Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Hi Meldinoor, interesting topic. I'm curious: do you notice the preconceptions that flavor your choice of words? One of them is that there is a dichotomy involved.One of my favorite Non-Sequitur cartoons had two tables, the first has a banner that reads "All your questions answered" and around the corner the second table has a banner that reads "All your answers questioned" -- which shows that both extremes are equally invalid at finding answers. Note that there is no reference to religion or science, but a more generic approach. What we have is a mixture as you alluded: If we eliminate delusion and fanatics from the discussion it comes down to the question of how much trust you can put in a concept representing reality:We do tentatively take on basic faith (lcase) the concept that objective evidence is indicative of reality, and that the experience of reality can be replicated by others having similar subjective experiences of that objective evidence or by some empirical measurement that can be reproduced by others.But once we have exhausted the ability of science to explain evidence we are thrust onto our personal sets of beliefs, preconceptions, and knowledge - our worldviews - for what we think is likely or unlikely to be true.The problem is compounded by the need to have answers, as Larni said in Message 7The need to certainty is not limited to religious types.Somewhat (unintended?) ironically Message 26 states: I am still curious why agnosticism gets such bad press, when it is the basic approach of science.An open minded skeptic can consider concepts that are not invalidated to be possible. we can note that some are not practical to be investigated at this time, and as a result we necessarily don't know the answers. In addition some people may feel that certain concepte are relatively inconsequential one way or the other (such as the immaterial pink unicorn) such that there is virtually no difference whether true or not - and in such situations one can be apatheist (don't know and don't care).We each make our decisions about concepts based on our worldviews, and because those are necessarily different, so are the conclusions.Does this help us to understand reality? Possibly, if we recognize what of our beliefs are based on guesses, assumptions and personal opinions ("overconfidence in poor evidence"), and what are based on (empirical) evidence. Probably the most insidious belief is that one's personal opinions etc. represent truth - and this applies to people regardless of political or religious stripe.Enjoy.ps - kudos for reaching out to Peg.Edited by RAZD, : can't sleep, add clrty

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Straggler, enjoying yourself? Having said that, I will not drag this thread off topic further to deal with you.Enjoy.Note: that I have hidden the content of this post as (1) it is off-topic to this thread, (2) the issues were already discussed on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread, where atheists had plenty of opportunity to present the evidence to support their arguments, but failed to demonstrate any evidence to justify anything more than an opinion, and finally (3) an ongoing discussion of one opinion vs another is pointless.Edited by RAZD, : /qsEdited by RAZD, : material hidden to regain topic

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Meldinoor Well, it seemed to me that the words had certain connotations that pre-suppose your conclusion. Assume you mean evidence against ToE being based on skepticism. To me this only holds if one is equally skeptical of the positions offered in it's place. Archangel was guilty of this one-sided skepticism while being gullible of any claim against evolution. Don't forget to keep an open mind where there is no evidence one way or the other and you will do well. Curiously, I was just reading more of "Consilience" (see Consilience - the Unity of Knowledge), and he was talking about AI and Turing Machines, and said that Descartes had concluded that such a machine that could replicate human intelligence could not be built.It seems to me that this issue is not the really the "existence of Deity" part, but the "validity of certain scriptures" part as being evidence for the existence of god/s. Exactly, but without substantiation, all we can conclude is that this is a possible explanation of the experience. The person having the experience has cause to believe it, but nobody else does. Nor can they disprove it, so at best they can be agnostic to it.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Straggler. Note: that I have hidden the content of this post as (1) it is off-topic to this thread, (2) the issues were already discussed on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread, where atheists had plenty of opportunity to present the evidence to support their arguments, but failed to demonstrate any evidence to justify anything more than an opinion, and finally (3) an ongoing discussion of one opinion vs another is pointless.Edited by RAZD, : /qsEdited by RAZD, : hidden material to regain topic

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Onifre, Note: that I have hidden the content of this post as (1) it is off-topic to this thread, (2) the issues were already discussed on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread, where atheists had plenty of opportunity to present the evidence to support their arguments, but failed to demonstrate any evidence to justify anything more than an opinion, and finally (3) an ongoing discussion of one opinion vs another is pointless.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : hidden material to regain topic

