Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,178 Year: 5,435/9,624 Month: 460/323 Week: 100/204 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 288 of 302 (321051)
06-13-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Crue Knight
06-12-2006 10:40 PM


Re: Question!
DrJones* writes:
ok at the monkeys or any other animal. Why are they the same as they were thousands of years ago?
They aren't.
What are the differences? Have they gotten anymore advanced in the way they live?
Define "advance" and then tell me what part of evolution says that they should "advance" - cite scientific sources not creatortionista sites (like SWC's - that badly misrepresent the science).
Evolution is change in species over time. No "value" added to what the change is - that is a common creationist misconception.
Ex: If someone was a UFO fanatic, hw could create all kinds of theories about why they appear, ect. Then he sees a bunch of rusted material in a nearby field and inspects it. His mind of coarse will try to make it agree with his theories about UFOs. Does it mean it's true?
LOL. What's the difference between UFOism and religions?
You are applying the "logic" of creationism to the observation of facts. The creationist looks at evidence and trys to make it fit his preconceptions. His mind of course will try to make it agree with his preconception about life. The UFO fanatic is in the same boat as the creationist - convinced his world view will be justified by a proper evaluation of the evidence.
The scientist, however, first looks at the evidence, then makes theories about how rusted piles of metal could appear in fields, then he tests those theories. If he can come to no conclusive reason for the rusted piles of metal to be there he concludes ... that it is inconclusive. Only the UFOist and the creationist leap to the conclusion that it must be what they want.
I dont mean survival, I mean wise as in brains.
(1) But the selection is for {survival\reproduction} not for brains. Brains can help {survival\reproduction}, but they will only be selected for as long as they promote {survival\reproduction}.
(2) How do you know they aren't? We have lots of examples of 'moral' behavior in animals, we have lots of examples of adults teaching young certain behavior (passing on their wisdom), and we have lots of examples of communication with animals that reveal they are not that different from humans.
I have a proper education, thank you. You cant look one way we gotta have open minds if we want to learn.
That's fine, but when you apply that {open mind} make sure you use it to test the validity of the sources of some of your information. You have just posted a couple of misconceptions on evolution -- that is not a fault of your {open mind} and it may not be a fault of your "proper education" but it is certainly the fault, somewhere along the line, of taking a source as valid that isn't.
Do you think "standing tall for the truth" means repeating misrepresentations and known falsehoods as if they were true?
msg 285 writes:
So does that mean there is another coincidence ...
Science is based on evidence, not coincidence. But no, in this case it is not a coincidence it is a circular reference system -- because some people (not all) behave according to the precepts of some traditional behavior code, this does not mean that observing people behaving according to some traditional code makes the code true, it's just evidence of some people (not all) behave according to the precepts of some traditional behavior code. This is YOUR rustly pile of metal in a field ...
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Crue Knight, posted 06-12-2006 10:40 PM Crue Knight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 7:47 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1516 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 291 of 302 (321596)
06-14-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Crue Knight
06-14-2006 7:47 PM


Re: Question!
Creationists (at least I do), tries to fit what they see with the Bible. And it does!
Yep. The sun rises and the sun sets: evidence for a flat earth, and it fits with the bible, so it must be true.
Evidence for something is not sufficient reason to accept it as valid as long as there is evidence that INvalidates the concept involved: ignoring the rest of the evidence does not make the concept any less INvalid, it just makes the opinion more IGnorant.
Then they can make a scientific theory as long as it doesnt go against the Bible.
Why? Where is this stated in the scientific method? Where is this listed in the "rules" for evidence? What purpose does it serve?
The evidence that the earth is round is undeniable, real and based on science whether it fits with some interpretation of a certain book or not. That is all that is necessary -- and what is required -- of science, that it provide the best explanation of the evidence, regardless of what that explanation is. The search is for the truth of reality, regardless of where that leads.
The minute you DISallow explanations that DISagree with some preconception, not matter WHAT that preconception is, you are DISengaged from science.
This is not a standard for science, it is a standard for ignorance, ultimately promoting the willfull denial of reality.
It appears to me that scientists (evolutionists) makes theories about how rusted piles of metal could appear in HIS field.
For example: A scientist (i forgot who) in the National Geographic mag about the Hobbit, said the first thing he thought when he saw the skeletal remains, was the evolution of humans. Why? Because evolution was stuck in his mind.
Scientists make theories and then they TEST them. They don't just assume that the theory is correct, the look for ways to validate it, and for things that could INvalidate it. Faith, by definition does NOT operate that way.
What was your first thought? That evolution was false? LOL. Your opinion of scientists, whether justified or not, is still just your opinion and not fact. It is also wrong.
Recognizing that the pile of metal is a pile of metal is not the answer to how the pile of metal got in the field. Recognizing that the bones are hominid bones did not take rocket science and does not answer the question to how that pile of bones got in that field.
The first thing he thought of was evolution, hominid evolution ... likely because they were different from other fossils, and evolution is change in species over time. "Stuck" in his mind was the explanatory power of the theory of evolution to show change in species over time, and how it was challenged -- tested -- with each new discovery as unusual as this one ... instead of the reliance on ignorance and superstition.
If the first thing he had thought of was that elves must have been real THAT would have been something to comment on.
The predominant scientific concensus on Homo Floriensis is that we don't know where and when they branched off of which line of hominid ancestor. That makes it an interesting question.
Edited by RAZD, : deleted last paragraph

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 7:47 PM Crue Knight 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