Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 46 of 210 (359304)
10-27-2006 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by joshua221
10-26-2006 10:50 PM


What other choices are there?
prophex writes:
You are promoting the idea that a proper conclusion to the statement:Evolution is false, and is not supported is that Scientists are liars, and imcompetent.
Actually, the claim by Schraf is that scientists are either liars OR incompetent.
And her point is indeed, valid. Look, if evolutionary theory were "new" then maybe an argument could be put forth that perhaps before accepting that the ToE more evidence needs to be presented because the theory could be false and/or perhaps the small amount scientific research used to formulate the theory is fundamentally flawed in some way...but that is not the case.
Over 150 years have passed since Darwin presented his paper(s), and in that time, copious experiments have been conducted in not only the biological sciences, but also in geology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy (as well as the many relevant subcategories for each), just to name a few...and ALL of them have supported the theory (or perhaps it would be better to say that none of them have falsified the theory).
Go to the Library of any mainstream University and limit yourself to just the biological sciences and behold the plethora of scientific research conducted within the realm of evolutionary biology. There will be literally thousands of papers you could choose to read. Thousands!
If these studies are all wrong, and the ToE is false, what else could these scientists be...other than either incompetent or liars?
So, if you are of the opinion that the ToE is indeed false, what other possible conclusion regarding the “integrity” of the scientists could there be, other than the two listed by Schrafinator?
Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to remove some (but not all) redundancy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by joshua221, posted 10-26-2006 10:50 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 12:53 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 210 (359306)
10-27-2006 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
10-26-2006 3:40 PM


God doesn't NEED to do anything, and all your own speculations about what's a good design are irrelevant, being purely your own subjective opinion.
But that's true for you, too. You don't know any more about what God would consider a "good design" than I do.
So exactly what basis do you have to use your speculations about what God would or wouldn't have designed or done to refute the science of evolution? None, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 3:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 10-27-2006 2:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 210 (359317)
10-27-2006 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by FliesOnly
10-27-2006 11:16 AM


Re: What other choices are there?
The conclusions that you draw of scientists who would have squandered such valuable time studying, and writing these thousands of papers cannot be assumed. An individual, a creationist, could observe the work that has been done, and think that it is a respectable effort in order to prove a theory about origins. This creationist could respect these efforts, and never think that these scholars are imcompetent, much less liars.
The assumption here simply does not work. You both are inventing a hypothetical argument which relies on a subjective, and vague assumption about the qualities of not some, but even all creationists.
Edited by prophex, : No reason given.
Edited by prophex, : No reason given.
Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by FliesOnly, posted 10-27-2006 11:16 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 1:28 PM joshua221 has replied
 Message 53 by FliesOnly, posted 10-27-2006 3:37 PM joshua221 has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 210 (359318)
10-27-2006 12:56 PM


The entirety of this topic does not work, and probably should not have been promoted as a valid argument. It's likeness to Fox News is tremendous.

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 1:29 PM joshua221 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 210 (359329)
10-27-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by joshua221
10-27-2006 12:53 PM


Re: What other choices are there?
The conclusions that you draw of scientists who would have squandered such valuable time studying, and writing these thousands of papers cannot be assumed.
It's not assumed; it's concluded from what creationists are telling us about the science behind evolution.
They claim it's not there, period. That every piece of evidence evolutionists have doesn't actually exist. According to creationists, evolutionists are at best mistaken or simply parroting the unchallenged statements of their authorities, or at worst engaged in a deliberate attempt to suborn science to hoodwink the "common person."
Those are the literal claims of creationists. What else can we take from that other than what Schraf has in her OP? Creationists don't simply assert that scientists are merely coming down on the wrong side of an ambiguous question; guessing "A" when it's hard to tell the difference between "A" and "B".
The assertion of creationists is that evolution, top to bottom, is flat-out wrong, and that scientists aren't simply slightly mistaken about an obscure point of fact; they're as deluded as the guy in the straightjacket who asserts he's Napoleon.
This creationist could respect these efforts, and never think that these scholars are imcompetent, much less liars.
If creationists had respect for the work they'd be a lot more familiar with it, for starters. Moreover if they had respect for the science behind evolution they'd be able to address it in ways that had scientific merit.
Maybe a creationist could respect evolution. Maybe Kurt Wise does, not sure. But it's quite telling, and a major flaw in your rebuttal, than none of them appear to. From the level of their argumentation alone, it's clear that creationists have nothing but contempt for those who refuse to believe that the only way to learn about the natural world is to see what a thousand-year-old book has to say about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 12:53 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 4:12 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 210 (359330)
10-27-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by joshua221
10-27-2006 12:56 PM