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Meldinoor, apologies for bring in forces for non-topic discussions. This is a good approach: predictions that would provide positive or negative feedback, and then compare which are more important.For a believer (regardless of belief) the positive feedback is important (confirmation bias) while the negative feedback is discarded (cognitive dissonance).For a skeptic (regardless of belief) the negative feedback is important (confirmation bias) while the positive feedback is discarded (cognitive dissonance).To get around this log-jam we need some deal-breaker.Any suggestions? Assuming we are off the map of scientific process and knowledge, and only have subjective experiences of different people to go on.How do we decide some measure of truth in these circumstances? It would be interesting to go through the bible and do something like what Jefferson did - delete all the contradictions and known falsehoods. I think that a substantial volume would still be left.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Meldinoor, looks like terminal topic drift is underway. Sorry.Relevance is only important to the degree you need to make a decision. Why should I automatically disbelieve something when there is no evidence to do so? Certainly pixies have been mentioned before, and finding a real one would be most exciting yes? I agree that whether one exists or not is not a critical decision I need to make, so waiting for further evidence pro or con would be the prudent logical scientific approach would it not?This is due to what I call the open-minded skeptic approach, a willingness to consider concepts on their merits and not on any preconceptions of validity or truth. Actually most of the discussions have been about the reasons (or more correctly, the lack thereof) to justify an opinion that the existence of god/s is highly unlikely. With emphasis on the unlikely. You could be agnostic if skeptical of your experience, or you could be a 3 - agnostic believer, predominantly agnostic but leaning towards belief due to your subjective experience. Certainly you would be more open minded to the idea of pixies existing than before such an experience.Unfortunately this has nothing to do with your original topic, which I do find of interest, while the atheists had their chance to make their points on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread and failed. I don't see any reason to let them rehash those arguments here, and will mark further responses along this line as "noted" - because they are not relevant to this topic.Deciding whether god/s exist or not is actually fairly irrelevant in my mind - they either do or they don't, and no amount of opinion one way or the other is going to change that, nor does it necessarily have any impact on your life.Now, getting back to your topic, the question you had for Peg was Now we have also established that a subjective personal experience is cause for faith So we can establish a possibility for a generic faith belief, and the question then becomes one of getting from that point to one based on some well known religion or another - why christian gospel for instance?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : /qs

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Peg, a couple of questions: I've not discussed this with you before, so it is my lapse, but are you catholic? I understand you are an old earth believer, iirc.Just trying to get the frame of reference here, thanks.This I take it is the biblical stand Thus theses souls will disappear forever? While the catholic teaching is Are you saying that hell is not in the bible but has been added by the church?Just curious.Now -- how do we tell which is true? When you trust a source by faith, how do you tell what source to trust?As I said to Meldinoor Message 57:

quote:

---

For a believer (regardless of belief) the positive feedback is important (confirmation bias) while the negative feedback is discarded (cognitive dissonance).

​

For a skeptic (regardless of belief) the negative feedback is important (confirmation bias) while the positive feedback is discarded (cognitive dissonance).

​

To get around this log-jam we need some deal-breaker.

​

Any suggestions? Assuming we are off the map of scientific process and knowledge, and only have subjective experiences of different people to go on.

​

How do we decide some measure of truth in these circumstances?

