Introduction of Pest Species

You didn't use the word "just". But to suggest that the scientific consensus can be reinterpreted suggests it is some kind of "just". Because the the "there are other interpretations" line is used a lot whenever evidence is brought forward. It has been done over and over. If you bring that idea up then you have to back it up. It is part of the rules of honest discussion and of the forum. I don't recall anyone doing much of a job of that yet.I notice that you took a better crack at it than we have had in the "worldview" thread. Congratulations! Now it gets much harder.ABE --
I'm sorry if it seems like you are getting jumped on. You are showing more honest effort than about half of those who drop in here (maybe 80%). However there are a set of "quickies" that it seems the "creos" on the speaking tours like to use. They might work in a short verbal exchange in front of a receptive audience. They aren't so strong when there is time to dig in to them.One of these is the "interpretations" line. Another one is the laughable "were you there" line.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-17-2005 00:38 AM

Were you there, Ned?

Actually, yea, I was. You can tell how old I am from my pic.

Done over and over with me?

No and for that I think I apologized. But you do need to understand some of the background. It takes great patience (IMHO) to keep responding to the same sort of things which are, basically, founded on a serious shortage of education.For someone to think they can critize or offer real comment on an area of some considerable complexity that has had more than a century of work by 1,000's of pretty damm smart individuals when they really know nothing about it is a bit trying at times.Please understand that background.

Sorry about being late (and forgetting that I was in admin mode when posting last - grrrr).Jacen, I'm sorry if it seems like we're picking on you. That certainly wasn't my intent - but if we act a little testy, it's because we get too many hit'n'run posters around here. You tend to get a little annoyed after the umpteenth time a creationist teenager posts something like "Evilution is a myth ur al goin to HELL!!!!111!!" (Of course, that's an exaggeration.) Bear with us, please. We're nice people once you get to know us. Anyway, on to the topic. The "different interpretations" line has come up before countless times - and in a way, you are right. Evolution is an interpretation, an explanation if you will, of the evidence as we know it. It is the best explanation that fits that evidence we have developed to date, 150 years in the making. Before that, creation was the best explanation - but it was discarded as it failed to explain new evidence found by pioneering geologists and palaeontologists. The same thing will happen to evolution if it fails in the same way.You see, the challenge is not to say "we just interpret the evidence differently". Anyone can develop a junk interpretation - say, that an invisible pink unicorn put fossils there to trick us - but will that interpretation be useful? No. So the challenge is really to show why your interpretation is so much better than evolution, and why we should discard evolution in favour of it.Incidently, if you like books, I recommend reading "The Dragon Seekers" (look on amazon) - it's about the early history of fossil hunters before Darwin. Very interesting read.(By the way, I have yet to find any YEC geologist who is prepared to debate with me on my own field research in Ireland. I've posted it before here and on other boards and got no responses - which brings me to my other big beef with YECism. It's all well and good to talk in general terms about the Flood and whatnot, but it's less than nonsense when you get into any level of detail.)The Rockhound

Patience, oh great impatient one. The world is not going to end tomorrow. There's plenty of time for me to go at it one by one. Why don't you go pick on somebody your own brainsize? Give me a break. I'm a lot younger than you are.I'm going to try to study some geology later on.While waiting, you can doodle around with that math puzzle I have in my siggy.

---

Here is something to relieve stress.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

The problem I see with the 'different interpretations' argument, other than a priori assumptions, is taken from Laing. Laing, as some of you may know, was an 'existentialist psychologist' and an anti-psychiatrist. His belief was that mental illness was not illness at all, but rather a rational response to daily life's evils. Now, used on something like depression (Well, dysthimia at least) this makes sense. However, calling schizophrenic hallucinations 'rational' is not mere interpretation, is is erroneous.This is how I interpret (yes, I am aware of the irony) the 'interpretation' line - yes, a few aspects of YECism can be put down to that, but to extrapolate to the conclusion that all can be 'interpreted' upon that basis is hugely flawed.

quote:

---

Patience, oh great impatient one. The world is not going to end tomorrow. There's plenty of time for me to go at it one by one.

---

Was I asking you directly to prove that your interpretation is better? It's something huge and quite difficult, and I wasn't expecting a thesis on it anytime soon. That you are even willing to try raises you higher than most other creationists I've ever met, and I'm perfectly willing to wait as long as you need to get results.

quote:

---

Why don't you go pick on somebody your own brainsize?

​

Give me a break. I'm a lot younger than you are.

​

I'm going to try to study some geology later on.

---

Yet again, did I ask you directly? No. But I resent any implication that it somehow hasn't occured to me to discuss geology with YECists, and I wanted to explain that I have tried to get some kind of response multiple times from them - with little or no success.Believe me, just the fact that you are prepared to discuss geology or evolution is one hell of a step forward. You can't imagine the number of creationists I've encountered who did nothing but parrot off the same tired arguments no matter how many times I tried to have a decent discussion with them.As for the studying thing... As Yoda says "'Do' or 'do not'. There is no 'try'." I can help you any bits that you might not understand.The RockhoundThis message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 01-19-2005 12:22 AM

Since when is Lam a creationist?

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

We think (well, credit to WoundedKing here) he's playing devil's advocate... or 'they' got to him...

*blinks*Is Jacen Lam?WTF is going on?This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 01-20-2005 09:41 AM

No, he posted from a YEC position earlier in the thread. But, going back to the issue, how would creationists account for fossilized kiwis?

I believe Lammy was using the Lam name at that time. Since he has started using the Jacen alias people do not seem to realize that it is him.(OFF TOPIC - by the way Lammykins, does the fact that you're using Jacen's name mean good things about your relationship? )

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com