|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3882 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Peg,
This:
I wasnt trying to pretend anything. He is clearly saying that he sees 'design' in nature. Isnt that what ID proponents say too? There is design in nature and therefore there must be a designer?? Is entirely at odds with the context of his quote when given in full. Either do not quote mine (I know, it's tempting, but you're a christian and should be able to resist) or make damned sure that the quote you are using to prove a point is a) In Contextb) Reliable c) From a reputable/known source Your quote-mine of Sagan fails on points a) and b) because it wasn't in context and (being unfairly snipped to change it's meaning) wasn't reliable. You may not have meant to change it's meaning or pretend, but the quote miners did - and you DID inherit their "crime".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Okay - is that one species that relates to birds?
I was hoping for a progression of species clearly outlining a lineage in part or full. Not particularly interest one species and an argument of relation based on similar morphology. Afterall, humans have eyes, and monkeys have eyes, but what would really convince me on a personal level, is a progression from a dinosaur to a bird, represented in many species. I believe it's fair to expect a few species, where we should expect hundreds. So - on a personal level, this doesn't satisfy me much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
That period was caused mainly by personal doubt rather than intellectual compromise. But obviously if beliefs change, reasonings do.
But I never had answers concerning the bible, because like many atheists, I jumped to conclusions about bible, "nasties", without looking for an explanation. I went for the syntax-level interpretation because I didn't understand the old testament at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
There are logical reasons as to why I would "qualify" a transitional.
This doesn't mean that a species is a transitional. It means that for the purposes of being fair in debate, I will "allow" that something must be "able" to be a transitional. For example, if the homo genus doesn't have transitionals, what WOULD count as a transitional? Logically you CAN count them as transitionals, but that doesn't prove they are transitionals, logically. It takes some discerning thought. If you see a waxwork of me photographed from afar, and me photographed from afar, you might count that waxwork as human, afterall, if the photograph is all you will ever have, then for all purposes, you can conclude it is a human, if it LOOKS as you would expect it to. if we take a mummy of a human, and then look at me, we don't see an evolutionary transition. If we take a fossil of a frog, and a real frog, we don't see an evolutionary transition. If we take a real frog, and show a progression of frog-like species that lead "to" frogs and "from" another family, then you have CERTAINLY SHOWN a transition. Because of the logical problem of identification, one can't know if a transitional species, actually was part of a lineage. Even if you discount ONE previously accepted transitional, what are you saying logically? You are saying that even though the organism qualified as transitional, it could be defeated as an evidence very easily, because of the "belief" or JTB that it was a transitional. If the claim is evolution, then the evidence must be great, because the claim is very great. The evidence, to me, is not great. You can have thousands of species of bird, but to me, they don't show a transition, and in real life - technically, the induction does not show a transition, it shows a variety. The vast induction shows variation. You merely would have me assume that I am a transitional, even though all of the evidence in a vast induction, shows humans becoming humans, birds becoming birds, etc... FOR ME, it is not intellectually satisfying, because I have to satisfy a need for logical coherence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I was hoping for a progression of species clearly outlining a lineage in part or full. Not particularly interest one species and an argument of relation based on similar morphology. Afterall, humans have eyes, and monkeys have eyes, but what would really convince me on a personal level, is a progression from a dinosaur to a bird, represented in many species. I believe it's fair to expect a few species, where we should expect hundreds. I don't know how you calculated that "we should expect hundreds" --- like every other creationist who makes a numerical argument, you have forgotten to show your working --- but there are certainly many known intermediate forms between your standard theropod and modern birds. Some names that come to mind are Caudipteryx, Microraptor, Anchiornis, Archaeopteryx, Confuciornis, Hesperornis, Rahona, Iberomesornis, Patagopteryx ... and so forth. There's plenty there if you can just be bothered to look 'em up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Those here who are suggesting that Sagan supports creationism or intelligent design would do well to read his book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. QFT. That's the book that first told me explicitly what logical fallicies are and how to recognise them. We have a lto to thank the good Dr Sagan for...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Hi Peg,
Are you daft? The evidence of your message is that you're incapable of comprehending simple English. Again, Sagan said:
Carl Sagan writes: The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made. Should not a supremely competent designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient designer (although not with a designer of more remote and indirect temperament). How can you read this passage and conclude, "The point of Sagan's quote was to show that he was acknowledging that the fossil record shows great design." He said, "could be consistent with," then followed it with, "But this notion is a little disconcerting" and is "inconsistent with an efficient designer." Not only is your response just an incredibly bad analysis, you must know that Sagan is on our side, not yours, so even if you had seen Sagan quoted saying, "The fossil record is clear and obvious evidence of intelligent design," an evolutionist denying evolution should have set alarm bells off in your head. Would it make sense to you if you read a Billy Graham quote denying Christ? Wouldn't it set alarm bells off in your head? Wouldn't you be suspicious of that quote? Well, in the same way you should be equally suspicious of quotes of evolutionists denying evolution. And if you're sure you have the correct quote, as is the case here with this Sagan quote, and you still think it denies evolution, then you should start questioning your own reasoning ability and English comprehension skills. Sheesh, Peg, start thinking, will you? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I found drawings mainly, of bird-like things, "bird-like" in a very vague capacity ofcourse.
