|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
One doesn't need to know everything about a field to know enough to make a particular limited point. That's all I've ever claimed. HBD's paragraph is about aspects of genetics that have nothing to do with the point I'm making (he was talking about nested hierarchies anyway, which I never address at all). What happened to the Pod Mrcaru lizards is very easy to grasp without understanding all the mechanisms of genetics. What happens in breeding animals is very easy to grasp with the most rudimentary understanding of genetics.
So the person who has only a high school level understanding of genetics says that her idea only requires a high school level understanding of genetics. Which, of course, isn't something you're in a position to say since...well, you only have a rudimentary understanding of genetics. And this also means you aren't in a position to assess if your idea is valid or not; which means proposing such an idea based on an elementary knowledge of genetics isn't intellectually honest. I mean, I could easily refute your idea but then you'd probably complain about a "snow job." Right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I mean, I could easily refute your idea but then you'd probably complain about a "snow job." Right? If you use stilted technical jargon, I might, of course. If I can't understand what you are saying you aren't exactly successfully refuting me. But more likely you'll just commit the usual straw man fallacy, that's the more common problem I encounter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
quote: You need to make a bumper sticker that says this and sell it at the Creationists' Book Store. You wouldn't be able to keep them on the shelf.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
If I can't understand what you are saying you aren't exactly successfully refuting me. Which is an easy way to make any position irrefutable, right? "I can't understand you, bruh. This stuff's too technical for me, so even though I'm the one who proposed this idea in this field, I'm not going to defend it because I can't understand the language of the field this idea relates to." Yeah, really nice intellectual honesty right there, huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Most arguments about just about anything can be made in ordinary English. The intellectual dishonesty may possibly lie with those who resort to technical language when it is unnecessary.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Most arguments about just about anything can be made in ordinary English. The intellectual dishonesty may possibly lie with those who resort to technical language when it is unnecessa Which is exactly why Flood Geology and Creationism have been abandoned for over 100 years. Creationism and particularly Flood Geology has never been able to provide a model, method, process, procedure, explanation or thingamjig for what is seen in reality. And that is whether using plain English or even the NewSpeak mumbojumbo of the Creationist hucksters.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2403 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
quote: Well, if that isn't about the most logic free statement I've ever heard (and I've heard a few). JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, I've given you all delicious fodder for ridicule, but the point is if you don't succeed in getting your point across to me I'm not going to abandon my argument, am I? You can talk to each other over my head of course, but this is supposed to be a discussion/debate.
I'd like to hear Genomicus's argument, except for the fact that I suspect it's going to be like all the others on all the other threads where this has come up, which I gather he/she hasn't even read. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
Most arguments about just about anything can be made in ordinary English. Says the person wholly untrained in a technical scientific field... Gee whiz, there's just no limit to the ignorant comments you'll make, is there? For starters: it's really hard to explain to a layperson what the Riemann hypothesis is all about. In order to properly grasp the extent and meaning of the Riemann hypothesis, one must first have an understanding of mathematics well beyond the high school level. You know next to nothing about genetics, so it is wholly intellectually dishonest to pretend you're in a position to properly assess if your view is accurate. And there are plenty of free resources to get a firmer understanding of genetics, so your excuses appear to boil down to: "I simply don't want to understand this stuff on a more granular, precise level."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Yes, I've given you all delicious fodder for ridicule, but the point is if you don't succeed in getting your point across to me I'm not going to abandon my argument, am I? The issue is whether or not you are even willing to consider and examine the material? Are you willing to consider that the Bible is simply factually wrong on lots of different things?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Doesn't sound like a particularly fruitful direction to take the argument. Instead of just ranting from your assumed position of intellectual superiority, how about making a stab at explaining it in simple English since you think it has some relevance to my argument? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
I argue against the THEORY of evolution and the old earth and I do ridicule THAT thinking, and naturally all that is mixed up with true scientific work Your problem with this is that you have no way of differentiating "true scientific work" from those things you don't want to be science (other than saying it contradicts the Bible). And there is an awful lot of science which contradicts the Bible - evolution, just about the whole of geology, vast amounts of physics (including the speed of light, radiometric dating, carbon dating etc). Your position is that expert scientists are superb at following the scientific model, and developing our scientific understanding, in every field other than those which contradict the Bible, when all of a sudden their expertise abandons them, and what they are doing ceases to be science. What I said earlier sounds reasonable because it is reasonable. The expertise of experts remains expert, even when that expertise contradicts what you believe.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Faith writes: There were no terrestrial deposits. That's a misreading of the evidence. All the strata are absolutely identical as to their basic form. These aeolian deposits of the Navajo Sandstone refute your statements above. They are terrestrial deposits of sand dune formed by wind.
Anyone can see that these strata are NOT "absolutely identical as to their basic form." The Navajo is part of the Jurrasic Glen Canyon Group that overlays the Triassic Chinle Formation and is overlain by the Jurrasic San Rafael Group.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
That sounds reasonable but it isn't. They are mad first of all that a nonscientist would dare to say anything at all, which colors their thinking to begin with Not at all, Faith. Superficial knowledge of a subject never trumps a deeper, broader understanding of that subject. If you have a superficial knowledge of how a car works - like you put gas in the tank, shift the car in drive to go forward, press the accelerator to accelerate, press the brake to stop, and turn the steering wheel to go left or right - your superficial knowledge doesn't hold more weight than a mechanic when talking about the deeper, inner workings of the vehicle. Someone who knows the inner workings of the vehicle telling you that you are wrong about your speculations about the inner workings is not because they are angry that a non-mechanic would dare to speculate about those inner workings, it is because they know the inner workings and know your speculations are wrong. As far as your accusations of "always being a strawman," how could you know that to be the case when you don't even understand the argument? How could know my question about housekeeping genes is a strawman when you don't even understand the point I was making? So it is just an accusation you make to avoid addressing the argument. In your own words "sheeesh" HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Most arguments about just about anything can be made in ordinary English.The intellectual dishonesty may possibly lie with those who resort to technical language when it is unnecessary. Here is the quote that started this line of discussion:
quote: I honestly don't see anything in that paragraph that I don't consider to be plain English. I gave you a link to rRNA and cytC. Maybe you are not familiar with the term "housekeeping" genes, but it's an introductory genetics term and besides, you could google it in 1 minute or less. Other than that I see no words or phrases in that paragraph that should stump someone with your knowledge of genetics. That you don't see the significance of the point is understandable, but that was not your reason for dismissing it as "intellectually dishonest." Maybe the intellectual dishonesty lies with those who want to prove wrong those who work hard studying a particular field without actually knowing anything (other than superficial facts) about the subject themselves. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024