RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/16/2008 6:06:00 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3077
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Apes are writing these posts. That's the point. Yes, and it's as preposterous a point as defining evolution as a change in gene frequency. So I guess the best you all can do is merely evolve terminology to make it mean whatever you wish. Nice chatting with you, Method.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 5/16/2008 6:15:45 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Yes, and it's as preposterous a point as defining evolution as a change in gene frequency. So I guess the best you all can do is merely evolve terminology to make it mean whatever you wish. Nice chatting with you, Method.
Humans have been classified with the great apes since the very beginning of taxonomy. Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy and a creationist, even suggested that humans and chimps should be in the same genus (hence the original classification of Homo troglodytes). The similarity between humans and chimps has always been inescapable. I can quote many people from the 19th century who agree.
But here is the strange thing for me. People have a problem being considered apes but most have no problem being considered mammals. That one has always confused me. But the whole point is that classifications are classifications. They do not tell us what we can and can't do. We decide that for ourselves. Instead of thinking of ourselves as darn dirty apes perhaps we should take the view that we have elevated the place of apes within the animal kingdom.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/1/2008 8:17:45 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
On the other hand, a statement like "there exist parallel universes which cannot interact with our universe" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether such a universe does or does not exist.
When the statement is made in a volume purporting to explain such to be reality, and when in that explanation the author (David Deutsch)resorts to such subterfuge as "assume there is no chaos in this universe;" and when that author proceeds to build alternate universes and states them into existence; the "assume" becomes "therefore because" in his argument; Welll, its not science and its not scientific, and its certainly not scientifically developed. It is pure hypothoesis based on guesses based on pure assumption.
Yet it consumes some "scientists" carreers.
so I feel safe in "speaking it out of existence" in the same fashion some scientists "speak God out of existence" with a casual "prove it."
< Message edited by theo_book -- 6/1/2008 8:23:52 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/2/2008 2:11:18 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
On the other hand, a statement like "there exist parallel universes which cannot interact with our universe" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether such a universe does or does not exist.
When the statement is made in a volume purporting to explain such to be reality, and when in that explanation the author (David Deutsch)resorts to such subterfuge as "assume there is no chaos in this universe;" and when that author proceeds to build alternate universes and states them into existence; the "assume" becomes "therefore because" in his argument; Welll, its not science and its not scientific, and its certainly not scientifically developed. It is pure hypothoesis based on guesses based on pure assumption.
Yet it consumes some "scientists" carreers.
so I feel safe in "speaking it out of existence" in the same fashion some scientists "speak God out of existence" with a casual "prove it."
Fair enough. Except that,
In the first case, you dismiss A due to lack of proof. That's fair.
In the second case, you affirm B due to lack of dis-proof. That's illogical.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/2/2008 5:49:47 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Fair enough. Except that,
In the first case, you dismiss A due to lack of proof. That's fair.
In the second case, you affirm B due to lack of dis-proof. That's illogical.
I know. But THAT is how the Darwinian THEORY of Evolution became the Darwinian FACT of Evolution that is now being debated all over the net.
Glad you can see it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/3/2008 10:51:02 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
I know. But THAT is how the Darwinian THEORY of Evolution became the Darwinian FACT of Evolution that is now being debated all over the net.
Evolution is supported by such a large amount of evidence that it is considered to be fact by most biologists. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity or germ theory.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/3/2008 6:04:49 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
I know. But THAT is how the Darwinian THEORY of Evolution became the Darwinian FACT of Evolution that is now being debated all over the net.
Evolution is supported by such a large amount of evidence that it is considered to be fact by most biologists. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity or germ theory.
Glad to see you equate a fact (gravity) and a theory (germ). THAT is EXACTLY the way Darwinism became factual. Change the terminology with no proof whatsoever, and in some cases, contrary to proof, and voila, the theory becomes the fact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/3/2008 6:19:12 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 890
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
I know. But THAT is how the Darwinian THEORY of Evolution became the Darwinian FACT of Evolution that is now being debated all over the net.
