Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 8:15 AM
26 online now:
caffeine, Hyroglyphx, RAZD, Stile, Theodoric (5 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,845 Year: 9,881/19,786 Month: 2,303/2,119 Week: 339/724 Day: 2/62 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
key2god
Junior Member (Idle past 3992 days)
Posts: 4
From: USA
Joined: 04-22-2008


Message 271 of 326 (463985)
04-22-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by tesla
03-13-2008 1:33 AM


Re: defining faith

Acknowledging the absolute truth
Heaven, God our Father in Heaven and
His Son Jesus are real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by tesla, posted 03-13-2008 1:33 AM tesla has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by AdminNosy, posted 04-22-2008 1:16 PM key2god has not yet responded

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


Message 272 of 326 (463988)
04-22-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by key2god
04-22-2008 1:02 PM


A short suspension to get your attention
You will have to read over more carefully the topics you are posting to. I'll give you a four hour suspension to allow you time to do that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by key2god, posted 04-22-2008 1:02 PM key2god has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 64 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 273 of 326 (463993)
04-22-2008 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by 1071
04-22-2008 11:58 AM


Re: defining faith
antiLIE writes:

I wasn't the one nitpicking the words and arguing semantics, that was Granny Magda.

Don't try childish games with me sunshine. It doesn't make you look as clever as you seem to think it does. If you were interested in arguing anything of substance you would have addressed the points I made in Message 257 instead of only answering an aside. You say;

antiLIE writes:

I have never claimed not to be creationist.

You certainly suggest it here in Message 250.

antiLIE writes:

Evolution and Creation are both something that you can not observe and study in a lab. They are both the study of Origins.

The problem I have is when they (both sides) try to make it seem like their opinion on Origin, is science. I propose that neither are science. But both use science to try and prove their dogma.

The implication of the section I have bolded is pretty clear. You are seeking to portray yourself as being on neither "side", thus not a creationist. How's that for semantics?

Of course, if at any point you actually feel like discussing anything related to the topic, you might start by answering my point about tiktaalik and explaining how anything about its discovery is based on faith or dogma.


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 11:58 AM 1071 has not yet responded

  
1071
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 274 of 326 (464244)
04-24-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Granny Magda
04-22-2008 10:26 AM


Answering Granny Magda
First. the remains of the Tiktaalik [intermediate form between sea and land animals] that was found, consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin. Some think it is an intermediate form because similarities to both fish and tetrapods. it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet". For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. [c&p: http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Tiktaalik ]

Second,

granny magada Message 257 writes:

It is interesting that you claim not to be a creationist, but you employ familiar creationist strawmen, like "macroevolution", not a term that scientists tend to use.


I would like to point out to every one what a Straw Man fallacy in the art of debate is because I see the term flung about more than it should be in these forums.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.
[c&p: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html ]

Okay, now you said "macroevolution, not a term that scientists tend to use." ... Indeed it is. I do not like this term, I just use it because Biology books call it that. This is NOT a straw man by any means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Also Talk Origins [dot] org claims that Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Edited by antiLIE, : added more nifty links *smile*

Edited by antiLIE, : i misspelled a word.. oops


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2008 10:26 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 11:28 AM 1071 has responded
 Message 302 by Granny Magda, posted 04-24-2008 8:22 PM 1071 has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 275 of 326 (464245)
04-24-2008 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by 1071
04-24-2008 10:37 AM


Re: Answering Granny Magda
LIAR writes:

Okay, now you said "macroevolution, not a term that scientists tend to use." ... Indeed it is. I do not like this term, I just use it because Biology books call it that. This is NOT a straw man by any means.


For the last time, the reason it is a strawman whenever you guys use it is because you're using it to mean something completely different than what science text books use it for.

When science text books use the term, they are using it to refer to many many many tiny little changes in a population over a very long time added together. When you guys use the word, you want to give the impression that "macroevolution" means a dolphin morphs into a shark or a croc morphs into a crocoduck and into a duck. That's why it's a strawman everytime you guys use the term.

In fact, just the other day I talked to someone just like you. He insisted that the theory of evolution stated that some time in the past a crocodile decided to morph into a duck and that's why evolution is silly. When I confronted him on it, he pointed out that science text books use the word "macroevolution" all the time.

Isn't there a commandment that says thou shalt not lie or else thy god shalt pwnz thee?

Stop purposely misusing the word. It's annoying as hell.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 10:37 AM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 11:40 AM Taz has responded

1071
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 276 of 326 (464247)
04-24-2008 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Taz
04-24-2008 11:28 AM


Re: Answering Granny Magda
Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs.

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale. This understanding is disputed by some biologists, who claim that there may be macroevolutionary processes that cannot be described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics.


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 11:28 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 11:49 AM 1071 has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 277 of 326 (464248)
04-24-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by 1071
04-24-2008 11:40 AM


Re: Answering Granny Magda
And thus you just demonstrated my point exactly. You know what science text books meant when they use the word "macroevolution". And yet you continue to use the word to imply a croc morphing into a duck. This is using a strawman because you know damn well that the general public have absolutely no clue what "macroevolution" really means and so everytime you people use the word they will automatically assume we're talking about a croc morphing into a duck or a dog morphing into a snake. Even if you don't say outright what the lie is, this is bearing false witness because you're using advantage of people's ignorance.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 11:40 AM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 11:56 AM Taz has responded

1071
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 278 of 326 (464250)
04-24-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Taz
04-24-2008 11:49 AM


Re: Answering Granny Magda
wikipedia.org writes:

An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs.