It's likeness to Fox News is tremendous.
WTH is this supposed to be? Argumentum ad O'Reilly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 12:56 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 4:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 52 of 210 (359339)
10-27-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
10-27-2006 11:28 AM


So exactly what basis do you have to use your speculations about what God would or wouldn't have designed or done to refute the science of evolution? None, of course.
I don't make such speculations. I don't judge the designs. I don't say they are good or bad as you did. Where something is probably a deterioration of design due to the Fall I will say that, but otherwise I leave it to God. They're His designs.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 11:28 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by iceage, posted 10-27-2006 3:39 PM Faith has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 53 of 210 (359341)
10-27-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by joshua221
10-27-2006 12:53 PM


Re: What other choices are there?
prophex writes:
The conclusions that you draw of scientists who would have squandered such valuable time studying, and writing these thousands of papers cannot be assumed.
After more than 150 years of conducting scientific research related to the ToE, and still having a segment of the population saying that it is all wrong because it contradicts their "beliefs" or disagrees with their "faith", it's really not much of an assumption to conclude that these individuals must hold scientists in very low regard...to the level of incompetence. Or worse yet, being liars.
prophex writes:
An individual, a creationist, could observe the work that has been done, and think that it is a respectable effort in order to prove a theory about origins.
and still reject it out of hand . without really understanding what it means, other than they don't like what they think it says. But this still doesn’t address the fact that even though they may think the effort "respectable", seeing as how they also conclude it’s wrong, then what else am I to conclude (other than these creationists must think that the scientists do not know what they’re doing)? Remember, we’re not talking about arm-chair, Discovery Channel scientists here. We’re talking about people that have devoted their entire lives to the study of the ToE. Years of schooling, years in labs conducting experiments. Apparently all the while learning absolutely nothing.
prophex writes:
This creationist could respect these efforts, and never think that these scholars are incompetent, much less liars.
What else could they think? Honestly prophex, I fail to see any other option. Again, remember that we’re not taking about a "new" idea here. Evolutionary theory has been around for quite some time now. We're talking about countless thousands of experiments here...none of which disprove the theory. None. So either these crazy ol' evolutionary biologists are liars, or they just don't know what the hell they're talking about. You know...they are ALL interpreting the data incorrectly...none of them know jack-shit about statistical analysis...most are obviously incapable of proper experiment design...or to put it all into just one word...incompetent.
prophex writes:
The assumption here simply does not work. You both are inventing a hypothetical argument which relies on a subjective, and vague assumption about the qualities of not some, but even all creationists.
Crashfrog has already pointed this out, and I just happen to agree...I have yet to see a creationist with a good working knowledge of the ToE. The same basic errors are made repeatedly at this site alone. And when these errors are pointed out to them, they either ignore what was explained to them, disappear completely from this site, or invoke Goddidit as an explanation.
But that's not the point. The point is this: These same individuals fundamentally disagree with the ToE, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, collected over the past century and a half, to the point that the only plausible conclusion must be that the scientists are in error. Always have been and, importantly, always will be. How is this not the default conclusion... that all evolutionary biologists are either incompetent or better yet, perpetrating a giant hoax on the entire human population?
Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to fix a stupid sentence. Honest...I wouldn't lie about something like that...I'm just incompetent and can't type.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 12:53 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 4:15 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 54 of 210 (359342)
10-27-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
10-27-2006 2:43 PM


Your view
Where something is probably a deterioration of design due to the Fall I will say that, but otherwise I leave it to God. They're His designs.
What about parasites? Some can only be described as diabolical. Consider the Guinea Worm.
404
http://seattlepi.nwsource./africa/worm23.shtml
Dracunculiasis - Wikipedia
Or hookworm, or whipworm, or pinworm, or heart worm, or liver fluke, or trichinosis, etc.
These organisms are designed or adapted, depending on your view, to a very specific environment. For example the Guinea worm or liver fluke have a very complicated multi-step life cycle. You will need some complicated theory how these micro-evolved after the fall.
Nearly half of creation are parasites. The designer had a thing for parasites.
BTW parasites are to be expected if not demanded from a evolutionary view of life.
If you want to credit their inspiration to some grand ID agent, then you must also consider that the ID agent may be partially evil. Oh yes evil in a human sense, but God made us in his image and imparted a sense of good and evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 10-27-2006 2:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 10-27-2006 4:36 PM iceage has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 210 (359347)
10-27-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
10-27-2006 1:28 PM


