Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 2:18 PM
33 online now:
dwise1, edge, Faith, JonF, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, PurpleYouko, Stile, xongsmith (10 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,206 Year: 5,243/19,786 Month: 1,365/873 Week: 261/460 Day: 13/64 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
14Next
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
nator
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 106 of 210 (359517)
10-28-2006 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by joshua221
10-27-2006 8:24 PM


Re: General Reply mostly for Crashfrog
quote:
The piles of evidence mean nothing to me.

Then you should never go to the doctor ever again, since what they do is science-based.

You shouldn't fly in planes or ride in cars, either, for the same reason. Better stop using the computer, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 8:24 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 210 (359518)
10-28-2006 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
10-28-2006 12:52 AM


Re: No creationist but....
quote:
Faith, as an admin, suspended herself, because if you people want to be martyred round here, damn, you've got to do it yourselves.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2006 12:52 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 108 of 210 (359519)
10-28-2006 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2006 1:27 PM


"The same evidence"?
And this being stacked against science sometimes comes from themselves and sometimes comes from arbitrary rules about science that people of a anti-religious sentiments make up.

No. If for, example Noah's Flood had actually happened, the rules of science, which are not arbitrary, would permit you to prove it.

But evolutionists should know that certain creationists are not the only ones who cornered the market on conforming evidence to their basic beliefs. As indictable it is to say that creationist tailor the scientific evidence to conform to their core beliefs, many evolutionists are guilty of the exact same bigotry, only in the opposite direction.

You claim that "many" evolutionists are "tailoring the evidence"?

(1) Please name and shame the guilty men.

(2) In what way are they "tailoring" the evidence? Are they faking fossils? Lying about DNA sequences? Moving species about the globe so that they fit the Sarawak Law? Genetically engineering species so that their morphology fits with Darwinian ideas? What?

(3) How come you found this out and all the scientists I cited haven't noticed? Are they all less knowledgeable of science than you are, or are they all in on the plot?

That's because if both groups are looking at the same piece of evidence, how can they come to such contrasting views on the interpretations?

But they aren't looking at the same evidence. Wasn't it you (or was it Faith, I forget?) just the other day, who was telling me that scientists agreed that chimps were closer to macaques then to men? I don't know where you got this from, but clearly we are not looking at "the same evidence". When Buzsaw tells me about tropical zebras frozen in ice in the Arctic circle, we are not looking at "the same evidence". When whathisname tells me that Turkana Boy had a cranium comparable to modern humans, we are not looking at "the same evidence". When whoever it was (I forget) informed me that every hominid fossil had been proved fraudulent, we are not looking at "the same evidence". When a creationist tells me that Archaeopteryx has all the anatomical features of a modern bird, we are not looking at "the same evidence".

When I read a creationist one day saying:

The links are missing. Nearly all the fossils are just our present animals, and the links between them are just not there. Few scientists today are still looking for fossil links between the major vertebrate or invertebrate groups. They have given up! The links just do not exist and have never existed. *

--- and the next day I read about Tiktaalik and Gogonasus --- then we are not looking at "the same evidence".

Here's a creationist telling me what Stephen Jay Gould thinks:

Stephen Jay Gould in an often quoted statement calls the lack of transitional forms the "trade secret" in paleontology. *

Here's Stephen Jay Gould telling me what Stephen Jay Gould thinks:

[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record ... Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am —- for I have become a major target of these practices ... it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. *

The creationist and I are not looking at "the same evidence".

But also, I find again and again that the facts I would cite as evidence for evolution are simply stuff creationists have never heard of. It's not that they're looking at these facts a different way, it's that they've never heard of them.

Take a look at my recent post in the "Humor II" thread --- those quotations about things that "evolutionists can't explain". Are the authors of these amusing clangers looking at "the same evidence" as I am?

And finally, I usually find that usually not only are creationists not looking at the same evidence as I am, but they are not evaluating the same theory.

I have issued this challenge five or six times now on this forum: I shall issue it again. Can anyone find me a creationist site which does not mis-state the theory of evolution?

Obviously one or both groups are willing to abandon legitimate scientific inquiry as long as it makes the other group look bad.

No.

Obviously, scientists have not abandoned legitimate scientific inquiry.