---

It would seem that all we have are differing opinions about reality, yes?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : name spelling

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Meldinoor, very well. To be clear, any 6 position requires objective evidence to support it, just as any 2 position requires objective evidence to support it.Examples of properly supported 2's and 6' are rife within sciences, so any claim that one's position doesn't need to provide that same level of evidence to support it is special pleading.You seem to have a handle on how far one can go on opinion, so perhaps we can leave it at that. I think this would be an entirely valid approach to looking at the issue of religious and spiritual experiences. These types of experiences occur in all cultures, and virtually all religions have their own brand of ascetics who practice having such experiences.You would have to filter the related experiences to account for the varying worldviews involved in order to find common elements, and this may be difficult. This too, is of interest to me, however I am at a bit of a loss on where to go after these experience, although there are some hypothesis.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Straggler, still with the false dichotomies ...The problem is that the question just may not be answerable. Or do we say that we just don't have enough information to make a decision, and that we just don't know.Certainly there is insufficient evidence to form anything more than opinion, and we all know that opinion is not sufficient to control reality.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Meldinoor, seems Peg has stepped out. Too bad, as it was getting interesting. Correct, and the default position when you don't know, is that you don't know. Similarly, the default position when you can't know (or are unlikely to know in your lifetime), is that you don't know.Now one can form opinions on the likelihood of things like pixies in the closet, opinions based on your life experiences and learning, your worldview, but these are subjective evaluations, and there is no way to rationally measure their likelihood.So we make assumptions based on opinions.We can review these assumptions in relation to certain scientific findings and see how such opinions stack up in validity against the testing done by science, and we generally find that opinions are weak predictors of reality at best, no matter how well informed the opinions. But just plain vanilla skepticism is not all there is to the scientific approach, for as Peg pointed out, skepticism doesn't add to the equations. What you need in addition is an open mind - open to possibilities, specifically including possibilities that are not contradicted by any known evidence.Because of different people necessarily having different worldviews they will have different interests and opinions about possibilities, and certainly we see a broad spectrum of fascinating possibilities that people are willing and energetically pursuing because different people are open to different ideas.Thus I come to the conclusion that an open-minded skeptic approach is the best overall approach, letting different people take up concepts that interest them, and leaving ones they are not interested unexplored until further information is available.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Rrhain, taking two messages to reply to one person, writes: Curiously, those that have read my messages from the beginning will recognize that my position on this issue was stated years ago, and that my position has certainly not altered since 04*30*2006 and Perceptions of Reality.It has not changed, because there has been no evidence that has been presented in the intervening time sufficient to alter my knowledge, opinions and beliefs on this issue.Fascinatingly, the last thread on this topic, Pseudoskepticism and logic, was singular in the attempts of several atheists in general, and Rrhain in particular, trying desperately to avoid the issue of presenting evidence to support their negative position. It was also, embarrassingly (for strong atheists), devoid of evidence that god/s do not exist or cannot exist, sufficient to justify a "6" or "7" position. Ah, now we have evidence: after 562 posts on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread with Rrhain claiming that he didn't need to supply evidence for his negative position, suddenly now he needs to have evidence for his claim. Let's see what it is: Oops, no evidence. Amazingly, I find it extremely difficult to be in denial of evidence that is not presented. Instead we have an ad hominem attack on me, rather than dealing with the issue. Interestingly, I am happy knowing that my opinion is just my opinion and I'm not the one claiming that it is anything more than that.Saying that my opinion is not compatible with reality is not demonstrating it. Demonstrating it would mean putting up evidence that shows that god/s in fact do not, or cannot, exist. Objective, empirical evidence, not logical fallacies and arguments based on assumptions of knowing more than is known. Message 110 (second reply) Indeed, indeed, however, my opinion is based on the total lack of evidence that shows there are no god/s presented by anyone on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread. Now I don't claim that this opinion is fact, just that this is the impression I have after 562 posts on that thread without any being presented. You can change this opinion by actually presenting evidence that god/s don't, or cannot, exist. Curiously, your theatrics are getting in the way of your comprehension -- all I was saying, was that in conditions where you don't know, the default position is that you don't know: glad you agree with this now. Wow, another assertion of evidence: let's see what it contains: Oops, another blank. Incredibly, I still find it difficult to be in denial of evidence that is not presented. Maybe these pixies are pink, immaterial and have a single horn on their heads? Indeed indeed, so where is your evidence? More ad hominems ...Like not presenting evidence to support your position, whether it is positive or negative? Like the arguments made trying to avoid presenting evidence? Like the assertions of having evidence, but somehow not seeming to mention any of it?Cutting through the theatrics, all Rrhain has done is repeat a phrase several times, followed by statements of incredulity, and appeals to anonymous authority, and an absolute failure to actually confront the issue of evidence to support a negative position. Another 3,000 or 3,000,000 posts by people trying to impose their opinions on me is not likely to change things either. Posts by people asserting they have evidence and that I am avoiding, or denying it, while presenting none, are notable in their inability to change my opinion/s, beliefs, and knowledge of how the universe works.What will change it is evidence, objective empirical evidence, that god/s in fact do not exist or that they cannot exist.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi bluegenes, frankly it amazes me that you continue this argument. Nothing like starting with attacking the person, rather than the issue. Sorry, but your logic is weak here: having a 3 to 5 position on the supernatural does not mean that there are things not supported by actual empirical evidence - what it does mean is that positions 1 and 7 are not, and cannot be, supported.Curiously, neither I in particular, nor science in general, claims to be anything more than 2 to 6 in scope -- including, btw, a LOT of positions that are 3, 4 and 5 along the way.For instance: the basic assumption in science is that the empirical evidence acquired through experimentation and testing is in fact representative of reality. The fact is that this basic assumption in all science means that there can be no 1 or 7 positions of absolute knowledge, and it is why science is necessarily tentative, at most claiming to present the best explanation of the evidence rather than the full picture.In essence, supernatural possibilities is one of the things that forces one to be 2 to 6 in science. And you will be wasting your time and going further and further from the original topic on this thread. Let me run through a simple scenario for you:Starting with this post by Bluejay Message 168:

quote:

---

Arphy writes:

​

Also came across this in an article which which i think is an interesting point made in relation to the Tiktaalik prediction.

​

EarthHistory.org.uk writes:

​

Consequently, evolution theory predicted that the emergence of hindlimb-powered propulsion would be seen in the interval between Panderichthys and Acanthostega. Tiktaalik fails that prediction. Indeed, it was more of a ‘front-wheel drive’ animal than Panderichthys was.

​

This isn't really a quote-mine, but it's kind of related, and it really pisses me off, so I'm going to talk about it anyway.

​

Did you even think to check this claim, or did you just see it and take it at face value because you like what it says?

​

The pelvic girdle of Tiktaalik roseae is not known. Thus, there is no possible way for whoever-this-is to make the claim that Tiktaalik was "more of a front-wheel drive animal" than Panderichthys was, unless they are using the technique we scientists refer to as "lying."

---

emphasis mine.Without evidence one way or the other, any claim about the pelvic girdle of Tiktaalik is not justified by the evidence.One could claim that the lack of evidence of a pelvic girdle in Tiktaalik is evidence that there was no pelvic girdle.One could claim that people make things up (an argument creationists like to use, btw) and thus any claim that Tiktaalik had a pelvic girdle is likely made up.One could claim that any number of millions of different pelvic girdles could be proposed for Tiktaalik, and the probability of them being true is highly unlikely, so therefore it is highly unlikely that Tiktaalik had a pelvic girdle.Curiously, I don't see Bluejay in particular, or scientists in general, being impressed with any of these arguments, yet these are the same logic used in arguments advanced in the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread to support a "6" position on atheism - a position that (if I can borrow Bluejay's words) - is "using the technique we scientists refer to as "lying."In this particular case we have a 4 condition in science: we don't know, and the default position is that we don't know. First off, "overwhelming evidence" is your opinion of the evidence, not actual objective empirical evidence - no supporting objective empirical evidence of this claim has been presented yet, second -- even assuming that it does indeed support your "figments of the human imagination" -- it does not rule out god/s existing. Sorry, but what it proves is that you don't know, or you cannot know. Any claim of likeliness\unlikliness is opinion, not evidenced based conclusion.Remember that pretending to know something that is not shown by the actual empirical evidence is (borrowing Bluejay's words again) - "using the technique we scientists refer to as "lying."Now let's apply this to your latest silly scenario: What you seem to fail to realize, is that you have confused your opinion on supernatural things with a 6 position justified with evidence, and then you have confused that position with my having to have anything other than an opinion on them.On the issue of christianity in general and christ in particular, I am agnostic. My conclusions based on my opinions and beliefs about god/s are more generic than specific, and this means that I can view all these claims as different aspects of the same general essence/s.I do believe that people can embrace good or evil or "make deals with the devil" to try to obtain an overall good through an evil act (Cheney comes to mind). I do believe that people in power are corrupted by power, and I am disappointed in Barak over several things, mostly gitmo and continuing bailouts of big companies, but I'm happy to see his efforts on healthcare and on providing economic incentives to the bottom of the economic chain.Now for me to address the issue of "antichrist" first I would have to assume that such exist, rather than be agnostic on it, and then I would have to assume that this would occur in my lifetime, and finally I would have to assume that I - ignorant as I am about christianity in general and the antichrist in particular - would be able to identify this specific incarnation of supernatural forces without the rest of the world already knowing. My understanding, such as it is, is that such incarnation is undetectable by the common person, especially any person who is not a christian.Fascinatingly, I conclude that I cannot know whether this is true or not, given this information, and that for me to comment otherwise would be (borrowing Bluejay's words once more) - "using the technique we scientists refer to as "lying."Meanwhile I am still perfectly capable of offering my opinion on the matter, and my opinion is that, while no saint, Barak is still better than Cheney and cohort/s.In the future, see if you can apply this simple metric:

• Opinion: good for positions 3 to 5
• Objective evidence supported conclusion: good for positions 2 to 6
• Absence of objective empirical evidence pro or con: only good enough for opinion.

Apply this to any future scenarios your want to try, and see what results you get - who knows, you may learn, or at least understand, better, how I think about these things. Message 1

quote:

---

Recently I've been thinking a lot about the idea of Faith and Skepticism, and about their relevance in determining Truth. To me, the biggest difference between faith and skepticism is that faith relies on a number of preconceptions, while skepticism seeks to eliminate preconceptions by considering several possibilities in a debate.

​

The epitome of a faith-based approach is one that holds that it knows the truth from the onset, while the epitome of a skeptic will question everything.
...
My question is: How do you argue a faith-based approach to Truth? Those of you who believe the Genesis account is true on account of faith, why do you think your faith is better than a faith in reason and logic, and material evidence?

---

Originally framed in the context of biblical faith. Message 46

quote:

---

I'm referring to the belief in an entity or event that is held a priori, or, where the holder of said belief does not require any form of evidence in favour of his/her belief.

---

Curiously, this applies to any a priori opinions and beliefs that are not supported by evidence.Perhaps people need to be more skeptical of the atheist "6" position/s?Message to Archangel Message 64 of EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:: Note that I am agnostic with an opinion that god/s may exist, and that I have seen no evidence that contradicts or invalidates this opinion.One needs to be wary of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, whether due to faith OR skepticism, and I believe one should search out, identify and neutralize a priori beliefs and opinions as much as possible. This is one of the reasons I changed from atheist to deist.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : isEdited by RAZD, : Bluejay

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Sorry Modulus, but I (still) disagree that your argument shows anything. Curiously, you don't show this to be so. Living species? Not even in the fossils.Tiktaalik roseae: Home
Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik
Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik

quote:

---

Neck
Ribs
Flat Head
Fin Skeleton
Ear Notches

---

Those fin skeleton details are the front fins. No mention at all of a pelvic girdle or pelvic fins. The fossil does not go back that far.I also googled "Tiktaalik pelvic girdle" to see if there was any new information.AiG on Tiktaalik roseae: In the Disco Institute "Research" Tradition.

quote:

---

In the article, Menton’s only claims about the anatomy of Tiktaalik relate to the pelvic fins and girdles (i.e. the hips and legs) of Tiktaalik. There is no disucssion of the skull or shoulder girdle, and only tacit reference to the fin skeleton. Menton explains in relation to fishes and tetrapods that:

(t)he hind limbs [of tetrapods] in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins.

