Summations Only

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?

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.

quote:

---

If I can't understand what you are saying you aren't exactly successfully refuting me.

---

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.

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?

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.

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.

quote:

---

If I can't understand what you are saying you aren't exactly successfully refuting me.

---

Well, if that isn't about the most logic free statement I've ever heard (and I've heard a few).JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

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"HBD

Here is the quote that started this line of discussion:

quote:

---

"Why would you expect simple sequence repeats to be informative as to population structure? Why would you expect basic housekeeping genes, such as Ribosomal RNA and cytochrome C, to be highly conserved across unrelated species and yet show patterns of differences that can be grouped into a nested hierarchy - and one that largely matches predictions based on morphology (which both of the genes mentioned have little to no direct effect on morphology). Why would there not be just 1, or at least a very small number, of each of these highly conserved housekeeping genes that is used across all species? Why does each species or group of species get their own unique sequence that is just a little bit different from their closest relatives?"
  —HBD

---

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.HBD