Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
58 online now:
(58 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,162 Year: 4,274/6,534 Month: 488/900 Week: 12/182 Day: 12/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 255 (293606)
03-09-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
03-09-2006 10:49 AM


Re: molecular?
Fossil evidence is ALSO indirect.

Don't forget those hominid skulls!

And the lizard-cows!

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-09-2006 09:58 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:58 AM robinrohan has taken no action

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 167 of 255 (293607)
03-09-2006 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 10:57 AM


Re: molecular?
Thirty fragments of skulls isn't much evidence for anything.

And the fact that one can make a visual progression of skeletons -- or skulls -- is no proof of descent.

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 02:18 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 10:57 AM robinrohan has taken no action

jar
Member
Posts: 33891
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 168 of 255 (293608)
03-09-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
03-09-2006 10:57 AM


Re: On Order
It's not direct evidence unless you KNOW why they are in that order. It is merely suggestive evidence.

No, that is incorrect.

The why has nothing to do with the evidence.

The evidence is direct, it is the FACT that the fossils are laid down in that particular order.

Do you agree that the evidence is the order the fossils were laid down?

Explanations come later.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 11:16 AM jar has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20753
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 169 of 255 (293612)
03-09-2006 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
03-09-2006 10:25 AM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
Faith writes:

I answered you. I think I AM defending it by repeating it. Bringing it to general attention again after somebody's attempt to bury it under what they consider to be contrary evidence.

This is perhaps a key difference in our approach to things, so this is worth exploring. First, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. Here's an example using a discussion about how many pizzas should be ordered. In your opinion, is Person A making valid responses? It doesn't matter who you think is right or wrong, I'm just wondering what you think of Person A's approach:

Person A:Four pizzas is more than enough for 10 people.
Person B:But that's less than four slices per person.
Person A:That's just your opinion. Four pizzas is more than enough for 10 people.
Person B:I think most people would like to have at least four slices.
Person A:I've told you, four pizzas is more than enough for 10 people.
Person B:And you know Rob will have at least six or seven slices.
Person A:That's speculative, four pizzas is more than enough for 10 people.
Person B:And if we get more pizzas we can get a wider variety of toppings.
Person A:You can't be certain of that, four pizzas is more than enough for 10 people.
Person B:And if we don't finish it then we'll have leftover pizza for the Sunday night football game.
Person A:There's no way you could know that in advance, and four pizzas is more than enough for 10 people.
Person B:And there's a discount for five or more pizzas.
Person A:I don't understand why you can't see how obvious it is that four pizzas is more than enough for 10 people.

I'll guess right out the outset that you don't believe this accurately captures what you're doing, so how should I modify this?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 11:19 AM Percy has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 170 of 255 (293615)
03-09-2006 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by jar
03-09-2006 11:02 AM


Re: On Order
What I had in mind is what it's supposedly evidence FOR. As long as there is the possibility that there is some other explanation for the ordering of the fossils than the evolutionist explanation, I consider the evidence to be indirect FOR that conclusion. Perhaps "indirect" is the wrong term. In which case, fine, give me a better one for what I'm trying to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by jar, posted 03-09-2006 11:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 03-09-2006 11:19 AM Faith has replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5049 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 171 of 255 (293617)
03-09-2006 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 10:55 AM


Re: molecular?
Fossils are real snapshots or sculptures of the past. DNA/ morphology is about TODAY'S species

I think I see.

You've accepted the framework of predictions and tests that have been carried out to show that the fossils support the ToE. You agree that the Rocks are indeed ancient. All of that is very touchable, 'real' science to you. You can accept the conclusions drawn from those tests: that Today's species evolved by changing over time in a very particular way.

The molecular evidence comes at the problem from a different angle, but is surely no less direct. Today's species must have come from somewhere. Morphology and fossils suggest an order in which things evolved. Molecular evidence tests this order and comes up trumps. Just because it came later than the first fossil data doesn't make it any less valid, surely?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 10:55 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 11:27 AM Ooook! has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 172 of 255 (293619)
03-09-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Percy
03-09-2006 11:13 AM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
Yes of course it's a misrepresentation. The one insisting on ten pizzas being more than enough is the evo in my experience, despite the fact that you are trying to emphasize repetitiveness. (Actually evos are repetitive too. Wonder how many times the same supposed evidence against the flood has been brought up.)