And obviously creationists cannot abandon a position they never held.

To take an example: you do not suppose, do you, that the creationist nonsense about the Second Law Of Thermodynamics was invented by a professor of thermodynamics who'd gone rogue and decided to lie about it? It was not. It was invented by someone who'd read a half-baked explanation of what entropy is in a pop science book. The words "integral delta Q over T" meant nothing to him.

And, I might add, he was not looking at "the same evidence" as real scientists.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : Speeling.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : More speeling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 1:27 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 11:34 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 109 of 210 (359520)
10-28-2006 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2006 1:27 PM


Re: No creationist but....
quote:
And this being stacked against science sometimes comes from themselves and sometimes comes from arbitrary rules about science that people of a anti-religious sentiments make up.

Such as?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 1:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 110 of 210 (359521)
10-28-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Buzsaw
10-27-2006 11:15 PM


Re: No creationist but....
Hang in there and do the best you can, good bud. Many avid athiests and evolutionista including folks like the late Dr Morris, founder of Institute For Creation Research...

Of your pal Mr Miller I know nothing except that your previous statements about him have proved to be wrong.

I should like to see your evidence that Henry Morris was ever an atheist; he was certainly never an "evolutionist", since his writings make it plain that he neither knows what the theory of evolution is nor the arguments in favor of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2006 11:15 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by CK, posted 10-28-2006 4:20 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2238 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 111 of 210 (359522)
10-28-2006 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Dr Adequate
10-28-2006 4:07 PM


Re: No creationist but....
Henry Morris? He was never an atheist as far as I am aware. Biblical inerrancy was his bag for at least 30 years before he set up the ICR.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2006 4:07 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 112 of 210 (359528)
10-28-2006 4:49 PM


Methods and Mayhem
If evolutionary (i.e. pretty much all biological directly or indirectly) research is not the work of liars or incompetents then, as I have explained in previous posts in this thread, it must be the scientific method which has led to these conclusions which is at fault. IF evolutionary theory is wrong that is.

Either that or there must be a huge and interwoven scientific conspiracy involving all scientific institutions, individuals and bodies operating under some sort of unspoken anti creationist code.

Do creationists take issue with the scientific method as the best means of determining the true nature of reality?
Do creationists propose that there is a huge conspiracy against them going on?
Do they disagree with my previous posts that spell out why the scientific method is the best means to produce the closest approximation to the truth? (post 92)
Do they claim that evolutionary theory is not a product of the scientific method?

Without some detailed creationist input into this thread which addresses these issues directly there seems little point in continuing.

In what way exactly do the creationists think evolutionary theory is lacking? Other than the fact that it disagrees with the bible.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 113 of 210 (359549)
10-28-2006 7:59 PM


Faith is acting strangely, and questionable evidence.
Whats with the threats of suspension? Didn't seem necessary, kind of obnoxious. Seems like you are angry because you pulled yourself out and everything.

The above comment is off-topic. Do not respond.

I will try to compose my thoughts within a week or two, to complete something lengthy on why I reject evolution. Right now my argument is seeably weak. I won't rehash any of my previous arguments here. No old news. I'll make it so it can't be taken out of context, because it will be so good.

Edited by AdminNWR, : topic drift


  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4025 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 114 of 210 (359560)
10-28-2006 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2006 1:27 PM


Re: No creationist but....
I believe that the Bible is the Word of God

I would truly like to hear why you believe this here: Message 1

I also have serious doubts about the Darwinian model and find it to be incredibly implausible

Sure it all seems implausible when one studies life with its increadible detail, complexity and diversity - I will agree with you on this. However, transferring the responsibility of creation to a supreme being as described in the bible (especially the OT) seems to me a lot more far fetched. The God in the OT is described as very war like, possessed with human emotion and ethnocentric - hardly befitting a creator of the magnificance we see around us.

As indictable it is to say that creationist tailor the scientific evidence to conform to their core beliefs, many evolutionists are guilty of the exact same bigotry, only in the opposite direction.

I strongly disagree. For a scientist to tailor evidence to fit some pet theory would be grounds for excommunication from the scientific forum.

