Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 91 of 300 (422444)
09-17-2007 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dr Adequate
09-17-2007 2:52 AM


Oh goodness me!
That sure looks like a quotemining challenge.
Minutes to refute, weeks to be thorough. A tough choice. Glad I wasn't challenged - I'd probably have to toss a coin!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 2:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 7:54 PM CTD has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 92 of 300 (422450)
09-17-2007 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by CTD
09-17-2007 4:50 AM


The divisions are arbitrarty and have been based on convenience rather than any guiding principle. The modern divisions are peculiar, and follow modern societies' trend toward overspecialization.
The divisions between Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution are arbitrary? If you think that its merely 'convenience' that shows the need to make these divisions you need to do a lot more reading.
One is also free to disregard these artificial boundaries
Physics, chemisty, and biology really are different!
It is a mistake to claim things must be considered independently when they are all part of the same chain, and rely one upon another.
Many different topics are "part of the same chain", this does not mean that one can lump them into one topic. The boundaries between physics, chemistry, and biology are real; even if they do interact.
But an hypothesis without observation or experiment to back it up is still speculation.
agreed
Science used to have a strict hierarchy to keep tabs on the progress of ideas: hypothesis then theory then law.
And it still does.
Just look at how the term 'theory' has devolved. It used to mean an idea that was not just possible, but one that had withstood testing and scrutiny. But today it is used to designate any fragment of speculation you could imagine.
Dont worry, we still call speculation - hypothesis.
Note that the new meaning of 'evolve' is now 'change', rather than in the past when it meant 'improve'. Would Darwin have watered down the term?
I would not call that watering it down. If 'evolve' actually meant 'improve' then nothing could be said to evolve in the TOE. If it did have a different meaning when Darwin wrote his book, a better understanding of the process of evolution has shown that idea to be incorrect. 'Change' is a better word. One is still free to use the word 'improve', it works as one method of evolution that the TOE does not do.
There is nothing in all the countless fossils which he himself would call a 'transitional form'.
How so? Are you suggesting he did not imagine the exactly what the animals would have looked like until they had been discovered? Or are you suggesting something else?
People on both sides will ask for definitions, but watch who tries to come up with honest definitions that keep in step with how the word in question has been used in the past
I believe it is important for both sides to understand what is the accepted definition by todays scientists. To rely on definitions or used in the past (say 150 years ago) is not a good way to approach science. Many subjects use similar or same words yet have totally different meanings. Its important to understand the subject in question and know how the people in that field utilize the words in question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 4:50 AM CTD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 300 (422482)
09-17-2007 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by CTD
09-17-2007 5:06 AM


Re: My favorite watchword - good: watch it again
Unfortunately, b follows a and 2 follows 1. I guess you need some rest, eh?
Now notice how irrelevant it (intentionally) is. The points are still valid.
I always include reasons to justify incredulity.
Having a reason is not the same as substantiation with evidence. You can have a reason to get up in the morning, but that doesn't make your argument any stronger.
I don't recall the term being applied correctly even once, if you want the truth.
That wouldn't be your argument from incredulity again would it?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 5:06 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 7:53 PM RAZD has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 94 of 300 (422491)
09-17-2007 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by CTD
09-11-2007 11:55 AM