I don't know their size obviously, or whether some aren't merely animals that don't exist anymore. For example, I could say that an ostrich is a transitional to a sparrow given enough time, but what is really needed is a clear progression in no uncertain terms, not just flying-dinos, as they were never in doubt. But I am open-minded, I concede that those species are interesting, but beyond coincidence? I don't see a full picture here. From their differences, there certainly isn't a progression, just a variety. And what assumption do we go with? If it's a biblical one, ALL creatures would have been there at the start, "owph", "flying things". So there's the problem of assuming a progression rather than an initial variety. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Meldinoor writes: Aside from the fact that this doesn't make sense. How do you reconcile an old-earth belief with this belief that animals narrow down their genes? If an animal's DNA degenerated within an observable time period, how come there are still functional animals left today, after millions of years? i think its called genetics distinctive traits are due to isolation of groups for long periods of time...we see it in the human population and we see it in animals. im doing a darwin and giving a theory without evidence here...im sure the salamander population was interbreeding...its genetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Percy writes: How can you read this passage and conclude, "The point of Sagan's quote was to show that he was acknowledging that the fossil record shows great design. now your being daft that was my reason for using the quote. it was to highlight that he aknowledged the design in nature even though he said the notion of design was disconcerting.
Percy writes: And if you're sure you have the correct quote, as is the case here with this Sagan quote, and you still think it denies evolution i didnt say he denied evolution, i said he he acknowledged design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
how can we look at the evidence of design, then say its all a result of slow random mutation I agree. It's more powerful than evidence though, it's factual. Design is factual because, "what makes a design?" CONSTRUCTION. Organisms are constructed at the very highest level. The more "matter" can be manipulated, the greater the construction. All organisms are made from the same matter, yet you get teeth to a jellyfish. This is because it's all about how you construct and build the "matter". The construction in organisms isn't up for debate, as that construction is factual - you can literally look at it. Kind regards, mike.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4949 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
greyseal writes: Your quote-mine of Sagan fails on points a) and b) because it wasn't in context and (being unfairly snipped to change it's meaning) wasn't reliable. if he didnt think there was design in nature, why say "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer" to me thats an acknowlegement of design even if he does believe in evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
you're correct because even if you do quote-mine, if someone clearly says something in a quote which is clear, then it's a diversionary tactic, to say, "you quote-mined".
It is a moot point that you took quotes from someone evolutionist because the evolutionist you quoted still said those things, so i agree with you.
if he didnt think there was design in nature, why say "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer" That's true, because the construction in organisms is seemingly infinite in morphological variety and genius. Usually I see evolutionists use terms such as, "genius of evolution", such as on nature documentaries. It's not fair to acknowledge the brilliance of design yet state that it doesn't favour a designer. There is no appearance of design because the construction is what makes a design. Therefore there is an appearance of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Peg,
Do you have a grudge against the English language or something?
i didnt say he denied evolution, i said he he acknowledged design. Yes, he acknowledges the theoretical possibility that the universe was designed by an incompetent moron. Is that your argument? Are you arguing that the designer was a drooling imbecile? If so, then your Sagan quote is highly apposite. If not, you are pissing into the wind. In the mean time, back at the reality ranch, here is another Carl Sagan quote;
Carl Sagan writes: You see, the religious people most of them really think this planet is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods leave well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If God didn't want Lot's wife to look back, why didn't he make her obedient, so she'd do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn't made Lot such a shithead, maybe she would've listened to him more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition. I think perhaps you should run with the Designer-as-Nincompoop hypothesis. Sagan makes a good case for it. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Peg writes: im doing a darwin and giving a theory without evidence here One of the reasons Darwin postponed the publication of his theory for so long was that he realized his theory would be received with a lot of skepticism and even hostility, given the Victorian mores of his time, and he therefore knew he had to amass a lot of evidence first. To say that he proposed a theory without evidence is more than a little unfair towards Darwin. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024