Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conclusion vs Presupposition
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 61 of 94 (445651)
01-03-2008 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by LucyTheApe
01-03-2008 7:49 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
it is my personal belief that evolution is true, but that the starting point is not singular.
evolutionist know that evolution is like a tree, and each change as something evolves is like a new branch in that tree.
but the fault, in my opinion is that evolutionists are digging through a forest, not a single tree.
and current evidence supports that.
in my cat is a cat suggestion, I'm not saying that the first cat resembled anything similar to what a cat is now, but that in the tree of the cat, the starting point of the "cat was still a cat even if they don't look anything alike.
and that ill assert that evolution if it was a finished science with all evidence it would still not prove God does not exist, but perhaps would only have to conclude; (if ALL evidence was found and finished even the starting point of biological "explosion" as i would call it), that God is.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 7:49 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 62 of 94 (445654)
01-03-2008 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by LucyTheApe
01-03-2008 7:49 AM


Only one part that MIGHT be on topic.
Creationists believe there was no life on earth before God created it, then they work forward.
Okay, that is a presupposition.
Evolutionists believe there already was life and then they work backwards.
Sorry but that is a false statement.
Looking at it honestly, here is what is seen:
  • we see that life exists today.
  • there are fossils found buried in the ground that show that life existed in the past.
  • looking at some of the deepest, oldest rocks we find no evidence of life.
  • we see that life forms have changed from very simple to more complex.
  • we see that certain lifeforms appear to show gradual changes over time.
Based on those facts, what can be concluded?
Well the conclusion (note: not a presupposition) is that there was a time when there was no life on earth and that since then life has evolved.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 7:49 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 11:07 AM jar has replied
 Message 79 by Beretta, posted 01-04-2008 5:29 AM jar has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 63 of 94 (445656)
01-03-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Beretta
01-03-2008 8:21 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Actually not what? What's your story?
"Actually not" as in, evolution does not propose that "purely natural processes produced life from inanimate chemicals that somehow organized themselves" as you stated. That would be a poor description of Abiogenesis - and while even that description is misleading and inaccurate, it has literally nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution only speaks about the changes in life forms over time. it has nothing to do with how life formed in the first place.
What!? It is incredible that you can believe it requires no further explanation than the age old 'evolution did it'.
Your incredulity doesn't make an argument false - especially when you don't even comprehend what you're arguing against. Though your projection is amusing - Evolution is a process. The Theory that describes that process goes into minute detail regarding how and why life forms change over generations. "God did it" is the explanation that explains nothing, Baretta. Its like saying "Joe fixed my car." You have said nothing about what Joe did to fix the car, you just know that it's fixed now and that you're attributing that fact to Joe. The Theory of Evolution is more like giving the exact, step by step process that best fits how the car was fixed.
It exists so evolution must have done it -beyond that we have no idea how, just the faith that it is the answer to every question -no further proposals required.Put the word 'gribbleflix' in for 'evolution' and gribbleflix did everything -no questions please.
Again with the projection. You're comparing science to "It exists so God did it, no questions please." Evidence goes much farther than blanket "just-so" statements of faith.
Of course, that would be my lack of understanding or perhaps an outright creationist lie but let us not admit that there is anything wrong with the evolution philosophy.
Evolution isn't a philosophy. It's a scientific Theory that accurately describes the observed changes in life forms over generations. If you can actually show an inaccuracy regarding the Theory of Evolution, if you can provide evidence that specifically contradicts it, we'll admit that the current Theory is wrong - and we'll make a new Theory (which could be a modified version of Evolution, or something new entirely, depending on what the new evidence is) so that we once again have an accurate model of the observed processes of nature. Until then...Baretta, you've been operating entirely on blanket statements with no evidence and horrendous misrepresentations about Evolution and the processes it involves. Please, go and learn about Evolution so that, if you still choose to argue against it, you can argue against the real Theory rather than the made up inaccuracies and strawmen you've argued against so far.
Well it is certainly not my opinion alone, I have loads of company and things will actually continue to run down not progress regardless of your opinions or conclusions.
Once you see it for what it is, you will be venturing closer to the truth that you live in denial of.
Argument from popularity? News flash, Baretta: the majority of human beings are woefully uneducated. What percentage of the world population, do you think, has even a 3rd grade level education? Is being on the "majority" side really that impressive if the majority can't even understand long division, and thinks a double-bond is related to a 007 movie?