Seriously, the only thing really tipping the scales in favor of the BB vs. the steady state at all is the redshift first observed by Hubble.
And that the BB is a consequence of Relativity. Which is a biggie. And it has predicted CMB. And it is consistent with inflation. Which has made impressive predictions in its own right. And that relativity has been tested very very vigorously. It's funny that anti-evolutionists are often happy to say they accept the theory of gravity...though they reject relativity...though they don't...but they do...
Some will say the steady state has a conservation of energy problem, but BB has more than one of these and they're all several orders of magnitude larger. It's like comparing a bucket of water to the Indian ocean!
The BB has no conservation of energy problems that I am aware of. The energy during the Big Bang is the same as it is today.
And don't forget the oldest member of the family: gradualist 'geology'. Have layers ever been observed building up gradually over time. Yes! The 'tels' in the Middle East were all built up this way. They're all man-made. Other than that, you won't see land building up the way gradualist geology speculates.
Of course you won't see it. If you did see it - you'd falsify the position. That seems like a daft thing to say. However, you can use reason to deduce that some areas will have a net deposition over time, and other areas will have a net erosion over time and over more time layers of deposition will pile up. This is incredulity. "It isn't true because I can't see how it could be true".
. If there's any lifeform, even just one - any lifeform that evolution can't explain, it fails as an explanation of origins. Even a single organ that is beyond evolution to bring about demolishes it, right?
Evolution isn't an explanation of origins. However - evolution cannot explain all biological things. That is why we continue studying. If it turns out that the hypotheses in the theories of evolution can definitely not explain a biological thing we need another theory. Perhaps we have one, perhaps we'll come up with one if/when the time comes. It wouldn't demolish evolution though - the theory of evolution could still continue to explain many many things. And of course, it wouldn't demolish the fact of evolution.
And all a person has to do is look around this forum right here to see that this is so. How does any discussion of an evolutionary topic go? Snow the person under with tons of nonsense. Oh yes, and redefine terms a dozen times or more. There isn't a single link in the whole long chain of crud that can't be broken, and they themselves must know this - no question.
The odd thing is - it proves almost impossible to get creationists to agree on the definition of their terms. Evolutionists have very strict definitions of things, standard terms have to mean the same thing everywhere since they publish things and have to have everyone understand what they are saying.
Forum users are a different monster, naturally, but the general principles hold.
Now why must these things all be grouped together and taught as fact? Why is must it be illegal to mention any hint of weakness in any of these "theories?
Theories are not taught as facts. Facts are taught as facts (such as natural history) and theories are taught as theories (here is how evolution occurs according to ToE). It is not illegal to discuss problems with theory - however it is illegal to teach falsehoods to children undermine their confidence in materialism and wedge Christ into their lives (Ala the Wedge document produced by the anti-evolutionists). Most genuine weaknesses in theory have to wait until university level since they require a deep understanding of the science to appreciate.
(I don't mean to say a child will be jailed for asking, but the teacher is required to only affirm the doctrine, even when it is out-of-date by decades.)
That is a problem for all lessons. It's the inherent problem in standardising education.
And it's no surprise that the same people who accept any one of these things will usually accept all four. For they form an extended chain. If a person finds one to be in error, they will surely question the other three. Now I readily concede that persons do exist who mix things up and accept part of this chain while rejecting other parts. I also concede that this is a trick I could not pull off. But my point is that those who have rejected abiogenesis have at least questioned the other three issues.
It is also no surprise that people that reject evolution tend to be very religious. Almost invariably fundamentally religious in fact.
Now I recommend to anyone who cares about these things that they pick the strongest part of the strongest of these four stories, and take a good close look at it. What assumptions does it require up front? Does it employ circular reasoning or any other logical fallacies? Is it based on solid science, or speculation? (I mean really solid - not just a reputation). If you didn't believe the evolutionist stories, would you interpret it the way they do?
Lots of assumptions, but those assumptions have been tested and found to be reasonable.
No real circular reasoning or any logical fallacies.
Science (solid)
Most likely, though I probably wouldn't do as good a job unless I spent decades studying the subjects in question.
Oh, and don't be intimidated by mumbo-jumbo. I haven't seen much at all that I couldn't have tackled when I was 12 years old, not even in real science. Okay, that's a trick statement. I was smarter then than I am now. But none of it's as hard as they make it out to be.
Feynman once said something along the lines of 'if you think you understand quantum physics you don't understand quantum physics'. I don't pretend to understand subjects better than those that study them all of their lives, and am deeply suspicious when others claim to have as much of a grasp of science as scientists without the study.
It bears repeating how weak abiogenesis is. The advocates of evolution are reluctant to include it, and that's a dead give-away right there. Darwin himself was reluctant to offer more than threadbare speculations about a primordial pond, and they haven't improved the case much. Sure they make a big deal about synthesizing compounds in a lab, and claim they're creating life... but is it so? Or is it more mumbo-jumbo?
They neither claim to be creating life nor are they engaging in mumbo-jumbo. As you point out, they are making organic compounds. They might get excited if they manage to create an organic compound that they think is vital to the formation of life. Another piece of the puzzle slotted into place (or at least put in the right 'area').
Well, look into it. Look at the scale of the issue. It's like saying a toddler stacking one brick on top of another is building the Empire State Building. They're a long, long, long ways away.
I'd say it was more like Egyptians comparing their structures to the Empire State - but whatever the metaphor we agree that they are a long way away from cracking the problem. Which is why we need to research it more. To do that we need researchers. To do that we need to train scientists.
You don't achieve any of that by saying that they are teaching lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by CTD, posted 09-11-2007 11:55 AM CTD has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 95 of 300 (422500)
09-17-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by CTD
09-17-2007 4:50 AM


