Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 181 of 255 (293637)
03-09-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
03-09-2006 11:43 AM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
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.
I think that is a very important point.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 11:43 AM Percy has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 255 (293640)
03-09-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
03-09-2006 11:43 AM


Re: Another Area for Improvement
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.
It's all in the tone, Percy. If the intent seems friendly, that's one thing. But this was not friendly on the part of some. Your tone, however, was not condescending at all. But that's just my view from outside from someone who didn't participate in the argument with Faith directly.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-09-2006 10:59 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 11:43 AM Percy has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 255 (293642)
03-09-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by AdminJar
03-09-2006 10:35 AM


Re: beware the ideas of mark's
This would be a good topic if somebody wants to start it. I start too many as it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by AdminJar, posted 03-09-2006 10:35 AM AdminJar has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 184 of 255 (293645)
03-09-2006 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 11:27 AM


Re: molecular?
The DNA arrangement could be explained by special creation just as well: God being economic.
That is a commonly made assertion, do you have anything to actually support it? Why would gods economy be so haphazard and inconsistent? Why have patterns of relatedness visible at effectively functionless bases, i.e. the third codon base for most amino acids?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 11:27 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 12:24 PM Wounded King has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 185 of 255 (293649)
03-09-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 11:27 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 11:27 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 12:25 PM mark24 has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 255 (293650)
03-09-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Wounded King
03-09-2006 12:17 PM


Re: molecular?
Why have patterns of relatedness visible at effectively functionless bases, i.e. the third codon base for most amino acids?
I can't discuss this. I don't know anything about it. But somebody mentioned some kind of messed-up gene having to do with some vitamin that appears in both apes and man. That's evidence for the evo side, I suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Wounded King, posted 03-09-2006 12:17 PM Wounded King has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 255 (293651)
03-09-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by mark24
03-09-2006 12:24 PM


Re: molecular?
He could have put the fossils there too, that nullifies that argument.
That's not the same idea at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 12:24 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 12:34 PM robinrohan has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 188 of 255 (293653)
03-09-2006 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 12:25 PM


Re: molecular?
robinrohan,
That's not the same idea at all.
It's exactly the same idea. You are coming up with an ad hoc argument in order to make fossil evidence appear better than DNA/molecular. By exactly the same logic, exactly the same ad hoc argument can be made to explain fossil evidences. If that's the case, which it is, then you haven't made the fossil evidence any more palatable than the molecular.
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 187 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 12:25 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 12:46 PM mark24 has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 255 (293656)
03-09-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by mark24
03-09-2006 12:34 PM


Re: molecular?
It's exactly the same idea.
There's no reason for those fossils to be lying about.
There is a reason for genotypes and phenotypes however: being fruitful and multiplying.
There are two possible explanations: evolution or special creation.
Both are radical and strange.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 12:34 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 12:48 PM robinrohan has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 190 of 255 (293657)
03-09-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 12:46 PM


Re: molecular?
robin,
There's no reason for those fossils to be lying about.
God put them there. Same as the DNA. Both equally (in)valid arguments.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 03-09-2006 12:49 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 189 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 12:46 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 12:49 PM mark24 has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 255 (293658)
03-09-2006 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by mark24
03-09-2006 12:48 PM


Re: molecular?
God put them there.
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 12:48 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 12:52 PM robinrohan has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 192 of 255 (293660)
03-09-2006 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 11:27 AM


Re: molecular?
robinrohan writes:
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 is another point that is often raised. If we can agree that "The Lord moves in mysterious ways," then we could say that no matter what the details of life (or anything else), it is consistent with creation by God. In other words, I don't believe that there is anthing we could find where we could reasonably conclude, "God would never have done this, it must have happened without his guidance."
But there is much we could find that would not be consistent with evolution. Mark has often stressed that modern genetic analysis of relatedness largely agrees with classification by appearance and anatomy that was established well over a century ago before we even knew there was such a thing as DNA. If they didn't agree, poof, evolution as a theory disappears!
Does this make sense so far? If so then there are a couple of follow up points. First, since God can do anything, there's no evidence you can supply that argues for creation by God. If whales have genes for legs, then that's just the way God did it. If whales don't have genes for legs, then that's just the way God did it. If pi is 3.14... then that's the way God designed the universe. If pi is 3.0 then that's the way God designed the universe.
Second, and this follows directly from the first point, evolution is different from creation because it can be disproven. There is evidence we can find, like the lack of agreement between genetics and biological classifications, that would mean evolution was false. If we found dinosaurs in all layers, it would mean evolution was false. If radiometric dating revealed that all layers were only a few thousand years old, it would mean evolution was false.
Because there is no argument that falsifies divine creation, it isn't usually discussed as a scientific possibility. It is only when creationists advance specific scenarios that God must have used when he created, such as vapor canopies, hydrologic sorting or catastrophic plate tectonics, that science can be applied.
So to finally address your point, no, we don't believe evolution is true because creation is incredible. The creation possibility (the "that's just the way God did it" variety) doesn't get considered within science because it transcends science and cannot be studied by science. We accept evolution as a scientific theory because of the supporting evidence.
This post is an attempt to apply the lessons learned in this thread, so give me a grade. No need to be kind, I don't need grade inflation, I'm trying to learn.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 11:27 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 1:11 PM Percy has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 193 of 255 (293661)
03-09-2006 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 12:49 PM


Re: molecular?
robin,
why?
Because he wanted to, same as the DNA. "why" is irrelevant.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 03-09-2006 12:56 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 191 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 12:49 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 12:56 PM mark24 has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 255 (293663)
03-09-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by mark24
03-09-2006 12:52 PM


Re: molecular?
DNA has an obvious function; fossils do not. There's no reason for them that can be linked to human life and so they are better evidence in that sense, and also more direct evidence.
Without the fossils, we have mostly an argument from incredulity.
abe: Evolution must be true because special creation is incredible.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-09-2006 11:56 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-09-2006 11:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 12:52 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 1:04 PM robinrohan has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 195 of 255 (293666)
03-09-2006 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 12:56 PM


Re: molecular?
robin,
DNA has an obvious function; fossils do not.
Utterly, utterly irrelevant.
If god can create DNA, then he can create fossils in situ if she so wishes. Can't an all powerful god that can create DNA create a world with fossils in 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 194 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 12:56 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 1:15 PM mark24 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024