Re: What other choices are there?
It's not assumed; it's concluded from what creationists are telling us about the science behind evolution.
They claim it's not there, period. That every piece of evidence evolutionists have doesn't actually exist. According to creationists, evolutionists are at best mistaken or simply parroting the unchallenged statements of their authorities, or at worst engaged in a deliberate attempt to suborn science to hoodwink the "common person."
Those are the literal claims of creationists. What else can we take from that other than what Schraf has in her OP? Creationists don't simply assert that scientists are merely coming down on the wrong side of an ambiguous question; guessing "A" when it's hard to tell the difference between "A" and "B".
The assertion of creationists is that evolution, top to bottom, is flat-out wrong, and that scientists aren't simply slightly mistaken about an obscure point of fact; they're as deluded as the guy in the straightjacket who asserts he's Napoleon.
Your statements are void of any evidence whatsoever, even the common usage of anecdotal evidence is missing. Your assertions of "creationists" has displayed a close-mindedness toward opposition, and an attitude which allows no further alternatives presentable to a linear mind.
These are not the views of creationists. This hypothetical argument once again proves and shows nothing. Your generalizations of the creationist perspective only shows a lack of understanding.
Creationists can and do respect the efforts of science, and would never think that scientists and scholars are imcompetent, much less liars.
Science is a term used to describe observing and beginning to understand the physical world, and all that entails. Creationists like most human beings I would say respect the ability to observe and record accurately. I would like to see some evidence for Creationists who say that they find science deplorable, and that they think scientists are liars. I want you to quote them here. Then we can continue.
Edited by prophex, : No reason given.
Edited by prophex, : No reason given.
Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 1:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by anglagard, posted 10-27-2006 5:09 PM joshua221 has replied
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2006 5:34 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 7:13 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 210 (359349)
10-27-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
10-27-2006 1:29 PM


It's the way you and schraf are proned to arguing it seems.
No evidence, straight rhetoric, lies, and anecdotes.
It isn't malicious, I don't think that either of you really realize it.
Toodaloo haha.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 1:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by nator, posted 10-27-2006 6:47 PM joshua221 has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 210 (359350)
10-27-2006 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by FliesOnly
10-27-2006 3:37 PM


Re: What other choices are there?
After more than 150 years of conducting scientific research related to the ToE, and still having a segment of the population saying that it is all wrong because it contradicts their "beliefs" or disagrees with their "faith", it's really not much of an assumption to conclude that these individuals must hold scientists in very low regard...to the level of incompetence. Or worse yet, being liars.
Does holding an individual, or groups of individuals, in low regard induce one to believe that they are incompetent?
And if one holds a person aloft with much esteem, would that increase the level of competency of that individual?
As you can hopefully deduce, This is never the case.
And if an individual rejects a particular scientific idea, no matter the amount of evidence which supports it, would that in fact, mean that this individual rejects science, finds scientists deplorable, or finds scientists as liars?
Nope.
I will say it again, the premise that of which started this entire topic does not work. On top of that, it is all hypothetical.
Edited by prophex, : No reason given.
Edited by prophex, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by FliesOnly, posted 10-27-2006 3:37 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 10-27-2006 6:56 PM joshua221 has not replied

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


Message 58 of 210 (359354)
10-27-2006 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by iceage
10-27-2006 3:39 PM


Re: Your view
There are at least a couple of hypotheses about parasites and other dangerous life forms that a creationist can consider. For instance, one can postulate that sinless pre-Fall humanity once had immunity to all such things, but that the Fall, working down the generations, made us vulnerable to them. Or one could postulate that the parasites evolved as such over the millennia, since all Creation was cursed because of the Fall. Or combinations and variations of same.
God designed a good and perfect Creation, but the sin of our first parents, working through all of us ever since, has brought about all kinds of evil, disease and death.
=================================
I see I did it again. The post is addressed to me so I answered it, without remembering that this is a science thread. Maybe I'll have to suspend myself for a while.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by iceage, posted 10-27-2006 3:39 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 4:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 60 by iceage, posted 10-27-2006 4:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 210 (359357)
10-27-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
10-27-2006 4:36 PM


Re: Your view
That's just wierd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 10-27-2006 4:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 60 of 210 (359358)
10-27-2006 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
10-27-2006 4:36 PM


Re: Your view
Cool I wish I had the power to suspend myself
parasites evolved as such over the millennia
Evolved? Did I read evolved. So you are an evolutionist!
All your postulates raise difficulties and more questions than they answer. But I will give it rest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 10-27-2006 4:36 PM Faith 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