CTD writes:
I don't see much more that needs to be said regarding the original topic. Yes, one can divide science up into categories and groups. The divisions are arbitrarty and have been based on convenience rather than any guiding principle. The modern divisions are peculiar, and follow modern societies' trend toward overspecialization.
On the contrary, the division of science into fields is far from arbitrary and follows the "guiding principle" (to use your term) that a scientific field is defined by the kinds of questions it tends to ask. Research that attempts to answer questions about life belongs in the field of biology, about the Big Bang in cosmology. One field uses uses microscopes, the other telescopes.
What, precisely, do you see as the uniting element between the Big Bang and the origin of life? What common questions do these two fields attempt to answer?
When it is convenient, why not talk of 'stellar evolution' as a separate topic from 'planetary evolution'? Fine and dandy. But it's a mistake to insist that others must consider these topics as having nothing in common when they clearly do have much in common.
Your own example of planetary and stellar evolution argues against your position. Planets have no fusion furnace at their core, they do not radiate light, and they only gradually cool while convection processes deliver heat to the surface to radiate into space and which might, depending upon the planets composition and circumstances (nearness to the star it orbits, for example) drive tectonic processes.
Stars, on the other hand, give off their own light, have a fusion furnace at their core that cooks elements into heavier and heavier elements, and unless very small will eventually go nova or even supernova, spewing its newly formed elements into galactic space to seed new stars.
While no would claim that these two fields have "nothing in common", to again use your words, these are clearly two separate areas of study.
But these are relatively trivial issues. The big error comes when one accepts speculation in place of hard science.
I think any scientist would agree with you.
You can see dozens of equasions on a page - math is science, right? Wrong. Math deals with solving the equasions - not making them up. Without observations and evidence to back it up, math is just speculation written on paper.
I think scientists would agree with this, too.
You appear to have a lot in common with scientists, because they agree with you that observations and evidence are crucial to testing hypotheses. It sounds like you believe scientists actually just make things up. Why do you think this?
Science used to have a strict hierarchy to keep tabs on the progress of ideas: hypothesis then theory then law. Used to take good evidence for an idea to advance from one stage to the next, and that's where the legitimate role of consensus among scientists came into play.
Don't put too much stock in a name. Whether the term hypothesis, theory or law is invoked, they're all pretty much the same thing. Where they differ is whether a consensus has developed around them, which is precisely what you identified as important. A hypothesis has no or little consensus, while theory and law have earned significant consensus. You'll see theory and law variously but very similarly defined, usually saying that a law is just a theory that is comprehensible in terms of simple and straightforward relationships, usually mathematical. Hence we have Boyle's Law of gases and Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion on the one hand, and Darwin's theory of evolution on the other. But these rules of nomenclature are not strictly followed, for example, game theory is highly mathematical.
New terminology arises in languages in ways not well understood, and whether the term theory or law eventually becomes attached to a new idea, it really makes little difference.
More importantly, all theories are tentative, open to change in light of new evidence or improved understanding.
But those were the days of long ago. Before a man could just up and publish a 'biogenetic law' or a 'theory of relativity' or even a 'theory of evolution'. To be fair to Darwin, he wasn't trained as a scientist and there is a (slim) chance he wasn't aware of how deceptive the the title of his book actually was. The other two were fully aware. And the general public had no clue.
Haeckel did not just "up and publish" the biogenetic law. He offered copious evidence in support of his theory. Some textbooks still include Haeckel's embryo drawings, though usually in a historical context. But as I said, theories are tentative, and Haeckel's theory didn't even survive his own lifetime, at least not in the strong form he originally proposed it. There *is* recapitulation during embryological development, but not in any strict way, and there are many other influences.
On the other hand, the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity developed out of evidence for the former, and out of mathematical imperative for the latter. Both have withstood numerous tests. Probably the most significant single confirmed test of Darwin's original theory came with the discovery that genetics provided a rigorous mathematical model for evolution. For general relativity it was explaining precession of the orbit of Mercury and the discovery that light was indeed bent by gravity as verified by Sir Author Eddington in 1919 (headlines in the New York Times and all that, it made Einstein a household name).
Just look at how the term 'theory' has devolved. It used to mean an idea that was not just possible, but one that had withstood testing and scrutiny. But today it is used to designate any fragment of speculation you could imagine.
You seem to have a great deal in common with scientists. Scientists use the same definition of theory you do, and they, too, bemoan the lay public's misunderstanding of the term when applied to science.
It almost seems like someone is purposefully misinforming you about the practices and beliefs of modern science.
The term was used by Darwin to indicate a form of fossil which clearly showed itself to be intermediate between species. He had no examples. He felt that by predicting them it would strengthen his 'theory' if they should be found. This term has been altered over the years to mean 'the closest we can get', because no 'transitional form' has yet been discovered which meets the standard set by Darwin. There is nothing in all the countless fossils which he himself would call a 'transitional form'.
Sure there is, and if you'd like to move to a biology thread we can discuss lots of them.
Redefining terms is not how language evolves.
On the contrary, that's precisely one of the ways that language evolves. For instance, the word "bead" originally meant "prayer", and gained its current meaning from the practice of using beads to count prayers (thank you, Wikipedia).
But no redefinition of the word "theory" has taken place in any scientific context. Scientists are using the same definition you are.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 4:50 AM CTD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 300 (422504)
09-17-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by CTD
09-17-2007 4:50 AM


To be fair to Darwin, he wasn't trained as a scientist and there is a (slim) chance he wasn't aware of how deceptive the the title of his book actually was.
He actually was a trained naturalist, and the title of his book is not deceptive.
It's called "On the Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life." The book certainly explains everything it claims to - new species arise from old species via the means of natural selection and random mutation.
Science used to have a strict hierarchy to keep tabs on the progress of ideas: hypothesis then theory then law.
No, it didn't. That's why we still call it the "germ theory of disease."
The hierarchy of theory you describe is a myth. It never existed in the sciences.
Just look at how the term 'theory' has devolved. It used to mean an idea that was not just possible, but one that had withstood testing and scrutiny.
It still means that, in the sciences; among laypeople and creationists, of course, it means "wild-ass guess." The reason that scientists call it "the theory of evolution" is because it has withstood scrutiny and testing, not in order to indicate that it hasn't.
Redefining terms is not how language evolves.
So, you're saying you'd punch me in the mouth if I offered you a "hamburger"? I mean, I know how much you hate it when words are co-opted with new meanings, right?
You couldn't possibly be using a computer, right now, unless you were talking about a person hired to do mathematics - right? And you wouldn't, under any circumstances, be caught dead using something called a "computer network", unless it was to catch fish, right?
Oh, well, not to worry. The things I just mentioned don't even exist, right? Because "Redefining terms is not how language evolves." Except, of course, when it is.
The term was used by Darwin to indicate a form of fossil which clearly showed itself to be intermediate between species. He had no examples.
He had abundant examples; and we continue to find countless more. Transitional forms - organisms that are intermediates between other species - are plentiful. The oft-mentioned "lack" of them is simply mythical.
There is nothing in all the countless fossils which he himself would call a 'transitional form'.
Nonsense. I can name several. How about Ursavus elmensis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 4:50 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 4:08 AM crashfrog has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 97 of 300 (422514)
09-17-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by CTD
09-17-2007 4:50 AM


Science used to have a strict hierarchy to keep tabs on the progress of ideas: hypothesis then theory then law. Used to take good evidence for an idea to advance from one stage to the next, and that's where the legitimate role of consensus among scientists came into play.
A common misconception. A theory is generally a collective framework of hypothesis structured in such a way as to give an overarching explanation for a phenomenon.
Laws do not give explanations. Laws are descriptions based on what we have observed - they are often mathematical equations that describe a patter on results that the deviser of the law was able to collect. More data may show that under some conditions, the law does not describe the phenomenon accurately. We cannot rely on a law always holding true just because it is a law. We can rely on a law being mostly true if it has a firm theoretical foundation.
Theories are the big thing in science, not laws. Laws are piddly little things compared to theories. Granted - we generally need laws to describe the world so that we can develop the theory to explain the world.
Indeed - you'll often find that laws are put forward way before a theory is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 4:50 AM CTD has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 300 (422574)
09-17-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by CTD
09-17-2007 4:50 AM


One is also free to disregard these artificial boundaries, and no harm is done. None of the scientists of previous ages cared much about them.
However, this does not mean that you are free to pretend that, for example, astronomy and organic chemistry are the same thing, unles the name of that thing is "science".
When it is convenient, why not talk of 'stellar evolution' as a separate topic from 'planetary evolution'? Fine and dandy. But it's a mistake to insist that others must consider these topics as having nothing in common when they clearly do have much in common.
And of course, no-one has ever insisted that you should consider them as having "nothing in common", as you well know.
Someone can present any hypothesis, and if it does not run contrary to any law of science it is scientifically valid.
No. Possibility (w.r.t. tthe laws of nature insofar as we know them)is not the same as validity.
The big error comes when one accepts speculation in place of hard science ... But an hypothesis without observation or experiment to back it up is still speculation. It should never be mistaken for firm knowledge, and anyone who portrays it as such is in error or deceptive.
You mean like the story with the magic snake and the talking fruit?
Science used to have a strict hierarchy to keep tabs on the progress of ideas: hypothesis then theory then law.
Of course, you cannot back up this fantasy of "theory then law" by reference to any actual evidence, 'cos it's something you made up.
Just look at how the term 'theory' has devolved. It used to mean an idea that was not just possible, but one that had withstood testing and scrutiny. But today it is used to designate any fragment of speculation you could imagine ...
I don't like it when words change meaning. If there's a need for a new word, one should be coined - not altered. And when a word is altered as a means of advancing an argument, well it's a sign of a weak argument.
The involved dishonesty of that statement is breathtaking.
You people. You spent decades pretending that "theory" means "any fragment of speculation you could imagine", so that people wouldn't know what scientists meant when they said "theory of evolution" --- and now you whine about it as though scientists have changed the meaning of the word. We have not.
By "theory of evolution" we still mean "well-tested explanation of evolution".
To be fair to Darwin, he wasn't trained as a scientist and there is a (slim) chance he wasn't aware of how deceptive the the title of his book actually was.
What do you think the title of his book actually was?
Let me guess, you think it had the word "theory" in it somewhere, don't you?
The other two were fully aware. And the general public had no clue.
The other ... two?
Oh, right. You're not just smarter than Darwin, you're smarter than Einstein too!
Oh, this is going to be a fun thread.
Reading threads here, one will easily spot the term 'transitional form'. The term was used by Darwin to indicate a form of fossil which clearly showed itself to be intermediate between species. He had no examples. He felt that by predicting them it would strengthen his 'theory' if they should be found. This term has been altered over the years to mean 'the closest we can get', because no 'transitional form' has yet been discovered which meets the standard set by Darwin. There is nothing in all the countless fossils which he himself would call a 'transitional form'.
Of course, you cannot demonstrate this by quotation from Darwin, because this is something you made up in your head.
Here is the text of the Origin of Species. It is the work of seconds to search through it for all uses of the word "transitional". Please let us know if you find anything to validate your claim.
Redefining terms is not how language evolves. (Note that the new meaning of 'evolve' is now 'change', rather than in the past when it meant 'improve'.
Another assertion for which you can produce no evidence.
Would Darwin have watered down the term?
Let's look at how Darwin uses the term "evolution", shall we? Rather than at the fantasies in your head:
"At the present day almost all naturalists admit evolution under some form ... That species have a capacity for change will be admitted by all evolutionists; but there is no need, as it seems to me, to invoke any internal force beyond the tendency to ordinary variability, which through the aid of selection, by man has given rise to many well-adapted domestic races, and which, through the aid of natural selection, would equally well give rise by graduated steps to natural races or species. The final result will generally have been, as already explained, an advance, but in some few cases a retrogression, in organisation." --- Darwin, Origin of Species
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 4:50 AM CTD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2007 8:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