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Beretta, posted 01-03-2008 8:21 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by AdminNosy, posted 01-03-2008 11:17 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 75 by Beretta, posted 01-04-2008 3:51 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 64 of 94 (445657)
01-03-2008 10:49 AM


Topic Folk Please.
In Message 1 I present three examples and ask about whether or not we are using presuppositions or arriving at inescapable conclusions. From the OP:
One allegation often made by ID supporters and Biblical Creationists is that what the evidence shows us is a matter of world view and that Evolutionists interpret things based on some presupposition of great age, and old earth.
I would like to discuss that and see if it can be defended, or if as most Evolution supporters claim, their position is an inescapable conclusion instead.
I would like to point to several recent examples as support of my position. ... Examples listed ...
It ends with "The question is, where are the alleged presuppositions?"
That is the topic folk.
Can we head in that general direction?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Beretta, posted 01-04-2008 3:55 AM jar has replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 94 (445663)
01-03-2008 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
01-03-2008 10:34 AM


Re: Only one part that MIGHT be on topic.
jar writes:
  1. we see that life exists today.
  2. there are fossils found buried in the ground that show that life existed in the past.
  3. looking at some of the deepest, oldest rocks we find no evidence of life.
  4. we see that life forms have changed from very simple to more complex.
  5. we see that certain lifeforms appear to show gradual changes over time.

Based on those facts, what can be concluded?
Well for a start I can conclude that you obviously presuppose that life can be and was simple. And then you call it a fact.
And also that apparitions are facts. But of course these are not supernatural apparitions, they've been conjured up by human magicians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 10:34 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 11:23 AM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 68 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2008 11:29 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 66 of 94 (445666)
01-03-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Rahvin
01-03-2008 10:42 AM


T o p i c ! For All
The topic of this thread is reasonably narrowly defined.
Please work hard to stick to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2008 10:42 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 67 of 94 (445669)
01-03-2008 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by LucyTheApe
01-03-2008 11:07 AM


Re: Only one part that MIGHT be on topic.
Well for a start I can conclude that you obviously presuppose that life can be and was simple. And then you call it a fact.
You might conclude that but you would be wrong.
The fact is that what is seen is a period when all we see are the indications of very simple life forms, for example traces left by cyanobacteria or Vendian-type body fossils soft bodied critters. Notice I said Vendian-type. There is a reason for that. Right now we are still unsure of just what such critters were; some seem to be almost like worms, others almost like soft bodied editions of the arthropods.
The designation of such critters as simple refers to the facts that the indications do not show hard bodies or the complexity of later organisms.
What we do know is that we find layers where all we see is such critters, and higher up we find layers where similar critters are mixed in with hard bodied critters.
Where are the presuppositions?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 11:07 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 11:53 AM jar has replied
 Message 77 by Beretta, posted 01-04-2008 4:46 AM jar has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 68 of 94 (445673)
01-03-2008 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by LucyTheApe
01-03-2008 11:07 AM


Re: Only one part that MIGHT be on topic.
Well for a start I can conclude that you obviously presuppose that life can be and was simple. And then you call it a fact.
Considering that we can actually see and understand examples of simple forms of life (simple in this context meaning "simpler than multicellular life")...that's a pretty reasonable conclusion.
And also that apparitions are facts. But of course these are not supernatural apparitions, they've been conjured up by human magicians.
Im sorry...what?

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 11:07 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Beretta, posted 01-04-2008 5:39 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 94 (445684)
01-03-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by jar
01-03-2008 11:23 AM


Re: Only one part that MIGHT be on topic.
jar writes:
Where are the presuppositions?
Evolutionist presuppositions:
  1. The theory of evolution is infallible
  2. The first mutation is not their problem it's someone elses
  3. The accuracy of dating techniques is someone elses problem
  4. Nothing outside of an evolutionists observation is or can be real
  5. There is no God, matter came into existence because of a loud noise

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 11:23 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 12:08 PM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 71 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2008 12:11 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 70 of 94 (445685)
01-03-2008 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by LucyTheApe
01-03-2008 11:53 AM


Re: Only one part that MIGHT be on topic.
# The theory of evolution is infallible
Actually, over time problems with both the Theory itself and with conclusions drawn from it have happened. Based on new evidence both the theory and conclusions have changed. Therefore YOUR presupposition is shown to be false.
The first mutation is not their problem it's someone elses
Huh? Evolution deals with life and how it has changed over time.
The accuracy of dating techniques is someone elses problem
The accuracy of dating is constantly challenged and as capabilities have improved, available methods and reliability have increased. Dating is a matter of conclusions based on available information. There is no presupposition there.
Nothing outside of an evolutionists observation is or can be real
Huh? Sorry but that is simply nonsense.
There is no God, matter came into existence because of a loud noise
Sorry but more bullshit. I happen to believe in GOD and am also a Christian. That is totally unrelated to any of the issues or examples outlined in Message 1.
So basically, you have posted a bunch of YOUR presuppositions, none of which are borne out by the facts.
Once again, please look at Message 1. Other than the three basic assumptions described and explained in Message 5, where are the presuppositions?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 11:53 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 1:03 PM jar has replied
 Message 82 by Beretta, posted 01-04-2008 7:13 AM jar has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 71 of 94 (445686)
01-03-2008 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by LucyTheApe
01-03-2008 11:53 AM