The only way a creationist can be excommunicated is to question the central dogma of the faith even if such questions are backed with evidence. Further along these lines a scientist would achieve eternal fame if they could demonstate a prevailing theory false.

Obviously one or both groups are willing to abandon legitimate scientific inquiry as long as it makes the other group look bad.

Science could care less about making creationist or any other social religious group "look bad". If someone presented a paper with the intention to making some myth "look bad" that would be reason enough for it to be rejected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 1:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 115 of 210 (359567)
10-28-2006 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dr Adequate
10-28-2006 4:01 PM


Re: "The same evidence"?
If for, example Noah's Flood had actually happened, the rules of science, which are not arbitrary, would permit you to prove it.

Then I guess you can rest easy with the knowledge that people are out there gathering evidence in order to prove it. Whether or not their evidence is compelling to you or not is the arbitrary part. You might be inclined to dismiss any evidence of it just because it is an inquiry that you have an aversion to. That would be the arbitration I was primarily speaking about.

You claim that "many" evolutionists are "tailoring the evidence"?

(1) Please name and shame the guilty men.

(2) In what way are they "tailoring" the evidence? Are they faking fossils? Lying about DNA sequences? Moving species about the globe so that they fit the Sarawak Law? Genetically engineering species so that their morphology fits with Darwinian ideas? What?

(3) How come you found this out and all the scientists I cited haven't noticed? Are they all less knowledgeable of science than you are, or are they all in on the plot?

As Straggler as duly noted there is not some grand scientific conspiracy going on, though I think we'd all agree that some demonstrable frauds have existed, but rather it just might be a complete misinterpretation of evidence from the get-go. When I mentioned certain evolutionists tailoring the evidence, I was not inferring 'tampering' with evidence, but more of them trying to find satisfying ways of re-interpreting evidence to suit their agenda. If you haven't noticed from my previous post, I indict certain creationists in a similar vein. It should be no mystery that both evolution and creation have cult followings and there is a sense of allegiance to them. The evidence of this is plain to see on this forum alone. I'm simply saying that perhaps this shouldn't be. Science is supposed to be objective when for so many its anything but.

But they aren't looking at the same evidence.

They are looking at the same evidence. If geologists are looking at specific stratum and one group concludes that it is relatively recent sediment and the other concludes that it is very old sediment, then they are looking at the same evidence. However, they are interpreting the evidence differently.

Wasn't it you (or was it Faith, I forget?) just the other day, who was telling me that scientists agreed that chimps were closer to macaques then to men?

No, I didn't say that. I don't know what the genome of the Rhesus looks like. I don't think it would be far off to say that they are extremely similar, however.

I don't know where you got this from, but clearly we are not looking at "the same evidence". When Buzsaw tells me about tropical zebras frozen in ice in the Arctic circle, we are not looking at "the same evidence".

What do you mean? Once tropical Zebras locked in a frozen tundra IS the standard definition of evidence. That's the strongest piece of evidence. There is no conjecture in that. The interpretation of that evidence is what differs. One group says that the area in question was tropical 4,000 years ago while the other group interprets the evidence to mean that it was once a tropical region 4 million years ago. You really don't see the difference between the two?

The links are missing. Nearly all the fossils are just our present animals, and the links between them are just not there. Few scientists today are still looking for fossil links between the major vertebrate or invertebrate groups. They have given up! The links just do not exist and have never existed.

Well, that is a bit of hyperbole mixed in for added effect. I think what the writer was probably referring to is the difference between punctuated equilibrium vs slight, successive gradations adding up over time. Most evolutionists today have abandoned, or at least placed on hold, the notion of a classic, Darwinian model. And this is because of the inadequacy of the fossil record. Now, most evo's seem to prefer long periods of stasis, with rapid punctuations in between. This is another example of interpreting the evidence differently. Both groups are looking at the same fossils, they are simply interpreting the evidence differently.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2006 4:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by kuresu, posted 10-28-2006 11:55 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 117 by iceage, posted 10-29-2006 12:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 120 by CK, posted 10-29-2006 6:03 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 10:08 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 624 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 116 of 210 (359571)
10-28-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2006 11:34 PM


Re: "The same evidence"?
quick point, NJ. No zebras have been found in antarctica. To boot, antarctica's been where it's at for quite some time.