Anyway, I will think about it later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 11:13 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 11:25 AM Faith has taken no action

jar
Member
Posts: 33891
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 173 of 255 (293620)
03-09-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
03-09-2006 11:16 AM


Re: On Order
I cannot tell what you are trying to say. That's something that only you can determine. I've attempted just that in the grass message and you have never responded to it.

But let's stick to the issue now of the ordering of the fossils.

Do you agree that the order the fossils have been found in is direct evidence?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 11:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 1:57 PM jar has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 20753
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 174 of 255 (293623)
03-09-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
03-09-2006 11:19 AM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
Faith writes:

Yes of course it's a misrepresentation. The one insisting on ten pizzas being more than enough is the evo in my experience...

Can you explain how you arrive at this viewpoint? You, the creationist, are repeating the same argument over and over again, that the occurrence of fossils worldwide is strong evidence for a global flood, and you refuse to elaborate or to respond to rebuttals. This is analogous to person A who merely keeps repeating that four pizzas is sufficient.

We, the evolutionists, have offered a wide variety of different evidence, from grass to limestone layers to radiometric dating to fossil ordering and so forth. This is analogous to person B who offers a variety of reasons why four pizzas isn't enough.

Can you describe how you see this the other way around?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 11:19 AM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 11:29 AM Percy has replied
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 03-09-2006 11:31 AM Percy has taken no action

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 255 (293624)
03-09-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Ooook!
03-09-2006 11:17 AM


Re: molecular?
You've accepted the framework of predictions and tests that have been carried out to show that the fossils support the ToE. You agree that the Rocks are indeed ancient. All of that is very touchable, 'real' science to you. You can accept the conclusions drawn from those tests: that Today's species evolved by changing over time in a very particular way.

What I "see," or at any rate read about, is a remarkably complete line of reptile-to-mammal transitionals. Also, there's that lizard-bird (8 fossils extant). Hominid skulls--some almost complete.

Let's say we didn't have any of that. The DNA arrangement could be explained by special creation just as well: God being economic. Why choose one explanation over another? Is the reasoning that special creation is incredible? Therefore, evolution must be true? That won't do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Ooook!, posted 03-09-2006 11:17 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Wounded King, posted 03-09-2006 12:17 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 185 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 12:24 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 12:51 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 196 by Ooook!, posted 03-09-2006 1:09 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 255 (293627)
03-09-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Percy
03-09-2006 11:25 AM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
Can you describe how you see this the other way around?

You left out the condescending tone from Person B: "Let's take baby steps" (implication: Faith is too stupid to understand the general idea at once). One of many examples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 11:25 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by roxrkool, posted 03-09-2006 11:36 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 11:43 AM robinrohan has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 177 of 255 (293628)
03-09-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Percy
03-09-2006 11:25 AM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
Don't forget that according to Faith in Message 151 person A's tactic is perfectly reasonable. If she really beleived that I wonder why she now denies doing it.

And I'd add that in my experience creationists often falsely accuse others of doing what, in fact, they are doing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 11:25 AM Percy has taken no action

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 178 of 255 (293630)
03-09-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 11:29 AM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
So it seems that you can't get too technical or too basic, otherwise you run the risk of coming off superior.

Or do you take issue with the term "baby steps?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 11:29 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 11:41 AM roxrkool has taken no action

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 255 (293632)
03-09-2006 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by roxrkool
03-09-2006 11:36 AM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
Or do you take issue with the term "baby steps?"

Yes, a person or two I will not name has used that expression (and other such) with me too. Not that I really gave a damn. It was most amusing.

So I understand Faith's emotional reaction--although in my view she overreacted. To say the least.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by roxrkool, posted 03-09-2006 11:36 AM roxrkool has taken no action

Percy
Member
Posts: 20753
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 180 of 255 (293634)
03-09-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 11:29 AM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
robinrohan writes:

You left out the condescending tone from Person B: "Let's take baby steps" (implication: Faith is too stupid to understand the general idea at once). One of many examples.

Right, we've identified "baby steps" as an inadvisable approach for evolutionists to use. So after Person A has repeated that four pizzas is enough for the sixth or seventh time without addressing anything Person B has said, what is the correct response for Person B?

By the way, when there's something I don't understand, I really appreciate it when someone is willing to take baby steps with me. Silas did it for me on a couple occasions, and more recently cavediver.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 11:29 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by jar, posted 03-09-2006 11:49 AM Percy has taken no action
 Message 182 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 11:59 AM Percy has taken no action
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 2:22 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022