Menton is a liar. He cannot possibly know anything about the pelvic fins of Tiktaalik. The two papers describing Tiktaalik offer absolutely no descriptions of the pelvic fin skeletons or girdle. I’ve seen the material first-hand and there are no such details of the pelvic fin.

---

emphasis mine.http://www.bio-medicine.org/...-fish-and-land-animals-3772-1

quote:

---

In 2006 the situation changed dramatically with the discovery of an almost perfectly intermediate fish-tetrapod, tiktaalik, but even so a gap remained between this animal and the earliest true tetrapods (animals with limbs rather than paired fins). Now, new fossils of the extremely primitive tetrapod Ventastega from the Devonian of Latvia cast light on this key phase of the transition.

​

"Ventastega was first described from fragmentary material in 1994; since then, excavations have produced lots of new superbly preserved fossils, allowing us to reconstruct the whole head, shoulder girdle and part of the pelvis", says Professor Per Ahlberg at the Department of Physiology and Developmental Biology, Uppsala University.

​

The recontructions made by Professor Ahlberg and Assistant Professor Henning Blom together with British and Latvian colleagues show that Ventastega was more fish-like than any of its contemporaries, such as Acanthostega. The shape of its skull, and the pattern of teeth in its jaws, are neatly intermediate between those of tiktaalik and Acanthostega.

​

"However, the shoulder girdle and pelvis are almost identical to those of Acanthostega, and the shoulder girdle is quite different from that of tiktaalik (the pelvis of tiktaalik is unknown), suggesting that the transformation from paired fins to limbs had already occurred. It appears that different parts of the body evolved at different speeds during the transition from water to land", says Per Ahlberg.

---

This matches what Bluejay said. We don't have evidence from Tiktaalik for the back part of the organism, including pelvis, girdle rear fins or tail.However, this is irrelevant to the argument: the argument is that without evidence what we can say is that we don't know, and that anything else is pretending. Frankly, Modulus, I am astounded that you keep making this poor argument, as obviously you have not understood my points at all. The issue is not whether the pelvis has been, or can be, properly described, from the information available, but whether it exists. All of which just shows that you have a poor explanation, not that the pelvis\god/s\whatever do not, or cannot, exist.The point of the Tiktaalik analogy is that it should be relatively obvious that concluding that there is no pelvis, (or girdle or fins or tail ...) is not justified by having a poor description of what they may be like when found.Now if your argument is only concerned with how good the description is, then it doesn't answer the question of whether god/s exist or not, nor does it provide any evidence on which to conclude a negative hypothesis that god/s do not, or cannot, exist.We can obviously make some assumptions about what Tiktaalik's pelvis, (or girdle or fins or tail ...) could look like from the closely related species before and after the time of Tiktaalik, but that is opinion based on assumptions and the likelihood of the description being correct is low, as you have claimed, while the likelihood of the pelvis (or girdle or fins or tail ....) having existed (and perhaps evidenced in other as yet unfound fossil specimens) is much much much higher.That is what you have not addressed.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Peg, nice to see you back (we seem to be swamped with incredulous atheists at the moment), so let's get back to the topic. I hope you had a good week, alas for me it was h... ah ... extremely uncomfortable (chemo), but getting better. I've known some JW people, but not well, and certainly not introduced to their beliefs, which leaves me with secondary sources that could be full of falsehoods and me none the wiser. That was my impression from other sources (some jewish friends and previous debates). Interesting. In this case meaning the bible where hell is an unconscious dark silent eternity. It seems to me that this approach is heavily dependent on interpretations and cross-referencing.What do you do when there is disagreement between (a) two different parts of the bible, or (b) two different scholars about the interpretation/s?How is conflict resolved?In science we resolve conflict by testing the conflicting concepts against evidence, to see if one can be invalidated by new evidence that shows that the concept is invalid. While this cannot be done for all concepts, and on some others we are waiting for the evidence to come in, it is a piecemeal process that gradually over time seems to draw closer and closer to a valid picture of reality. My view, as a deist, is that the best way to come to know about god/s or creation is to study the product, the "collected works" as it were.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •