Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
173 online now:
caffeine, Faith, PaulK (3 members, 170 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,041 Year: 2,789/23,288 Month: 980/1,809 Week: 99/313 Day: 16/39 Hour: 2/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question Evolution!
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4668
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 226 of 235 (650572)
02-01-2012 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
01-07-2012 5:59 PM


Re: Why Creationism and Intelligent Design will not be taken seriously.
It is not a matter of point of view Mike, it is fact and reality.

I agree. unfortunately, you, as a higher rank in this community, do not have to explain a thing, or prove anything you say, so I will do all the thinking for you, you just sit back and state the same ad-nauseum statements as though I didn't understand them in their entirety, the first time.

Fortunately I know what facts and reality are, fully and in depth, and I also know that what you have stated about biological evolution being a fact, in and of itself is not a consequential statement. I can agree without it being a problem, which is a reality you are not aware of because you haven't thought of the logical implications whereas I have.

Biological evolution is a fact. Reality is also not a matter of opinion.

I agree on both counts with the overly simple statements that did not need to be voiced towards me, as though I needed to be educated on base-understandings. Nice try in making it look like I did, though.

As you can see, I don't have to state anything else, both that fact and reality are not logically consequential.

As you can see, for me, as a creationist to agree that evolution is a fact, might seem odd, but because I have a full understanding and I can differentiate between inferences/facts, premises and arguments in their various surreptitious forms then I can as a creationist state that biological evolution is a fact.

You see, this in itself is a simple matter. But now you have to ask, "hang on a minute, if mike is saying biological evolution is a fact, and he is creationist, then doesn't he believe in evolution?"

Logically, that is a question that must be asked. My answer is no, I do not believe in biological evolution in history, and yet I DO, because I believe evolution has acted on gene pools, (an example, an organism losing it's eye-sight as an advantageous evolution, as it lives in dark places). Is this what you were pressing me on?

You see, the real question is, what do I mean when I say that evolution is a fact? Indeed, what do you mean, and do you know what you mean, specifically? The operative word, is specifically. Specific things fascinate me. Specifically, YOU mean that both a change in allele frequencies AND all lifeforms coming about because of this fact, are "fact". This is called, equivocation.

When I say that evolution is a fact I mean that there is a change in allele frequencies in gene pools over generations. This fact does not mean I have to then believe that every organism on the planet it a result of biological evolution. As you can plainly see, to MERGE the two is fallacious. It's called, Bait and switch. Dawkins uses it on his proselytizing-quests, to bait the person listening, by showing the "fact" of evolution by appealing to a scientific bioloist. (Getting a Biologist to state, "evolution is fact") in the hope the person listening will then believe that they have to accept evolution in history.

I can prove logically the two are merged, because when I make the following statement, it leads to confusion. (I am now using Reductio ad absurdum)

Pay attention; (this requires some genuine thinking if you are not logically proficient)

I believe (mike) evolution is a fact, I believe evolution did not happen.

As you can see, the statement is either breaking the law of non-contradiction, OR I mean two things, because two things are conflated in the term, "evolution". For how could I state this without meaning two things? Therefore Jar, I will do your homework for you, since this oppressive debate-board only insists that Creationists defend what they say, and lazy thinkers that are evolutionist, can get away with stating anything, despite their lack of knowledge.

You see, with that statement I made, I MUST define the term, "evolution" hyper-specifically, or the statement is a contradiction because I would be believing a fact and not believing a fact.

So, yes, I agree, biological evolution is a fact, but logically it does not prove anything. You MUST infer/argue and put forward a syllogism, in order to state something MORE ABOUT that fact.

Technically, there is no getting around it. That is reality.

DISCLAIMER: If you want to make two separate claims, one that biological evolution, a change in gene pools, is a fact, and that lifeforms coming about because of this fact, is a fact, then that is okay, you can make those claims separately and fairly and make a topic defending YOUR claims, as you brought this subject up, not me.

As you can see, in an oppressive atmosphere, the person kept under the thumb has to provide infinitely more effort, if he wants to make a simple statement, as the persons pushing the Rankism is basically the bully.

I remember when I was a child, a group of bullies would come to our doorstep. They were big bullies but one bully was very, very small. Now the big bullies were fascinated to watch this small bully bully us, knowing that if we contradicted the small bully, the big bullies would beat us black and blue. So the small bully looked very grand.

One day, the small bully came around without his friends, and I was sitting on the doorstep as we always did as children, and he started to bully me. I became afraid and punched him in the face.

You see, without his big bully friends, he wasn't that big a deal. Of course, his big bully friends thought it proved a great deal when he bullied us when he was with his bigger friends to protect him, but in the end a short sharp shock educated him.

I will not be responding to the big bullies, concerning this post.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 01-07-2012 5:59 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Pressie, posted 02-01-2012 5:37 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 228 by jar, posted 02-01-2012 10:24 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 229 by Panda, posted 02-01-2012 10:56 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 230 by Taq, posted 02-01-2012 11:55 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 227 of 235 (650575)
02-01-2012 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by mike the wiz
02-01-2012 5:02 AM


Re: Why Creationism and Intelligent Design will not be taken seriously.
Mike the Wiz writes:

I agree. unfortunately, you, as a higher rank in this community, do not have to explain a thing, or prove anything you say,.....

Luckily for the real world around you, "proving" is for maths and alcohol. Evidence is what counts.
Mike the Wiz writes:

... so I will do all the thinking for you, you just sit back and state the same ad-nauseum statements as though I didn't understand them in their entirety, the first time.

I, for one, do understand Jar's posts. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not. At least I can understand the message he tries to convey.

However, I have absolutely no idea of what you're aiming at in your word salads. Do you have a point, anywhere?

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by mike the wiz, posted 02-01-2012 5:02 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32166
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 228 of 235 (650588)
02-01-2012 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by mike the wiz
02-01-2012 5:02 AM


Re: Why Creationism and Intelligent Design will not be taken seriously.
There is some ranking system at EvC?

Do you ever tire of trying to tell people what they think?

What specifically did all that word salad mean?

I appreciate your offer to think for me but fear that is something you are not capable of performing.

Finally, what bullies are here?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by mike the wiz, posted 02-01-2012 5:02 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2129 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 229 of 235 (650595)
02-01-2012 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by mike the wiz
02-01-2012 5:02 AM


Re: Why Creationism and Intelligent Design will not be taken seriously.
Mike writes:

I have pretty much vowed to be quiet, so we will leave it.

Mike writes:

*wall of nonsense text*


I sincerely wish you would keep your vows.

...or, alternatively, post something that makes sense.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by mike the wiz, posted 02-01-2012 5:02 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8233
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(3)
Message 230 of 235 (650613)
02-01-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by mike the wiz
02-01-2012 5:02 AM


Re: Why Creationism and Intelligent Design will not be taken seriously.
When I say that evolution is a fact I mean that there is a change in allele frequencies in gene pools over generations.

Getting back to the OP . . .

The major problem with the 15 questions is that it inserts lies into the questions. For example, it asks why there are living species that are identical to long dead fossil species. This is a lie. They are not identical. Very similar, yes. Identical? Absolutely not. There are quite a few questions within the 15 that follow this pattern. We are simply pointing out the intellectual bankruptcy of creation science given the fact that they have to lie about the facts in order to have a point.

As a more general point, ID/creationism ignores the facts and reality. I have gone on and on about the nested hierarchy in several of these threads. My point in doing so is to show that ID/creationism does not address this issue. It never has. It simply can not explain the facts. Evolution does.

So the problem is two fold. First, ID/creationists make up facts (i.e. they lie). Second, they ignore the real facts.

Then we also have "Gould" facts. Stephen Jay Gould once defined fact as "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". If we accept this definition then we also bring many other facts to bear, such as the fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. As Gould stated it:

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

The genetic evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. Withholding provisional assent is perverse in this instance. It is a fact. Many ID/creationists refuse to accept this fact based on religious dogma. Any model of life's history must include the fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. If the model does not include this fact then it is a failed model.

