known about anything.

I'm glad you appreciate my motives here, but as much as I disliked their approach in the Flood thread, I'm not liking your approach in this thread.What you are doing right now is really undermining what I've been trying to do.I'd appreciate it, if you sincerely want to discuss something more than what you have already said in the Flood thread, go to that thread and continue discussing calmly.Please don't continue discussing the flood issues in this thread.And please don't make me regret stepping in. I really don't want to have to eat crow.
They are so not purple.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I'm sorry. This has been getting to me too much.

I was encouraged by the success of the CSI programs to encourage an interest in science when they first started.Now it seems that hollywood is taking over, and that some of the science is questionable and tends to exceed (my) capacity to believe it.It may well be that the best vehicle to interest common folk in science is "Intelligent Design" -- run by scientists ...

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I do agree that it's important to discuss the basics, and actually, that is something I try to do, but I admit perhaps not often enough. It does get quite time-consuming and many times, it seems like a waste of time because people will just scan over it if it's too technical. See, this is exactly what I was referring to, and where things often get overly technical - for me, at least. The 'why' is in the details and the details often require touching upon more complex scientific concepts, such as tectonics, sedimentology, climate change (YIKES - that's a tough one, but the effects of which are becoming increasingly important to geology, specifically Quaternary geology),and fossilization.When someone asks how the [continental] stratigraphic column can be so complex and mainly comprised of marine rocks and marine fossils, how do you answer that without getting too complex? The flood theory would make perfect sense in this respect to the average non-scientist.The only way to answer or explain this is to discuss eustasy, in other words global sea level change (which is often the result of climate change, as we are seeing today), and how at times of relative sea level highs, large portions of the continents are inundated with marine water. The more sedimentation, the more subsidence and sediment compaction. But we have to also discuss rates of sedimentation, basin subsidence/sinking, the sorts of sediments one would expect to find in the various depositional settings/evironments found in a beach/marine environment, the fossil types, unconformities, etc.It can get really complicated quickly. And honestly, the only way to fully understand and appreciate geology is to see the rocks in their natural setting - pictures just don't cut it. It's pretty hard to ignore the implications of a lithified reef system or paleosols or a lava flow located stratigraphically below a thick marine sequence.For people who have never been Teacher's Assistants or had experience explaining science to non-scientists or neo-scientists, it's not an easy thing to do to sit down to a computer and present complex scientific concepts at the drop of a hat. It's a skill I admit I don't have, but this thread has been very informative so far. It seems using real-world analogies might be helpful.

What about a whole new species hatched out of a chicken egg that is totally different from a chicken (doesn't even taste like one ...)?This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*08*2006 09:44 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You also need to mention that the species will vary with different sediments, that there is a "sorting" of species with specific sediment layers within the mountains, it is not a homogeneous distribution of fossils.Trilobites and Brachiopods are different than current marine life, and from marine life from other periods.The sorting of species is consistent with geological layers and geological ages and radiometric ages etc etc. This is also consistent with evolutionary theory. "Flood theory" has yet to explain this phenomenon. For Faith etc: the most parsimonious answer is that marine fossil bearing samples on mountains etc have been underwater at some time (this amounts to an oxymoron, eh?), but it is not necessary for them all to be underwater at the same time for this to have occured.There are also samples that do not have marine fossils (obviously) not only on mountains but in the valleys. Using the same logic (as used for the flood), this must be evidence that at one point in time there was absolutely no water on the earth at all.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You are making a typical mistake. You are assuming that conditions were the same then as now, so that your measurements now would apply then. That is not a warranted assumption. AND YES, THIS IS OFF TOPIC, so let's cool it. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 12:45 AM

My point (which may or may not be being overlooked here) is that you ignore or disregard the evidence/data which is problematic to the flood. Data that could not exist if a flood happened, unless some very unparsimonious explanations are added ad hoc.The flood explains it wonderfully and elegantly as long as most of the data is ignored. To me, that is not a good explanation, and sounds like confirmation bias.