Re: Only one part that MIGHT be on topic.
# The theory of evolution is infallible
Nobody says that. The Theory of Evolution has bee modified many times to account for new data. That's what science does. The only ones insisting on infallibility are Creationists with regard to the bible.
The first mutation is not their problem it's someone elses
What? I dont think you understand what a mutation is. Mutations are simply errors in the copying of a DNA (or RNA) sequence. They happen all the time - you even have some mutations of your own. The "first mutation" would have occurred when the first life form self-replicated, but didn't copy perfectly.
The accuracy of dating techniques is someone elses problem
What? Radiometric dating (I assume this is what you're talking about) is an entirely seperate subject from the Theory of Evolution, though radioactive decay is very well understood and extremely predictable.
Nothing outside of an evolutionists observation is or can be real
Not true. We discover new things all the time, so clearly things that have not yet been observed CAN be real. And this isn't "evolutionists" we're talking about - rational people of all types work under the "presupposition" that we assume a thing does not exist until we see evidence that it does. It's the same reason nobody seriously assumes that there is an invisible dragon perched on your shoulder.
There is no God, matter came into existence because of a loud noise
Jar is a Christian, and believes in both evolution and god. Evolution also has nothing to do with Big Bang cosmology.
I dont see evolutionists making presuppositions, Lucy. I see you making presuppositions about evolution, without even reading about what it actually says.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 11:53 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 94 (445698)
01-03-2008 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by jar
01-03-2008 12:08 PM


Re: Only one part that MIGHT be on topic.
  1. The theory of evolution is infallible

  2. The theory remains no matter how much it evolves itself. In other words evolution is the be all and end all of explaining life. (once it's actually going) No other theory can explain life. That is a supposition.
  3. The first mutation is not their problem it's someone elses

  4. It's not up to the evolutionist to explain the origin of the first life form. (Although I bet you'd have it under your umbrella if it could be proven). Life itself is a presupposition as far as the evolutionist is concerned.
  5. The accuracy of dating techniques is someone elses problem
  6. The presupposition here is that the evolutionist is not expected to confirm dates, they're supplied for them and the evolutionist accept them.
  7. Nothing outside of an evolutionists observation is or can be real

  8. This is exactly the same presupposition as No 1 on Your list.
  9. There is no God, matter came into existence because of a loud noise
  10. Evolutionists presuppose that matter existed, It is not up to them to prove it. It's just taken for granted because the astronomers told them. And it fits their agenda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 12:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 1:18 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 01-03-2008 1:33 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 73 of 94 (445702)
01-03-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by LucyTheApe
01-03-2008 1:03 PM


Re: Only one part that MIGHT be on topic.
The theory remains no matter how much it evolves itself. In other words evolution is the be all and end all of explaining life. (once it's actually going) No other theory can explain life. That is a supposition.
No. It is not a supposition. The fact is so far the Theory of Evolution has been able to explain what is seen. It is based on conclusions, please read Origin of the Species to see the beginnings including the steps that led to a conclusion.
Since the first publication, other ideas, theories and methods of approach (for example the whole field of genetics has since been developed and guess what, it has supported earlier conclusions) have come along and been incorporated to help the explanation.
It's not up to the evolutionist to explain the origin of the first life form. (Although I bet you'd have it under your umbrella if it could be proven). Life itself is a presupposition as far as the evolutionist is concerned.
Ah, no it is not a supposition. We can see life. We can see evidence that once there was no life. Therefore the conclusion (not supposition ) is that life current exists and that it had an origin.
The presupposition here is that the evolutionist is not expected to confirm dates, they're supplied for them and the evolutionist accept them
Sorry but again that is simply bullshit.
Evolutionists presuppose that matter existed, It is not up to them to prove it. It's just taken for granted because the astronomers told them. And it fits their agenda.
Still just bullshit. We can observe that matter exists, it is a conclusion, not a supposition.
Once again, in Message 1 I outlined three examples. Other than the basic assumptions discussed in Message 5, what presuppositions are involved?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 1:03 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 74 of 94 (445709)
01-03-2008 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by LucyTheApe
01-03-2008 1:03 PM