Since about 15 Mya, the continent has been mostly covered with ice.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

and how old is the zebra?

By the Pleistocene era, as the horse adapted to a drier, prairie environment, the 2nd and 4th toes disappeared on all feet, and horses became bigger. These side toes were shrinking in Hipparion and have vanished in modern horses

the zebra, I should remind you, is a modern horse. THe pleistocene era is from

1.8 million to 12,000 years before the present
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse

which means that there should be no, and I remind you, no zebra fossils in antarctica.

If we take a look at hrose evolution, the started in america after the K-T extinction. At this time, Antarctica is connected to Australia, and this landmassed is only connected to the south american continent, around the area known as Drake's Passage. This split 41 million years ago, around the same time that antarctica split from australia. Since then, it's been on it's own. And where was the horse, 41 million years ago? It's only a Hyracotherium, or Eohippus. Not even close to a modern horse.

If evolutionary history is correct, then no zebra's should be found fossilized in antarctica, much less frozen. And so far, not a single zebra.

oh, and one last nitpick--since when were zebras a tropical animal? they've been plains animals for a damn long time, and before that, forest dwellers. not tropical dwellers.


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 11:34 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 12:12 AM kuresu has not yet responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4025 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 117 of 210 (359574)
10-29-2006 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2006 11:34 PM


Re: "The same evidence"?
Then I guess you can rest easy with the knowledge that people are out there gathering evidence in order to prove it.

NJ actually the creationist have already proved it by reading it in the inspired genesis acount. The gathering of evidence is only to support what has already been proven. This is not a distortion or exaggeration! I suspect you may not agree with this but I have encountered this line of reasoning before.

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 11:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 118 of 210 (359575)
10-29-2006 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by kuresu
10-28-2006 11:55 PM


Re: "The same evidence"?
quick point, NJ. No zebras have been found in antarctica. To boot, antarctica's been where it's at for quite some time.

I don't know whether or not Zebras have been found in arctic regions. That really wasn't the point. The point is, if you have a tangible piece of evidence, i.e. a fossil, how two or more groups interpret the evidence is at the heart of the issue. I'm merely distinguishing the difference between evidence and the interpretation of the evidence.

Lets use an example that we do know of. Tropical plants have been found on Spitsbergen island, which is well into the arctic circle. Now, do we interpret that evidence to mean that earth was once wholly tropical or is that interpreted as that region was once closer to the equator and drifted from continental shifting? This is what I mean by interpreting the evidence. We are all looking at the same piece of evidence, (tropical plants in an arctic region), but clearly there are varying opinions on how and why that piece of evidence exists in that region.


"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by kuresu, posted 10-28-2006 11:55 PM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Jazzns, posted 10-29-2006 2:20 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2006 9:03 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 122 by nator, posted 10-29-2006 9:33 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 124 by sidelined, posted 10-29-2006 10:15 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 10:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2022 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 119 of 210 (359587)
10-29-2006 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 12:12 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
We are all looking at the same piece of evidence, (tropical plants in an arctic region), but clearly there are varying opinions on how and why that piece of evidence exists in that region.

The only possible way of coming up with a different explanation than continental drift is if you ignore the other geologic evidence. The find in and of itself is one piece of evidence but what you also have to consider is its depth, the kind of rock it was found in, etc. Once you have all the pieces there is only one BEST explanation. The alternative, that the arctic was simply tropical at one time, does not explain all the evidence and therefore must at this time be rejected.

For this reason, it is NOT simply two different solutions looking at the problem from two different perspectives. One solution is simply insufficient. For the explanation to change, there needs to be an acquisition of NEW evidence that forces the current explanation to be abandoned. For example, if a fossil of a tropic plant was found in what was obviously a glacial deposit.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 12:12 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 11:24 AM Jazzns has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2238 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 120 of 210 (359597)
10-29-2006 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2006 11:34 PM


Re: "The same evidence"?
quote:
Then I guess you can rest easy with the knowledge that people are out there gathering evidence in order to prove it.

Most excellent - since you know who is doing what, you can help buzz out on this thread:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=193&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=193&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=193&m=1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2006 11:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019