Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What convinced you of Evolution?
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 20 of 157 (70547)
12-02-2003 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DaVx0r
12-01-2003 8:17 PM


Actually, what was crucial to me giving up on Creationism - which I grew up believing - was when I first figured out that I was actually being *lied to* by my church on the issue. That annoyed the heck out of me. That wasn't what convinced me of evolution, but it did help me get over the fear of evolution instilled in me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DaVx0r, posted 12-01-2003 8:17 PM DaVx0r has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 35 of 157 (70620)
12-02-2003 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Thronacx
12-02-2003 4:50 PM


While scientists are people, and all people have biases, the scientific METHOD is NOT a person, and is designed precisely to rise above individual biases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Thronacx, posted 12-02-2003 4:50 PM Thronacx has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 66 of 157 (71083)
12-04-2003 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Thronacx
12-04-2003 5:45 PM


This is absurd. The question was on the age of the Earth.
Your "actual data" includes almost nothing relevant to the age of the Earth, except for 6 feet of sedimentary rock, and even this in and of itself is poor data indeed. Too little info - "depth" alone is unreliable.
However, in your "Evolutionist's examination", you mention "dating methods". "Dating methods" are based on actual data, none of which you mention, but of course these are the relevant factual input to the question!
Pick "factual input" for a specific dating method, and try again...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Thronacx, posted 12-04-2003 5:45 PM Thronacx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Thronacx, posted 12-05-2003 9:39 AM Zhimbo has replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 74 of 157 (71189)
12-05-2003 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Thronacx
12-05-2003 11:04 AM


Actually "Southerners can't read" is, in fact, a perfectly logical statment. It happens to be false, however.
Truth-lover described a trend, allowing for exceptions. It may or may not be true, but it is not a logical fallacy - it is not, purely on formal logical grounds, self-contradictory or otherwise fallacious.
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Thronacx, posted 12-05-2003 11:04 AM Thronacx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Thronacx, posted 12-05-2003 12:08 PM Zhimbo has replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 75 of 157 (71190)
12-05-2003 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Thronacx
12-05-2003 9:39 AM


I do not agree with you that the relevant data used in dating methods can be sucessfully interpreted in such a way that agrees with young Earth creationism.
And your example wasn't "simplified", it was irrelevant. It lacked any data that anyone - Evo or Creo - would use to arrive at an age for the Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Thronacx, posted 12-05-2003 9:39 AM Thronacx has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 78 of 157 (71206)
12-05-2003 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Thronacx
12-05-2003 12:08 PM


Yes, treating a statistical generalization as always true is a fallacy. A generalization itself is not a fallacy. And Truthlover was explicitly NOT treating a generalization as always true - read his post.
So, you are wrong. A "generalization" is not a logical fallacy. Treating a statistical generalization as always true is.
Saying "Southerners can't read" is NOT a logical fallacy.
Starting with "These Southerners can't read" and concluding "All Southerners can't read" is a logical fallacy; that is what your quote is talking about.
You are wrong in claiming Truthlover committed such an error, as he explicitly stated the generalization was not always true, so he could not possibly be taking a statistical trend to be always true.
You are piling error upon error.
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Thronacx, posted 12-05-2003 12:08 PM Thronacx has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 85 of 157 (71223)
12-05-2003 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Thronacx
12-05-2003 1:11 PM


Yes there are two interpretations. And one is decided upon. The prosecution must prove that their interpretation is not just one of two equally valid interpretations, but is the correct one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Thronacx, posted 12-05-2003 1:11 PM Thronacx has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 124 of 157 (71733)
12-08-2003 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by jantoo1
12-08-2003 6:49 PM


Re: Prehistoric Fish Google
quote:
But I got attacked...Why?????
IDON'TKNOWWHYYOUGOTATTACKED!!!!GOGOOGLEANDDOYOUROWNRESEARCH!!!!JUSTGOOGLE"jantoo1"AND"attacked"AND"a few hours ago"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 6:49 PM jantoo1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 8:45 PM Zhimbo has replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 128 of 157 (71738)
12-08-2003 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by jantoo1
12-08-2003 8:45 PM


Re: Prehistoric Fish Google
I agree, it hardly merits a response at all, does it.
On the other hand, I do appreciate your post immediately after mine.
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 8:45 PM jantoo1 has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 129 of 157 (71739)
12-08-2003 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jantoo1
12-08-2003 8:44 PM


Re: Evolution
"I am a minister and thus, I don`t believe in evolution.. "
I would like to point out "I don't belive in evolution" does NOT have to follow from "I am a minister"...:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 8:44 PM jantoo1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 9:12 PM Zhimbo has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 151 of 157 (72075)
12-10-2003 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by DaVx0r
12-03-2003 8:16 PM


Re: what convinced me of evolution?
DaVxOr:
After coming on so strong, you sure have wimped out.
Just an observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by DaVx0r, posted 12-03-2003 8:16 PM DaVx0r has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Chiroptera, posted 12-10-2003 11:45 AM Zhimbo 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