As you can see, in an oppressive atmosphere, the person kept under the thumb has to provide infinitely more effort, if he wants to make a simple statement, as the persons pushing the Rankism is basically the bully.

That's not it at all. You have to produce the same amount of evidence to support your claims as has been produced for evolution. The problem is that you have to counter 150 years of accumulated evidence backing evolution. You are complaining that the facts don't back you. Perhaps you should think about that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by mike the wiz, posted 02-01-2012 5:02 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by driewerf, posted 10-01-2012 12:54 PM Taq has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3913
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 231 of 235 (674494)
09-29-2012 3:22 PM


Bump - Related to "Conservapedia declares victory over EvC Forum" topic
Asgara tracked down and linked to this topic here at the "Conservapedia declares victory over EvC Forum" topic.

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that©.

  
driewerf
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 08-14-2010


Message 232 of 235 (674653)
10-01-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Taq
02-01-2012 11:55 AM


Re: Why Creationism and Intelligent Design will not be taken seriously.
quote:
Getting back to the OP . . .

The major problem with the 15 questions is that it inserts lies into the questions.



No. I think that the major problem with the 15 questions - and scientists are mssing this point too - is that science needs unanswerd questions.
CMI believes that if they can find 15 questions that we can't answer, this means the death of the ToE. Nothing is further from he truth. A scientist embraces unanswered questions, because this means more research is necessary.
Open any scientific journal about any science - physics, chemistry, anatomy etc. You will find phrases like "more research is needed", "still unsolved problem", etc.
With a little bit malevolence youy can phrase the 15 questions chemistry can't answer, then 15 questions embryology can't answer.
Of course, CMI did a very poor job, but even if the 15 questions were without answers it wouildn't be a catastrophe. Sadly enough, creationists and scientists alike missed that point.

Edited by driewerf, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Taq, posted 02-01-2012 11:55 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Taq, posted 10-01-2012 1:01 PM driewerf has not yet responded
 Message 234 by subbie, posted 10-01-2012 1:07 PM driewerf has not yet responded
 Message 235 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2012 2:00 PM driewerf has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8233
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 233 of 235 (674654)
10-01-2012 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by driewerf
10-01-2012 12:54 PM


Re: Why Creationism and Intelligent Design will not be taken seriously.
No. I think that the major problem with the 15 questions - and evolutionists are mssing this point too - is that science needs unanswerd questions.

More importantly, science needs HONEST questions. CMI is not providing honest questions. Instead, CMI is offering loaded questions that are more rhetorical in nature, and they are based on a serious misunderstanding of the facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by driewerf, posted 10-01-2012 12:54 PM driewerf has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 234 of 235 (674655)
10-01-2012 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by driewerf
10-01-2012 12:54 PM


Re: Why Creationism and Intelligent Design will not be taken seriously.
I can't completely endorse your post because of your use of the word "evolutionists." Change that to "scientists" and you're much closer to the truth.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by driewerf, posted 10-01-2012 12:54 PM driewerf has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 235 of 235 (674662)
10-01-2012 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by driewerf
10-01-2012 12:54 PM


Wrongly assigned error..
Of course, CMI did a very poor job, but even if the 15 questions were without answers it wouldn't be a catastrophe. Sadly enough, creationists and evolutionists alike missed that point.

Not so fast. If you look through this thread, you'll note that there is a fairly complete critique of the questions. It is in fact the case that nearly all of the questions themselves have easily exposed flaws.

The questions themselves are an attempt to raise issues that scientists should find their ability to answer the question problematic. It is certainly possible to pick a set of questions that if unanswerable, would create significant problems for the theory of evolution. If indeed, CMI had managed to come up with those questions, then those failure to answer the questions should not be simply dismissed as not reflecting poorly on what is claimed to be a theory.

I agree that there are going to be some open questions and that scientist should just acknowledged that they cannot answer them. But that approach is not appropriate for every single question CMI might ask.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by driewerf, posted 10-01-2012 12:54 PM driewerf has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020