|
Author
|
Topic: Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
Message 4 of 255 (293077)
03-07-2006 5:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-07-2006 3:18 PM
|
|
Percy,
Obviously our knowledge of other evidence (and what Faith would call our preconceptions) is what leads us to not for even a second consider the fossils as flood evidence, so *we* know that we dismiss the evidence for good reason. I think there's a few things going on. Firstly, although any evidence that is consistent with a hypothesis is evidence of it, we are specifically looking for data that informs us of something that supports any given hypothesis at the expense of it's competitors. Any evidence that can be explained by multiple hypotheses isn't particularly impressive. So Faith's fossils are everywhere "evidence" is as unimpressive as evidence can get, because it is explained by trivial observation that life is global in the first place.
But how are others unfamiliar with this evidence specifically and with science generally supposed to know? As Crashfrog points out, when their evidence is challenged & reasons given. They are free to counter that, of course, but Faith's tactic is to ignore any critique & just declare she was right in the first place. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 3:18 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Robin,
I'm not so sure. Morphological and DNA evidence goes like this: if evolution is true, the morphologccal traits and DNA evidence has to be such and such. Such and such is indeed the case. But that's not the elimination of a falsification, it's a borne out prediction. The same that goes on in the rest of science.
Fossils are another matter. Evolution might be true with no found fossils but evolution cannot be true if the DNA similarities between related creatures were not as they are. The same is true if fossils are not as they are, it's exactly the same thing. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 03-08-2006 09:20 AM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 8:08 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 36 of 255 (293276)
03-08-2006 11:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 10:59 AM
|
|
robin,
That's a different kind of prediction from the sort of thing you get with evolution. Your examples were predictions of the fossil record & DNA/morphology. You said:
Evolution might be true with no found fossils but evolution cannot be true if the DNA similarities between related creatures were not as they are. My point is that the same IS as true of predictions of the fossil record. If DNA evidence wasn't consistent with evolution & that scuppered evolution, then the same holds true for the fossil record, if we are being consistent. Mark Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 10:59 AM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Purpledawn,
Faith states: The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood. Now to a basic nonscience Christian, not necessarily fundamentalist, who grew up in the church, that makes logical sense given the flood story. She has taken something that science has shown and used it to support the flood story. A point I laboured to convey, was that evidence isn't good if it is explained in other ways. For example, I have a rock in my back garden, I hypothesise that martians placed it there. Of course, it could have been the kid next door, but according to your logic, I have bona fide evidence of martians. Right?
Now sci-guy response: Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there. The first thought that came to my mind when I read that: "Hello, the mountains were already there when the flood happened, duh." So how did the flood get the fossils inside the mountains if they already existed in situ, is the obvious response. But that's an aside. This is the other explanation I talk about. The real crux of the issue is, what evidence does the flood story adequately explain that no other explanation can? Fossils in mountains clearly fails this test, so does the global existence of fossils.
Now when I asked about the mountains: I never said it was, because land is observed to rise, then we expect to find marine fossils in highlands. Their existence there is not indicative of a flood. My duh comment still comes to mind.
Why does your "Duh" come to mind? The existence of fossils in mountains isn't indicative of a flood, there is another explanation. Imagine you have two balls, one red, one blue. They both make the same sound when they roll off of the table. You put both balls on the table, close your eyes & hear a thud. This is not indicative that the red ball fell off of the table. See what I mean? Fossils in mountains does not indicate that the flood put the mountains there when there is a perfectly valid alternative explanation. We need to test between them. You obviously feel I provided a glib, off the cuff reply. But the thread topic was for flood evidence to be presented, if evidence is being presented that is explained elsewhere, then it doesn't inform us of much, unless I get to make the papers with my martians, that is. All that was required of me was to point out that an adequate evidence based explanation already existed, not falsify the flood scenario, but to nullify the presented evidence as uninformative for what it is supposed to indicate. As others have pointed out, the problem with the flood scenario is that, although it has "evidence" that is on some levels consistent with it, on many many others it is directly contradicted. In that thread Admin had stated that this sort of presentation was off-topic, so you weren't getting the other side of the story. Perhapds that's why you weren't finding the evo side convincing. Perhaps another thread where the two scenarios have their evidence presented, & see which one presents the most parsimonious explanation in terms of both its evidence & potential falsifications? In fact, you seem to be unbiased & open minded, I think it would make a great experiment. Admins? Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 03-08-2006 12:52 PM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 9:21 AM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 46 of 255 (293294)
03-08-2006 1:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