Evolution is supported by such a large amount of evidence that it is considered to be fact by most biologists. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity or germ theory.
Glad to see you equate a fact (gravity) and a theory (germ). THAT is EXACTLY the way Darwinism became factual. Change the terminology with no proof whatsoever, and in some cases, contrary to proof, and voila, the theory becomes the fact.
There is the fact of gravity: things fall when you let go
And there are various theories of gravity that seek to explain the facts: Aristotelian, Newtonian, Einsteinian...
There is the fact of evolution: the populations of fossils found in strata of different ages demonstrate change-over-time.
And there are various theories of evolution that seek to explain the facts: Lamarckian, Darwinian, neo-Darwinian...
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/3/2008 6:41:39 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
And there are various theories of evolution that seek to explain the facts: Lamarckian, Darwinian, neo-Darwinian...
I wish Larmarckian were true... I'd be a better basketball player.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/3/2008 10:57:15 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Glad to see you equate a fact (gravity) and a theory (germ).
Gravity is also a theory.
quote:
Change the terminology with no proof whatsoever,
Proof is for math and alcohol. There is mountains of EVIDENCE which support the theory of evolution just as there are mountains of evidence which support germ theory, and less that supports the theory of gravity.
Just a small tidbit of the evidence that supports evolution
quote:
and in some cases, contrary to proof,
Such as?
quote:
and voila, the theory becomes the fact.
Actually, what we are seeing is scientific ignorance becoming misguided skepticism.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/4/2008 9:28:44 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Actually, what we are seeing is scientific ignorance becoming misguided skepticism.
Sounds kinda like a religion, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/4/2008 11:07:21 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
Actually, what we are seeing is scientific ignorance becoming misguided skepticism.
Sounds kinda like a religion, doesn't it?
Yes, it does. So you agree that the criticisms of evolution coming from creationists is fueled by religion and not science?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/4/2008 1:22:04 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
Actually, what we are seeing is scientific ignorance becoming misguided skepticism.
Sounds kinda like a religion, doesn't it?
Yes, it does. So you agree that the criticisms of evolution coming from creationists is fueled by religion and not science?
What I agree to is that Darwinianism is more religion than science. It asks us to believe in things we cannot see, have never seen. THAT is one of the tennants of religion. To believe in it because we have not disproved it is parallel to religious fervor.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/4/2008 2:21:42 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
Actually, what we are seeing is scientific ignorance becoming misguided skepticism.
Sounds kinda like a religion, doesn't it?
Yes, it does. So you agree that the criticisms of evolution coming from creationists is fueled by religion and not science?
What I agree to is that Darwinianism is more religion than science. It asks us to believe in things we cannot see, have never seen. THAT is one of the tennants of religion. To believe in it because we have not disproved it is parallel to religious fervor.
No, it's different from religion, because although some things have not been observed directly, they are inferred from what is observed. All it really asks is that we consider that what we observe taking place today has probably been taking place yesterday and the day before and the year, century, millennium, etc. before that. IOW that what we see today in terms of mutations, selection and speciation are not events unique to our generation, but part of the constant routine and rhythm of nature.
Religion OTOH often rests on faith that unique, unrepeatable events have occurred with few if any witnesses and no physical evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusio... - 6/4/2008 2:40:22 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
What I agree to is that Darwinianism is more religion than science.
How is that so? What supernatural deities are worshiped as part of the theory of evolution?
quote:
It asks us to believe in things we cannot see, have never seen.
Such as? The nested hierarchy is observed. Transitional fossils are observed. Genetic evidence is observed.
quote:
THAT is one of the tennants of religion.
But it is not one of the tennants of the theory of evolution.
quote:
To believe in it because we have not disproved it is parallel to religious fervor.
Evolution is accepted because of the mountain of evidence supporting it and it's usefulness in actual biological research.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
