Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

While there is a subjective element to evaluating evidence. "staggering" evidence would have to be pretty good by sany rational assessment. But the distribution of fossils isn't really good evidence for the Flood, because it's something that is equally expected if covnetinal views were true and there was no Flood.So while it might be considered evidence for the Flood in a very loose way it's the sort of evidence that has no significance and can reasonably be dismissed.Of course, the very fact that Faith is reduced to insulting her opponents for refusing to unquestioningly accept her word shows she is in no position to assert that any of the items on here list are significant - let alone "staggering" evidence for the Flood. If they were then she could eplain why they should be considered so signifcant - and she can't.

Have you guys tried the baby step approach with Faith?The baby step approach is basically just ask one question at a time and not leave any room for possible dodging. Usually, this would only work if there is no piling involved. One person asks a very simple question and not respond to anything else until Faith answers the question.The baby step approach may be slow, painful, and require a lot of patience, but it leaves little to no room for the person recieving the questions to dodge or "forget" about the question.

I actually mean something different in terms of educational programming. You are right that there are some science "themed" shows on tv that at the very least make an effort to explain the science a bit. And at least do not portray scientists in such a negative fashion.However, in Germany, there are several shows on competing channels that have interviews with scientists on actual subjects of current interest. There are dozens of shows on natural history which go into a great deal of detail. There is a childrens television program that explains how things work (from building an airplane to how sausage is made in a large scale production plant). The shows are not dumbed down at all. There is a popular show called Clever where celebrities are quizzed on science subjects and they do live experiments (usually having to do with physics). The popular press always has huge amounts of science news. The science of bird flu is constantly in the news here. People are simply interested. You would have a better chance of having a good scientific conversation in Germany with an auto mechanic than you would with an American college student... this is a travesty. It is also preventable.Perhaps what is needed is an entire discipline of scientists who choose to disseminate science to the general public. I don't mean journals like Scientific American or what not. But blogs, journals, television shows all dedicated to each field of research. People who distill the research down to an accessible level and then open it up to the public. Almost all businesses have such media machines. A research scientist cannot do this because it is more than a full time job to do research and to convince a much more important audience that their data supports their hypothesis...other scientists.

Kind of, but I imagine it might not be considered baby steps. Thread 1Thread 2I'm sure there have been a couple of others, but I can't see them. The attempt to discuss the issues without piling on etc has been made, though 'baby steps' might not be the appropriate word for the efforts.

robin, Molecular evidence is as direct evidence as fossils. I could make a case that it is moreso. False, there is no reason that metabolic molecules need be similar at all. Why is human cytochrome c 100% the same as chimp cyt c. Human cyt c has been shown to work in yeast. Chimp cyt c could potentially have been more similar to a jellyfish's. It's hard to explain all the DNA, molecular & morphological similarities & correlations without some sort of evolutionary explanation, either.The fact is that both fossil & molecular evidence are predictions of the ToE, it's an inescapable fact. I have no idea what you are trying to achieve by denying this.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-09-2006 06:28 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

So while it might be considered evidence for the Flood in a very loose way it's the sort of evidence that has no significance and can reasonably be dismissed...

​

Of course, the very fact that Faith is reduced to insulting her opponents for refusing to unquestioningly accept her word shows she is in no position to assert that any of the items on here list are significant - let alone "staggering" evidence for the Flood. If they were then she could eplain why they should be considered so signifcant - and she can't.

---

I understand what you're saying.Just for the record, I don't believe that the flood was world wide. My evidence, if I can call it that, is in the text though, not necessarily science. On the science side though, since I grew up on a farm with cattle and hogs, I do have a good idea of the problems involved with the concept that only two animals per species were used to repopulate the earth.I also didn't grow up in a fundamentalist family or church. Our church didn't really press the world wide flood as a reality.

quote:

---

Of course, the very fact that Faith is reduced to insulting her opponents for refusing to unquestioningly accept her word shows she is in no position to assert that any of the items on here list are significant - let alone "staggering" evidence for the Flood. If they were then she could eplain why they should be considered so signifcant - and she can't.

---

I understand the frustration of both sides of this debate. Besides a clash of ideas, we have a clash of tactics. You (science people) respond to what you consider general assertions. Instead of presenting a general response like the one Percy wrote in this thread, you seem to be more intent (this is from my viewpoint) in making your opponent come up with your caliber of evidence or walking them through your side of the argument to make them understand.Your opponent doesn't want to be walked through your evidence. In the end, they make the same general response. IOW, your current approach isn't working and IMO your message is lost.Makes me think of a political campaign. Your opponents message is out there due to sheer repitition. Short and sweet. But, your message is lost in the fine print at the bottom of the screen.Now from the journalist side of my brain. One thing we learn is to put the important information of the story at the beginning of the piece. This is because stories can get cut short, literally, due to space available in the newspaper.When I start reading a thread, I don't like reading through a battle to get to the gist of the science view.So if the goal is to get your information in front of the people, try a new approach when responding to general creationist claims.