03-08-2006 6:53 AM
|
|
Re: Know Your Audience
PaulK,
...or simply have asked Faith to explain the evidence and the reasoning underlying her claims. The OP was simply a continuation & reply to a post Faith made, & rather than go OT I went to another thread. It weas not intended to be a great exposition. If it wasn't implicit in asking for an explanation in the OP, then she certainly WAS asked for explanations soon afterwards. It would have made no odds whatsoever whether I asked her for the above in the OP, or not. She's not capable of supplying. I do hold my hands up to "not the greatest OP in the world", however. I should have been far more explicit in what I wanted & why that was right, but again, when I was there was still not an ounce of sense in evidence, just denial, & that's not my fault, Paul. The main problem with the thread wasn't the OP, it was Faith. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2006 6:53 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 48 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 1:07 PM | | mark24 has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
robin,
But what's important about the fossils is that you actually see snapshots or sculptures of transitionals. That's positive evidence. You don't get that with DNA/morphology. But you do. A DNA sequence is genealogical snapshot. Morphology the same. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 12:59 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 62 of 255 (293320)
03-08-2006 1:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
03-08-2006 1:53 PM
|
|
Re: Seeking Evolution's 2LOT
Percy, What about, "& you only find marine OR terrestrial fauna in specific fossiliferous strata". OK, lacustrine etc. as well, but keep it simple. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 03-08-2006 02:06 PM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by Percy, posted 03-08-2006 1:53 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: What does it relate too?
Purpledawn,
Why should ALL mountains contain this abundance of marine fossils, and ALL deserts? Firstly, this is evidence of mainstream geologies explanation, too, right? Secondly, please see my last post. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2006 2:15 PM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
robinrohan,
No, it's a snapshot of today'S species. Not necessarily, & so what? The correlation of genetic AND morphological relationships, nested hierarchies etc. of modern species is still a borne out prediction. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 3:09 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 91 of 255 (293370)
03-08-2006 3:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
03-08-2006 3:44 PM
|
|
Re: Being at a disadvantage
Faith,
Pardon me if I claim that my assertions didn't NEED backing up, they OUGHT to be obvious to anyone with a pea-sized brain in his head. That is my view. Presumably that's why they are only obvious to you. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 3:44 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
robin,
This means that DNA/morphology is not direct evidence as fossils are, and so less convincing. Molecular evidence is as direct evidence as fossils. I could make a case that it is moreso.
If evolution is true, DNA arrangments among live species would have to be somewhat as they are.... False, there is no reason that metabolic molecules need be similar at all. Why is human cytochrome c 100% the same as chimp cyt c. Human cyt c has been shown to work in yeast. Chimp cyt c could potentially have been more similar to a jellyfish's.
But it's hard to explain those fossils without resorting to some sort of evolutionary explanation. It's hard to explain all the DNA, molecular & morphological similarities & correlations without some sort of evolutionary explanation, either. The fact is that both fossil & molecular evidence are predictions of the ToE, it's an inescapable fact. I have no idea what you are trying to achieve by denying this. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 03-09-2006 06:28 AM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: molecular?
robin,
This I'm not familiar with. I read a little about a "molecular clock" but didn't understand it. Without going into detail, things like morphologically similar organisms having similar DNA/molecules. Evolutionary trees based on molecules being similar to trees based on morphology. Pseudogenes.
You're using the word "prediction" in an odd way. Why? Evolutionary theory predicts things about DNA/molecules/morphology that are borne out, in the same way it predicts data in the fossil record that is borne out. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 138 of 255 (293558)
03-09-2006 9:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 131 by ramoss
03-09-2006 9:21 AM
|
|
Re: molecular?
ramoss,
I was rather skeptical of the claims for a long time when the methodology was first made public, but I will have to admit that they have made some pretty interesting predictions that have shown themselves to have merit. I am still not convinced that it is as accurate as the proponents think it is, but they have built a pretty good case for their methods. The molecular clock is held as being fairly tentative by the most biologists, as far as I have seen. One evo claim does concern me, however. That the results of the molecular clock match the fossil record. In many cases the fossil record is actually used to calibrate the clock in the first place making the statement bit circular. I stand to be corrected. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 131 by ramoss, posted 03-09-2006 9:21 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: molecular?
robin,
All you can say is, if evolution is true, this would likely be the case. What's that if not a prediction? Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 137 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 9:50 AM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: molecular?
robinrohan,
The DNA arrangement could be explained by special creation just as well He could have put the fossils there too, that nullifies that argument. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
™ Version 4.2