Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 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
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5805 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 196 of 255 (293668)
03-09-2006 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 11:27 AM


Strands of evidence or a framework?
The DNA arrangement could be explained by special creation just as well: God being economic. Why choose one explanation over another?
As WK has already pointed out, I don't think this is a fair asessment of the molecular evidence but that is definitely a topic's worth on its own. Suffice to say that it throws up enough questions about special creation to suggest evolution . Besides, I've been mulling this over and think that this statement is more revealing about the different attitudes:
Let's say we didn't have any of that.
This appears to be one of the main differences in how the two sides approach the argument, and is therefore of vital importance to understand.
It seems to me that arguments which are more symphathetic to the creationist side will constantly think of pieces of evidence totally independent of one another. As a result they often attempt to pick them apart one by one, hoping that it will unravel the whole theory.
Those coming from the evolution side of things are more likely to view it as a body of evidence. The evidence should be viewed as struts which form a very solid supporting framework for a theory. No one strut is more important than the others because they answer different questions. The only difference is the order they went up.
Hope that makes my position clearer - I fear that I may have gone over the top with the analogies

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 198 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 1:13 PM Ooook! has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 255 (293669)
03-09-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Percy
03-09-2006 12:51 PM


Re: molecular?
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."
Yes, there is: fossils.
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.
A--for fairmindedness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 12:51 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 03-09-2006 1:25 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 03-09-2006 8:05 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 255 (293670)
03-09-2006 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Ooook!
03-09-2006 1:09 PM


Re: Strands of evidence or a framework?
It seems to me that arguments which are more symphathetic to the creationist side
I'm not sympathetic to the creationist side. I'm trying to make a point about the nature of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Ooook!, posted 03-09-2006 1:09 PM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Ooook!, posted 03-09-2006 1:41 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 255 (293671)
03-09-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by mark24
03-09-2006 1:04 PM


Re: molecular?
Utterly, utterly irrelevant.
"Why" is not irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 1:04 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 1:26 PM robinrohan has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 200 of 255 (293672)
03-09-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 10:26 AM


Re: molecular?
A "prediction" in science is simply a "logical consequence" of the theory.
quote:
That kind of prediction doesn't have the convincingness of a real prediction. It really shouldn't be called a "prediction."
OK, then call it a "logical consequence of a hypothesis or theory."
To most scientists and those who understand the jargon, using "prediction" means exactly the same thing, but if your own personal definition is different than that, then by all means, use the phrase in quotes above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 10:26 AM robinrohan has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 201 of 255 (293674)
03-09-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
03-09-2006 10:37 AM


Faith, do you agree with the following?
quote:
If ToE is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it.
If the Germ Theory of Disease is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it.
If the Theory of Relativity is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it.
If the Atomic Theory of Matter is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 10:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 03-09-2006 1:46 PM nator has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 202 of 255 (293676)
03-09-2006 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 1:11 PM


Re: molecular?
Yes, there is: fossils.
What you've been asked several times is, why? Why wouldn't God have made fake fossils? To assume he wouldn't choose to do that is to claim knowledge about the character of a being previously defined as unknowable.
God could have done it; we don't know that he didn't; plenty of people do believe that he did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 1:11 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 1:50 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 203 of 255 (293678)
03-09-2006 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 1:15 PM


Re: molecular?
robin,
"Why" is not irrelevant.
Yes it is. But for the record, I already told you why, "because he wanted to".
Why would god create life? Do you know? Of course not, you didn't need to know to invoke the argument God did it. So I don't have to know why he put fossils where they are. What's good for the goose...
The point is that you have invoked an ad hoc argument to elevate fossil evidence above DNA evidence, I did exactly the same to put it back again. There is absolutely no qualitative difference between the two scenarios.
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 199 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 1:15 PM robinrohan has not replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5805 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 204 of 255 (293683)
03-09-2006 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 1:13 PM


Re: Strands of evidence or a framework?
I'm not sympathetic to the creationist side.
I not accusing you of that.
But you were arguing that the molecular evidence for evolution could not stand up on its own. You were arguing that special creation was just as likely an explanation. This is certainly an argument which is sympathetic to the creationist cause. In fact, it's one of their common rallying calls.
I'm trying to make a point about the nature of evidence.
so am I. My point is that by viewing fossils and molecular evidence as independent strands of evidence, and by ranking one over the other, I think that you fall into the same trap as creationists do. I suppose what I want to know is why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 1:13 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 2:08 PM Ooook! has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 205 of 255 (293684)
03-09-2006 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by nator
03-09-2006 1:21 PM


Re: Faith, do you agree with the following?
If the Germ Theory of Disease is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it.
No, the germ theory of disease is quite testable because it is replicable. You have endless opportunities to check for microbes in relation to particular symptom patterns. Not so with the ToE. You have one prediction and if it works you assume you've proved the ToE. Alternative explanations for what worked can't be checked.
If the Theory of Relativity is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it.
This is false. I believe RR gave an example of an actual prediction that has borne out. Something replicable. I don't undersatnd the ToR well enough to dream up a test but I'm sure there are endless opportunities to test it as anything in physics or chemistry can be tested. If you want to test the existence of gravity you have endless opportunities and ways to test it. Not so the ToE.
If the Atomic Theory of Matter is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it.
Obviously you haven't Clue One about what this is all about.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 01:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by nator, posted 03-09-2006 1:21 PM nator has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 255 (293685)
03-09-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by crashfrog
03-09-2006 1:25 PM


Re: molecular?
Why wouldn't God have made fake fossils?
That is not a reasonable action to attribute to the traditional idea of the Almighty.
However, creating a method of gene flow by which we could all be similar yet different is very understandable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 03-09-2006 1:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 1:54 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 211 by crashfrog, posted 03-09-2006 1:57 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 255 (293688)
03-09-2006 1:54 PM


Special creation
It's not a question of whether God could do something. Obviously He could do anything that's not contradictory (round squares). The question is, would some action be a reasonable act to attribute to God?

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 1:56 PM robinrohan has not replied

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


Message 208 of 255 (293689)
03-09-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 1:50 PM


Re: molecular?
robin,
That is not a reasonable action to attribute to the traditional idea of the Almighty.
What makes you think god conforms to tradition? You haven't a scooby as to the nature of the "almighty". Therefore you are unable to dismiss the notion that god could make false fossils.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 1:50 PM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 209 of 255 (293690)
03-09-2006 1:55 PM


How the fossils got there
The complete ignorance about what creationists believe about what God would have created that is being shown on this thread at least must illustrate how evos don't pay the slightest attention to creos.
There is no way God would have just PUT fossils there. They have nothing to do with creation. Genesis makes it clear that LIVING THINGS were originally created, and as far as I know, there is not ONE claim by anybody that He created anything after the first six days of creation. He RESTED on the seventh day, His Creation being complete and perfect.
The fossils occurred according to physical and chemical principles that have been in place from the beginning.

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by crashfrog, posted 03-09-2006 1:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 224 by LinearAq, posted 03-09-2006 7:32 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 210 of 255 (293691)
03-09-2006 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 1:54 PM


Re: Special creation
robin,
The question is, would some action be a reasonable act to attribute to God?
How can you possibly know what is reasonable to attribute to something you know nothing about?
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 207 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 1:54 PM robinrohan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024