(1)
Message 99 of 300 (422581)
09-17-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
09-17-2007 10:58 AM


Huh?
RAZD
quote:
Having a reason is not the same as substantiation with evidence. You can have a reason to get up in the morning, but that doesn't make your argument any stronger.
Fine. I gave a good reason, and everyone knows it.
Now the only reason I could give that would qualify as an argument from incredulity (under the actual definition) is "I don't believe it so neither should you" or words to that effect. This clearly was not my reasoning, so although it may have been imperfect, it was not an argument from incredulity by any stretch of the imagination.
my pasted quote
quote:
I don't recall the term being applied correctly even once, if you want the truth.
RAZD
quote:
That wouldn't be your argument from incredulity again would it?
I think that would objectively be called an observation. I believe it's accurate, but even if it were utterly false it would still not qualify as an argument from incredulity.
You've already demonstrated that you're aware of the term's actual meaning, and yet you continue to misapply it. In the past you didn't behave this way, and I'm somewhat surprised. I don't know that I care to play any of your new games.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2007 10:58 AM RAZD has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 100 of 300 (422582)
09-17-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by CTD
09-17-2007 5:17 AM


Re: Oh goodness me!
That sure looks like a quotemining challenge.
Minutes to refute, weeks to be thorough. A tough choice. Glad I wasn't challenged - I'd probably have to toss a coin!
What are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 5:17 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 8:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 101 of 300 (422591)
09-17-2007 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dr Adequate
09-17-2007 7:42 PM


Darwin on line
Here is the text of the Origin of Species. It is the work of seconds to search through it for all uses of the word "transitional". Please let us know if you find anything to validate your claim.
The BBC link I had to a fully searchable text has been changed, but all works can be found here
Darwin Online
quote:
The majority is online here for the first time such as the 1st editions of Voyage of the Beagle, Descent of Man, Zoology of the Beagle, all editions of Origin of species (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th), complete autobiography, Journal, Beagle diary, field notebooks, and theoretical notebooks.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 7:42 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


(1)
Message 102 of 300 (422601)
09-17-2007 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Dr Adequate
09-17-2007 7:54 PM