How is this not crock to duck ideology?


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 11:49 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 12:24 PM 1071 has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 279 of 326 (464252)
04-24-2008 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by 1071
04-24-2008 11:56 AM


Re: Answering Granny Magda
antiLIE writes:

How is this not crock to duck ideology?


They didn't use the word "appearance" to mean feathers started popping up in a population. This is like trying to portray the theory of walking as saying I could take a step forward and I've gone from New York to Austin, Texas. That's what you're doing. You're trying to discredit a theory by using a strawman and language ambiguity. The word "appearance" in there doesn't mean feathers started popping up on an individual in a generation.

You are playing that semantic game again.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 11:56 AM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by seekingthetruth, posted 04-24-2008 12:27 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 281 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 12:37 PM Taz has not yet responded

seekingthetruth
Junior Member (Idle past 3989 days)
Posts: 23
From: Austin, Texas
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 280 of 326 (464253)
04-24-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Taz
04-24-2008 12:24 PM


Re: Answering Granny Magda
You sir are the one playing word games. What else could the word appearance mean?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 12:24 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by bluegenes, posted 04-24-2008 12:59 PM seekingthetruth has not yet responded

  
1071
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 281 of 326 (464254)
04-24-2008 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Taz
04-24-2008 12:24 PM


Re: Answering Granny Magda
talkorigins.org writes:


In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

I am not misusing the word nor am I setting up a straw man and taking advantage of people's ignorance.. I am not in a semantic battle. I am not the one with the problem with the definition of the word. This is a typical Red herring fallacy in the art of debate:

RED HERRING: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.)

It is not fallacious, however, to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind. In the example given, concern about providing shelter for the poor would not refute concerns about crime, but one could plausibly argue that a somewhat higher level of crime is a justifiable price given the need to alleviate poverty. This is a debatable point of view, but it is no longer a fallacious one.

The term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary tactic, such as presenting relatively unimportant arguments that will use up the other debaters' speaking time and distract them from more important issues. This kind of a red herring is a wonderful strategic maneuver with which every debater should be familiar.


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 12:24 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Vacate, posted 04-24-2008 1:04 PM 1071 has responded
 Message 285 by bluegenes, posted 04-24-2008 1:11 PM 1071 has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 651 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 282 of 326 (464257)
04-24-2008 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by seekingthetruth
04-24-2008 12:27 PM


seekingfurtherdelusion writes:

You sir are the one playing word games. What else could the word appearance mean?

You, sir, are the one with limited understanding of language. "Appearance" implies neither sudden nor gradual coming into view, but can mean either. So, what else other than sudden? Gradual.

You won't find a definition of the word with a time limit on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by seekingthetruth, posted 04-24-2008 12:27 PM seekingthetruth has not yet responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2774 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 283 of 326 (464258)
04-24-2008 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by 1071
04-24-2008 12:37 PM


Re: Answering antiLIE
antiLIE writes:

I am not misusing the word nor am I setting up a straw man and taking advantage of people's ignorance.

Yes you are. You where told:

Taz writes:

When science text books use the term, they are using it to refer to many many many tiny little changes in a population over a very long time added together.

You even posted:

antiLIE writes:

macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale

Yet you still are found to be promoting a strawman when saying rubbish like this:

antiLIE writes:

How is this not crock to duck ideology?

For a croc to turn into a duck, or the sudden appearance of feathers you are leaving out the "time" factor of macroevolution and the compounded effects of microevolution. This is a misuse of the word and a total setup to agrue a strawman.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 12:37 PM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by seekingthetruth, posted 04-24-2008 1:10 PM Vacate has not yet responded
 Message 287 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 1:21 PM Vacate has responded

seekingthetruth
Junior Member (Idle past 3989 days)
Posts: 23
From: Austin, Texas
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 284 of 326 (464261)
04-24-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Vacate
04-24-2008 1:04 PM


Re: Answering antiLIE
Vacate writes:

For a croc to turn into a duck, or the sudden appearance of feathers you are leaving out the "time" factor of macroevolution and the compounded effects of microevolution. This is a misuse of the word and a total setup to agrue a strawman.

Even if it takes a billion years to happen, you are still claiming a croc can turn into a duck. That is the whole point of this argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Vacate, posted 04-24-2008 1:04 PM Vacate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by molbiogirl, posted 04-24-2008 1:14 PM seekingthetruth has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 651 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 285 of 326 (464262)
04-24-2008 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by 1071
04-24-2008 12:37 PM


antiLIE writes:

I am not misusing the word nor am I setting up a straw man and taking advantage of people's ignorance..

I haven't looked at all the ways you've used the word, but I do remember you claiming that Macroevolution can't be observed. By the TalkOrigins definition you've given, it can be directly observed, and it can certainly be indirectly observed.

In relation to the topic of this thread, are you trying to argue (or hint) that belief in macroevolution is based on faith, rather than observation and evidence, or have I got it wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by 1071, posted 04-24-2008 12:37 PM 1071 has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019