|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith's Participation in EvC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
There is a pattern here, but not the one percy discussed in the OP. What happens is whenever a critic of evo brings up arguments that evos cannot effectively refute, there is a move to ban the critic, claiming the debate is unproductive. But there is not an honest accounting of why the debate is unproductive. It's not unproductive because the logic, tone or argument of the critic is wrong. It's "unproductive" to the evos because the critics' argument cannot be refuted, and evos become frustrated with that.
The forum would progress significantly if the evos here could realize that. Instead, there is the need on the evo side to never admit to any weaknesses, facts, arguments or anything that threatens their belief system, and so it's not surprising to see threads started to try to ban Faith since her arguments could not be refuted otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Truthfully, the level of dodging points engaged by evos here is such that levelling that accusation at Faith or anyone else is highly hypocritical. At least Faith has not the power to, and does not resort to, using the power of banning to completely dodge points, as is common in the evo community here, imo.
What you guys fail to see is that generally evos are actually the ones guilty of the things they accuse their critics of. It reminds me of the political debate over sexual misconduct. A lib dem engages in sexual misconduct, and all we hear for the most part is how it's just sex, a private matter, etc, etc,....and then hey, poor Clarence Thomas has just one woman accuse him of harassment, and the lynch-mob is ready. It's just blatant hypocrisy. And that's really what passes for argument from the evo side most of the time. They ignore arguments, and then try to get others to prove a negative. They filter facts by their ideology, and basically everything they accuse creationists, IDers and others of, generally you see these practices widespread within the evo camp. That's not all evos, but it's very widespread, and one reason for so many forgeries, fakes, and overstatements taken as facts among the evo community over the years. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Let me add that i recognize many evos do not want to see their critics banned, but at the same time, there are those that do, and they have a lot of influence and power for that sort of thing at EvC, and evos do get frustrated, imo, when they cannot effectively refute an argument. There does seem to be this need to discount any fact that they FEEL threatens their beliefs. That's one reason that a critic of evolution can present a fact, and evos deny it. heck, critics can present facts for over 100 years and evos still refuse to accept the truth, until an evo admits to the same fact.
Why is that? Why the hostility towards admitting certain facts in the fossil record until PE came out? Why the hostility towards admitting the basic facts, the data, on Haeckel's frauds and embryonic data until Richardson in 1997? It's a pattern. If there is a feeling that a fact could threaten some aspect of evolutionary theory, the fact is vehemently denied. But if an evo comes out and presents the same data, but in a way that can fit evo theory, then the data is accepted. Has the data changed usually? Nope. That's one reason evo theory is methodologically flawed. It's essentially non-objective in the reasoning process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I don't think Faith's argument on microevolutionary processes being such that they prohibit macroevolution was ever effectively answered. Those processes do appear to lead to less genetic variety, and as such are more dead-ends than new branches for macro-evolution, as evos claim. Moreover, evos have never shown many of their key claims to be true. They assert their claims, such as claiming mutations are random, and then demand they be disproven. it's not a objective approach to the data.
faith's points on the fossil record and mine have never been refuted either. There is more, but this is not a debate thread here for that sort of thing. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
, great points about the overall trend to genetic depletion, great points about the lack of evidence for mutation as the source of genetic variability. If points made by each side were all tallied up fairly in columns, my arguments would come up quite respectably. Exactly, and yet somehow you are accussed of dodging issues. Imo, it's disgusting because many of these points and others raised by critics of evolution are seeming knowingly being ignored, dodged, misrepresented, etc,....and yet the evos claim their critics are the ignorant ones. Why are these points ignored? I think it's worth discussing and speculating on. Maybe data that is uncomfortable to the evo paradigm is simply shut out as if it doesn't exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
But somehow the subtleties of what constitutes a tail is dead-bang proof of evolution.....never seems to occur to them that interpreting the mutation or whatever that causes the rare tail to be the result of past regression is basically a subjective interpretation. I mean when some people have 6 fingers does that mean we all came from 6-finger apes too?