Dr Adequate
quote:
What are you talking about?
'Quotemining' means running around searching for quotes, and then pasting them into one's post.
Like in that earlier post with Darwin, except it usually refers to a group. And like you'd expect, links are commonly provided.
In more direct and plain English, I believe it would be an extremely simple task to find examples where you have said exactly what HEWG said you said, and paste some examples and links here for everyone to see.
Better?
It is kind of a pain having to type all you own quote boxes. And it's really not worth the effort since nobody'd care anyhow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 7:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 8:39 PM CTD has not replied
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2007 8:42 PM CTD has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 103 of 300 (422612)
09-17-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by CTD
09-17-2007 8:17 PM


'Quotemining' means running around searching for quotes, and then pasting them into one's post.
No, that's called "citation" or "quotation". "Quotemining" is something else.
In more direct and plain English, I believe it would be an extremely simple task to find examples where you have said exactly what HEWG said you said, and paste some examples and links here for everyone to see.
And yet although you proclaim this task to be "extremely simple", you will in fact never ever do so, because in the real world, it is impossible.
In your daydreams, it will continue to be "extremely simple" to find evidence for HEWG's daydreams about me, but back here on Planet Earth, you guys are kinda screwed though, aren't you?
It's like the whole EvC debate in minature, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 8:17 PM CTD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 104 of 300 (422614)
09-17-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by CTD
09-17-2007 8:17 PM


'Quotemining' means running around searching for quotes, and then pasting them into one's post.
No, quotemining means finding quotes that you can post to misrepresent what the author\article was meaning. For examples see
Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"
See Quoting out of context - Wikipedia for more definition
quote:
Quote mining is the practice of compiling quotes from large volumes of literature or spoken word.[1] The term is used pejoratively to accuse the "quote miner" of contextomy and misquotation, where favorable positions are amplified or falsely suggested, and unfavorable positions in the same text are excluded or otherwise obscured.
With this example
Quoting out of context - Wikipedia
quote:
An example of creationist quote mining [3] is taken from The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin in which he considers the evolution of the eye: ... This quote is clearly taken out of context because Darwin continues: ... Darwin goes on to devote three further pages to this subject.[4] Answers in Genesis, have acknowledged the lack of context of the quote and urged others not to use the quote without quoting the context.[5]
Quoting (we don't need a new word for it) is where you find quotes that represent what the author\article meant and that support your position.
There are many examples of quote-mining in creationist literature, one of the (many) reasons it is so unreliable (at best).
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 8:17 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 9:27 PM RAZD has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


(1)
Message 105 of 300 (422630)
09-17-2007 9:15 PM


And...
And speaking of quotemining, the careful reader will notice that those who argue against me make several conflicting statements.
One says I made up the differences between hypothesis, theory, and fact. Another says I'm right on the mark, and scientists feel the same way about the issue. (For the record, I'm not old enough to have made up these differences.)
In fact, there are at least three issues that follow this pattern. One backs me up, and another says xxx about me for even thinking it.
Now I've been here before. It may look superficially like these people have some disagreements among themselves that could stand clarification. This is not the case. They agree about the most important issue, and that is to remain united in disagreeing with me.
I could paste where one says the exact opposite of another. And that person would deny saying it right on the same page it was said. It's happened before, and it's just a big waste of time.
It's another game I choose not to play. Read carefully, and you'll see how many of my points have been confirmed right here by dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists. One confirms this and disagrees with that. The other confirms that and disagrees with this. But in the end, they all agree that I must be wrong. They can't agree upon which issue I'm wrong about, and it doesn't matter a lick to them.
If getting the last word means "winning", then they're likely to win. I see a few things I may get around to, but I don't plan to spend much more time on this thread.
They actually did catch me in a mistake. The word 'theory' is not in the title of Darwin's book. I'm not as sharp as I once was, and I've never been perfect. Jeer while you can, evilooshunists. It may be a long time before I another mistake like that (I hope).
It detracts nothing from my point, since he did grossly misapply the term. It would detract from any egotistic argument from my own authority, when I demonstrated that I make mistakes. But I made no such argument.

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2007 9:26 PM CTD has replied
 Message 109 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2007 10:01 PM CTD has not replied
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 09-17-2007 10:48 PM CTD 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