|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,574 Year: 2,831/9,624 Month: 676/1,588 Week: 82/229 Day: 54/28 Hour: 0/10 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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:
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5805 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 979 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
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?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024