---

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

Really what I want is for Faith to explain why I should believe her assertions. And the answer seems to be that she will call me "stupid" if I don't. And Faith has the nerve to accuse others of relying on "browbeating" when she is by far the worst offender on this thread - and the other one.As to your comments on the Flood, belief in the Flood isn't really the issue. It's belief in non-Biblical YEC ideas that is the issue, The Bible never says that the Flood is responsible for a significant part of the geological record - YECs say so because it is the least bad explanation they have. If you don't assume that (and there is no good reason to unless you assume YEC), then most of Faith's "evidence" really makes little sense.And that's part of the problem. Faith can't see that her own assumptions colour her assessment of the evidence to a much greater degree than is true of her opponents. It seems to be a major feature of creationist argument that they almost always try to blame someone else for everything - even when the failing is theirs. It's an ego thing, I suppose - and not at all Christian.

Statement: Ocean sea shells atop mountains are evidence for the flood.

quote:

---

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.

---

IMO, unless the general statement brings out species, your statement would be better served in subsequent responses depending on the direction of the discussion and questions asked.In the initial response it doesn't make the point any stronger.

---

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

What you are seeing is how scientists attack new (or old) ideas in science. You're right; it's not working.You have the view of a journalist. You've seen some of the anti global flood arguments. Can you show us how to present it?

This I'm not familiar with. I read a little about a "molecular clock" but didn't understand it. You're using the word "prediction" in an odd way.

According to the microboligists, changes in to DNA proceeds at a specific predictable pace. This is particualrly true on the 'junk' dna that doesn't appear to have any genetic function associated with it. by comparing the DNA of two closly related species, and applying statistics to find out how 'far' apart they are in simularity, a prediction can be made on how long ago their common ancestor existed.So far, when a fossil gets discovered that appears to be the 'parent' specie of the two 'offspring' species (based on morphology), the age of the fossil is very close to what was predicted by the molecular biologists using the rate at which DNA will change.There have been some cases where the 'molecular clock' thought thwere were be fossils several million years older than what was found as the assumed common ancestor, and then fossils would be found that are older, and fit much more in line with what the 'molecular clock' predicted.I was rather skeptical of the claims for a long time when the methodology was first made public, but I will have to admit that they have made some pretty interesting predictions that have shown themselves to have merit. I am still not convinced that it is as accurate as the proponents think it is, but they have built a pretty good case for their methods.

Ya know, Percy, this might not be a bad idea either for this thread or another, more focused one. I haven't read through this thread in its entirety yet, but I see this as a valid objective for the "sci-guys" to attempt. I personally like the genetic bottleneck and biogeography approaches, but that's 'cause all rocks look the same to me. Maybe we should/could explore this further?

I'd agree with you, Mark24 phrased that a bit oddly.I imagine what he was trying to say is that what evidence we currently have in terms of the fossil record and molecular data has been in line with predictions based on theories of evolution and, with some exceptions which can be ascribed to horizontal gene transfer in terms of molecular evidence, common descent.Evolutionary theory and common descent make certain predictions as to the patterns we would expect to see in the fossil record and the molecular data and what evidence we have now is consistent with those predictions.Maybe that didn't make it any clearer.TTFN,WK

robin, Without going into detail, things like morphologically similar organisms having similar DNA/molecules. Evolutionary trees based on molecules being similar to trees based on morphology. Pseudogenes. Why?Evolutionary theory predicts things about DNA/molecules/morphology that are borne out, in the same way it predicts data in the fossil record that is borne out.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I think we've gained some good insights so far, but this quote from Message 65 is an example of another creationist approach that evolutionists have proven very unsuccessful in dealing with: My interpretation of this passage is that it is briefly summarizing the reasons for rejecting modern geology and accepting the flood explanation, and is stating that these reasons are more than adequate and that no more discussion is necessary.A reasonable presumption is that someone who doesn't want to discuss it anymore would stop posting. My own personal view of this passage is that the assertion of points one is not willing to defend is against the Forum Guidelines (see rule 4), but I thought I'd open it up for discussion to see if we can come up with any effective non-administrative strategies. What should be the approach with a creationist who is willing to repeat his position whenever called upon, but who is not willing to discuss or defend it?--Percy