Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

Hi Faith,If you're interested and would like to give it a try, could I suggest returning to the Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some thread and resuming the limestone layer part of the discussion with the intention of seeing if anything has been learned in this thread. I chose limestone layers because it can be discussed without introducing complicated issues, but if you'd prefer a different topic then that's fine, too.--Percy

You can't "predict" something that you've already found or that you don't know about. All you can say is, if evolution is true, this would likely be the case. Or at any rate, evolution is not falsified.

ramoss, The molecular clock is held as being fairly tentative by the most biologists, as far as I have seen.One evo claim does concern me, however. That the results of the molecular clock match the fossil record. In many cases the fossil record is actually used to calibrate the clock in the first place making the statement bit circular. I stand to be corrected.Mark

---

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

Typical insulting suggestion rqb. Baby steps indeed. The problem is the mental set that can't think of ANYTHING but how to cram evolutionism down the creationist's throat whether by browbeating and ridicule or by baby steps and pablum. The problem is basic contempt. SO odd nobody notices. All anybody notices is when Faith gets at the end of her rope with it, and then it's Faith's fault.

This is a correct analysis.

You are about the worst here. And the browbeating of me started way before I started retaliating. Of course it is impossible to see who started it but on the very first thread I participated on a year ago (which is when I effectively started posting although I registered quite some time before that) I was greeted with the typical EvC harassing insistence that I toe some invisible line and was berated for my supposed failure and treated in the most unbelievably rude way. The worst offenders as I recall, from the beginning to now, were Nosy Ned and you, and you both have continued in form.

I have nothing against modern geology as long as it sticks to useful stuff. I'm sure it's very good at that. It's Old Earth theory I reject. I think you should aim for less tendentious terminology. Why don't you hang us by our feet over a vat of boiling oil and dip us every time we repeat ourselves?But let's get serious here. I repeat myself because I'm sure nobody bothered to think it through and that if they did they'd maybe finally "get" it. But I also know that they won't -- as you say in your OP you just "know" the huge numbers of fossils aren't evidence for a worldwide flood and you don't give it a second thought -- I just want then to try to keep it afloat.

robin, What's that if not a prediction?Mark

---

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

One possible aspect of this is that we're (by "we" I mean the "sci-guys" as PD puts it) missing is that Faith and others of the same mien are simply witnessing, rather than discussing. In most sects I've encountered where witnessing is a component, it is simply unheard of and indeed frowned upon to question someone's witness. Faith (as an example), has stated her position. Taken as a witness rather than an assertion of fact, it is by definition unassailable and unquestionable. This may be a large element of the reason she considers us to be rude and loutish, or whatever her preferred adjectives are.Maybe we need to rephrase the question: What should scientists and/or "sci-guy" posters on this board do with a witness?

Thank you but I'm not interested. I wasn't interested to begin with and I continue uninterested.

quote:

---

You can't "predict" something that you've already found or that you don't know about. All you can say is, if evolution is true, this would likely be the case. Or at any rate, evolution is not falsified.

---

A "prediction" in science is simply a "logical consequence" of the theory.It is not a "prediction" such as a psychic would make.So, you can certainly "predict" a logical consequence of a scientific theory which accounts for evidence that is already known, and also predict what we should find in the future if the theory is correct.Both of these cases are "predictions", or "logical consequences" of the theory.

Surely that is exactly what a prediction is? And if you say 'This would likely be the case' about data that has yet to be collected and it does indeed turn out to be the case then surely that was a correct prediction?For instance if we look at the morphology of primates and birds and conclude that the primates all share a more recent common ancestor than any primate has with birds then we can make specific predictions about the levels of relatedness we would expect to see within primates and between birds and primate, if subsequent genetic analyis bears this out then in what way have we not made a correct prediction?TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-Mar-2006 03:14 PM

I don't think tirades like this deserve a response, but every so often a response is probably necessary just to keep the record honest.Everyone understands that Faith feels beset and put upon here at EvC Forum, but as I've said before, Faith perceives disagreement as criticism and is so sensitive that she could probably find offense in a blessing from the Pope. Any criticisms she levels have to be taken with a healthy grain of salt.My suggestion to everyone participating in this thread is to focus on the topic and to ignore the personal animosities that on-line discussion, by its very nature, tends to generate.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think it's more about whether one is prepared to debate on your terms or not. It's not so much witnessing as not being prepared to be confronted by dozens of people who treat what you believe with contempt and consider their own wild speculations about how the flood couldn't have happened to be scientific finality.

Yes, we know, but you're violating the Forum Guidelines by making assertions you're not willing to defend. Just as the evolutionists in this thread are trying to answer the question, "Why is our approach not working," I think you could try asking yourself the same question.But that's actually another matter. My original question was whether anyone had any ideas for non-administrative ways of dealing with a creationist who insists on asserting their position but refuses to defend it. Even though you're one of those using this approach, that doesn't exclude you from helping find an answer. Any suggestions?--Percy