getting off-topic....oh well, better drop it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The real pattern is one of baseless and false accusations from the creationist side. The problem is those of us that have lived for awhile have often seen evos forced to admit that those baseless and false accusations (such as the accusations towards haeckel or the fossil record were once described) were not so baseless and false after all. Btw, did you catch in the news where the new theory is that Britain was separated from the Continent in a catastrophic flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Faith's argument on microevolution critically relied on the assumption that mutation could never replace the lost variation. That claim was never adequately supported - So in other words, you guys never could prove and never have proved or verified that mutations do add genetic material at a rate sufficient to replace that which is lost due to variation. You just asserted a theory that mutations do add genetic material sufficient, and this is evo dogma but evidently never backed up, and a non-scientist has come up with an idea that shows the lack of objective verification of a basic theory and dogma held by evo scientists? And yet, you bash her? Un-freakin-believable! If you were the truth-seeking, scientifically-minded folks you claim to be, you'd hail her as brilliant, and say, yep, it's a serious error and we've been wrong to assert this for so long without ever taking into account the genetic material lost in variation. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
What amazes me Faith is that a non-scientist like yourself can take a good, long look at evo claims and find such obvious lack of objective verification of some of their most basic claims. Heck, the idea you should be able to prove mutations cannot add genetic material back is totally looney. If evolutionism was real science, they'd have considered the argument on what is lost in variation and considered the mutational rate (molecular clock) and BEFORE EVER ASSERTING MUTATIONS DRIVING MACROEVOLUTION, they'd have to prove that by showing mutational rates in observed mutations are sufficient and beneficial and at a rate to overcome the loss of genetic diversity.
Heck, it appears they never even thought of it, or if someone has, there is no real evidence I have seen around here for it. Instead the evos assert their dogma, and then say if you cannot disprove it, it must be true, and then claim that is real science!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
WE need to know the rates - YOU don't. It's your theory. If you or evo scientists have not considered the issue and shown that Faith's idea is wrong, then they clearly have not properly substantiated their claims. I mean heck yea, you have to substantiate your claims on the theory. Show me where evos have done studies on genetic loss in variation and how mutations are at a rate and of the type to overcome that. You can't. Now, Faith is a non-scientist and so cannot do the work herself. JAD linked to scientists that did show the same point by the way in published works, but really, it's your claim. You guys claim microevolution adds up to macroevolution, but you do not and cannot substantiate that by ignoring what actually occurs in the process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
.e. since the evidence availabnel to the group is insufficient to resolve the issue we must go with the creationist side. What the heck? Isn't evolutionary theory suppossed to be science. If one of the basic claims at the heart of evo theory cannot yet be supported, or as you say it, is insufficient, then heck yea, the right answer is to say it shouldn't be accepted as accurate until it is verified, and that you evos need to moderate your stance and work on developing it before spouting it as factual, as you do. Now, does this prove creationism? No. It just proves that a major plank in evolutionary theory that you guys claim is an observed fact, that microevolution is simply small macroevolutionary steps, is an entirely bogus claim on your guys part. It is not a fact. It is an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and the fact evos won't recognize this shows the basic unscientific and non-objective approach they have to the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
And don't hang out here much anyway, but it flat out amazes me the denial of basic facts and logic on the evo side here. If evos cannot show demonstrably that mutations can overcome the normal loss of genetic material in variation and microevolution, then heck, the whole claim of random mutations and microevolution adding up to macroevolution is just total, unsubstantiated crap.
The whole doggone community should be embarassed to actually claim "evolution is observed" and needs to admit that Darwin's basic concepts and their basic concepts that microevolution is macroevolution is merely an untested, and moreover, a highly unlikely hypothesis, perpetuated as a fact in a unscientific manner; a manner that is intellectually unscientific, unempirical, and non-objective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
She did substantiate it as far as she could, discussing well-known processes leading to a loss of genetic diversity. You guys claim mutations can overcome that, but you offer nothing to prove that. It appears in fact that the scientific community has not addressed this, though I could be wrong, and yet you with a straight face claim microevolution is macroevolution.
I mean what the heck? Can't you see that asserting something as factual when in reality it is an untested hypothesis borders on a fraudulent claim, and if not fraudulent, at least ignorant. What has been proven is observed microevolutionary processes decrease genetic diversity in the long run, correct? You claim mutations can overcome this, but this is really wishful thinking on your part. You cannot show this. What we observe thus far contradicts what you assert, and yet you guys still assert natural selection is macroevolution in action. That's totally unsubstantiated, by your own admission. It's not even a "theory" as it has not been tested. It's a hypothesis. it's definitely not a fact as you guys claim. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
"god said so it is so" When have I ever said this on an evo thread? You suggest I not only do this, but do so frequently or that's how I read it. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Well, at least she is not making the horrendous error of claiming microevolution is macroevolution; that natural selection is a driving force for macroevolution; that mutations are random, etc, etc,....and all the non-factual claims evos have made over the years. She at least have SOME EVIDENCE, although much of subjective, of God. That's more than we can say of many of these evo claims, and moreover, evos go as far as to claim that "evolution is observed"; that microevolution is macroevolution is an observed fact. It's astonishing that even a non-scientist can see this is not the case.
When will you guys?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024