Re: Only one part that MIGHT be on topic.
The theory remains no matter how much it evolves itself. In other words evolution is the be all and end all of explaining life. (once it's actually going) No other theory can explain life. That is a supposition.
That the theory of evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of life is a conclusion, not a presupposition. It might be an untrue conclusion, but it is certainly a conclusion.
It's not up to the evolutionist to explain the origin of the first life form. (Although I bet you'd have it under your umbrella if it could be proven). Life itself is a presupposition as far as the evolutionist is concerned.
Depends what you mean by 'evolutionist'. The origin of life is certainly studied by biologists and chemists who almost universally accept the theory of evolution. Maybe, the theory of evolution will one day be seen as an explanation for the origin of life or maybe the theory of evolution will include it once it is discovered.
At this time, the theory of evolution doesn't pretend it holds all of the answers regarding life, only some of the answers about how life evolves (hence the name).
The presupposition here is that the evolutionist is not expected to confirm dates, they're supplied for them and the evolutionist accept them.
False. Some evolutionary biologists do work on 'molecular clocks'. These clocks are calibrated using one date provided by geologists, and can then be used and compared with other dates geologists have provided. Examining DNA in this way has provided some significant correlations regarding the length of time to common ancestry with the dates provided for said common ancestors by palaeontologists/geologists.
Nothing outside of an evolutionists observation is or can be real
Then why investigate anything? Sometimes things are beyond our investigation now, but some new technique may reveal it to be. This is different from the assumption of naturalism. If that was all you were saying then it applies to all scientists who assume naturalism in order to engage in methodological naturalism (science).
However, one doesn't need to be naturalist (as opposed to supernaturalist) to be a scientist. Supernaturalists can still arrive at the conclusion of evolution so the presupposition even then is not required.
Evolutionists presuppose that matter existed, It is not up to them to prove it. It's just taken for granted because the astronomers told them. And it fits their agenda.
All proponents of all scientific theories assume that the entity they are explaining exists. Why would we try and explain gravity without first assuming it exists? There are several theories that exist to describe elements of our universe before matter existed, but germists (proponents of the germ theory of disease) and atomists (atomic theory proponents) both assume matter exists in order to explain what they seek to explain.
This isn't really a presupposition, it's an observation. The presupposition is that we can trust our observations of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 1:03 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 75 of 94 (445841)
01-04-2008 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Rahvin
01-03-2008 10:42 AM


Abiogenesis as part of evolution
Hello Rahvin
(Abiogenesis) - has literally nothing to do with Evolution.
Not according to science textbooks where the EVOLUTION section always includes a section on how life began (according to scientific naturalism beliefs)- the primordial soup, the Urey Miller experiement etc.
Evolution only speaks about the changes in life forms over time. it has nothing to do with how life formed in the first place.
No it defines itself as as change over time but slips in all those changes that are assumed but not proven. Of course any theory of life would be incomplete without a beginning. You can't propose common ancestry without a beginning -where did the first primitive organisms come from? That has to be part of what evolution entails.
So we have the scientific observable parts and the philosophical assumed parts and all are presented in bio textbooks as fact when in fact the real facts constitute only a portion of what is taught as fact.
Your incredulity doesn't make an argument false
Yes but your blind faith doesn't make it true either.
especially when you don't even comprehend what you're arguing against.
Sadly I do fully comprehend but you assume that I do not comprehend because I don't happen to believe it. That is a common accusation of evolutionists towards anyone who does not believe in evolution as presented by 'science' as fact. You can't possibly understand it if you do not believe it.
"God did it" is the explanation that explains nothing, Baretta.
Unfortunately 'evolution did it' is not a good explanation either.
Evolution isn't a philosophy. It's a scientific Theory that accurately describes the observed changes in life forms over generations
Up to a point it is accurate until the imaginative part comes in -then it becomes naturalistic philosophy -no need for any intelligent help -time and chance are the magical ingredients working on nature -which is all there is.Nobody has a problem with the observable part, its the imaginative part that is in doubt.
The Theory of Evolution is more like giving the exact, step by step process that best fits how the car was fixed.
Unless it loses its way and starts to describe 'the best guess under the circumstances' as the fact of the matter.
the majority of human beings are woefully uneducated.
So whatever the majority believes is false because they are woefully uneducated? I'm not talking about the woefully uneducated. In any case anyone who does not believe in the theory of evolution in its fullest sense would be woefully uneducated in your eyes.
Scientists who believe in the theory of evolution in its fullest sense and call it fact are woefully indoctrinated into a philosophical doctrine called naturalism.If the facts don't fit then make them fit by sommonsing up a new and interesting story on why the non-fitting facts actually do fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2008 10:42 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024