Author Topic: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)  (Read 3445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #145 on: March 05, 2014, 07:37:19 PM »
BS, why am I going to try to get my scientist friend to engage with you on evolution when you already think that a magical mysterious invisible being can explain everything better than science?

Any work I put into this thread has been wasted on you. You are very intelligent and engaging, but you see the myths and stories in the bible[1] more plausible than research-based science? This is very depressing.  :(
 1. hundreds of pages on who begat who and how to prepare a sacrifice, but no instructions on how simply washing the hands with clean water will stop the spread of disease germs

I am sorry to disappoint.....but at least now you can understand why I believe the way I do. I am just looking for answers that no one seems to have about the far reaching claims of the ToE. From where I sit, and based on your posts, it seems you have embraced a naturailistic worldview that is plagued by as much mystery and unexplainable phenomenon as I have when trying to demonstrate my beliefs.

The trust that you place in science being able to someday explain what cannot be explained is not much different from the trust I place in God someday explaining what can not be explained. One of the things I find very intriguing is that the more I examine the evidence you rely upon, the stronger my confidence grows in my beliefs. Sometimes, I truly do wonder if there is a living force of some kind that drives the wedge that separates us. It all seems very peculiar to me.

And, please, do not burden yourself or your friend if you have concerns about whether it is worthwhile or not. You offered and I accepted but please don't put yourself out there for me if you don't feel comfortable.


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #146 on: March 05, 2014, 07:45:43 PM »
In a nutshell, for me, the incredible complexity of life and the vastness of the universe points to an Intelligent Designer (the God of the Bible). The naturalistic worldview and the theory of evolution along with the various hypotheses relating to abiogenesis all present an alternate view but, even collectively, they come up way too short to convince me.

No, they don't all present an alternative view, and this has been your straw man problem from the get-go. The ToE does not equal naturalism. Hypotheses relating to abiogenesis do not equal naturalism. There are an abundance of theists and Christians who fully accept the ToE and understand the varying hypotheses for abiogenesis.

What I think you are really doing is saying that these all present alternative views to what the Bible states, and that because they are alternatives they naturally conflict. You have issue with them because you hang on to every word the Bible says like a concrete lifebelt, so anything that conflicts is automatically incorrect. You can give no justification as to why the Bible supersedes anything that contradicts it, and this is why you continue to drown on this forum.

It never occurred to me, but you are an agnostic, aren't you? If so, then shame on me for assuming you were an atheist. If my hunch is correct, then some of your previous posts now make sense to me.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #147 on: March 05, 2014, 08:21:36 PM »
It never occurred to me, but you are an agnostic, aren't you? If so, then shame on me for assuming you were an atheist. If my hunch is correct, then some of your previous posts now make sense to me.

I can't speak for all of the atheists that post on these forums, but I think most might consider themselves agnostic atheists.

I myself am an agnostic atheist.

You might want to research what atheism typically means from the atheist point of view.

For me, atheism just means I don't believe in a god.

I'm also agnostic about gods because I don't know if they exist or not.

One of the things I see from people who don't understand atheism is they think all atheists proclaim that there is no god or gods.  This isn't necessarily the case.  An atheist who actually says there is no god, is what we might describe as a gnostic atheist.  This means that they know there is no god or gods.  Although even from my point of view I would say they THINK they know there is no god or gods.

But who knows for sure, I try not to pretend to know things when I don't.  If I don't know, I'll say I don't know.

From my point of view, science and the scientific method are useful because they are reliable and the results are useful.

It is ironic how often religious types say "you seem to hold a naturalistic worldview", I can only shake my head, yeah you do too when you live life.  Religious types are so scared that they might stop believing if they start to accept the same things that atheists do, which ironically, the religious types already accept whether they know it or not.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1340
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #148 on: March 05, 2014, 08:23:12 PM »
I am sorry to disappoint.....but at least now you can understand why I believe the way I do. I am just looking for answers that no one seems to have about the far reaching claims of the ToE. From where I sit, and based on your posts, it seems you have embraced a naturailistic worldview that is plagued by as much mystery and unexplainable phenomenon as I have when trying to demonstrate my beliefs.

The trust that you place in science being able to someday explain what cannot be explained is not much different from the trust I place in God someday explaining what can not be explained. One of the things I find very intriguing is that the more I examine the evidence you rely upon, the stronger my confidence grows in my beliefs. Sometimes, I truly do wonder if there is a living force of some kind that drives the wedge that separates us. It all seems very peculiar to me.

And, please, do not burden yourself or your friend if you have concerns about whether it is worthwhile or not. You offered and I accepted but please don't put yourself out there for me if you don't feel comfortable.

Be honest, you are not looking for answers, and the last thing in the world you want is to talk to an expert on evolution.

There is a living force. It is your brain, indoctrinated with ideas, which prevents you from reaching the level of intelligence which you could be achieving.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6519
  • Darwins +851/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #149 on: March 05, 2014, 09:15:49 PM »
BS, why am I going to try to get my scientist friend to engage with you on evolution when you already think that a magical mysterious invisible being can explain everything better than science?

Any work I put into this thread has been wasted on you. You are very intelligent and engaging, but you see the myths and stories in the bible[1] more plausible than research-based science? This is very depressing.  :(
 1. hundreds of pages on who begat who and how to prepare a sacrifice, but no instructions on how simply washing the hands with clean water will stop the spread of disease germs

I am sorry to disappoint.....but at least now you can understand why I believe the way I do. I am just looking for answers that no one seems to have about the far reaching claims of the ToE. From where I sit, and based on your posts, it seems you have embraced a naturailistic worldview that is plagued by as much mystery and unexplainable phenomenon as I have when trying to demonstrate my beliefs.

The trust that you place in science being able to someday explain what cannot be explained is not much different from the trust I place in God someday explaining what can not be explained. One of the things I find very intriguing is that the more I examine the evidence you rely upon, the stronger my confidence grows in my beliefs. Sometimes, I truly do wonder if there is a living force of some kind that drives the wedge that separates us. It all seems very peculiar to me.

And, please, do not burden yourself or your friend if you have concerns about whether it is worthwhile or not. You offered and I accepted but please don't put yourself out there for me if you don't feel comfortable.

I don't understand why you believe the way you do. That is what I am trying to get at. You believe an ancient book that is no practical use to anyone. I do not "trust in" or worship science. I look at the evidence. I look at what science has done and compare it to the bible.  Relying on the bible gave people a life expectancy of 30-40 years, if they survived childhood. There is no way you can say that the bible or religion has done anything practical for humanity compared to some very basic science concepts.

As I pointed out to junebug on a different thread, global population was stable and very low for thousands of years because many, many babies and children died before reproductive age (again, no help came from the bible). In many societies, people did not even bother to name a child until it was a year or so old. Around the 1800's people started to figure out germs (again, with no help from the bible). Then in the 20th century basic public health and sanitation became widespread.

Clean water, clean food, refrigeration plus vaccinations have saved more lives esp babies and children, than anything in the bible ever has. As a result, population took off like crazy around the 1950's and by the 1970's people started, for the first time in human history, to have the luxury of worrying about too many people! All because babies were surviving (again, with no help from the bible).

People have relied on religious beliefs, holy books, churches, gods galore for thousands of years. And their babies still died. Families had to have 10 kids to make sure 6 grew up.  Nowadays most people can have one or two kids and know they will probably  survive. The difference? Basic science-based sanitation and public health. Not more bible.[2]   I have sat with women in poor countries as they prayed to (non-existent) beings to save their dying babies. They had bibles, but bibles did not keep the babies alive--without science the babies died. Sorry to disappoint, but I am on the side of babies surviving.
 2. In Europe people are way healthier and far less religious now. Back in the Middle Ages, when everyone believed, the population was dying of the plagues while praying to god.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6370
  • Darwins +751/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #150 on: March 05, 2014, 10:34:11 PM »
Evolution cannot explain why animals have been known to flee an area just before a tsunami occurs.

And the fact that humans do not flee an area before a tsunami hits points to an intelligent designer how?

Those little mites that live in your eyelashes. The intelligent designer did that why?

Speaking of eyes, the parasitic worms that crawl into the eyeball and blind people who drink the water out of the Nile. Was that an intelligent designers idea of a joke, or something serious?

Take away the couple of pounds of bacteria living on and in you, and you die. Was that fucking brilliant or what?

Naked mole rats live in closed in burrows, and survive low oxygen levels caused both by their breathing and their farting methane. Yet they thrive, and never virtually never get cancer. Is that your intelligent designer telling us how we should live if we want to be cancer free?

This designer of yours made saber toothed tigers, and regular normal tigers, and grizzly bears, and rattlesnakes, and poison oak, and cyanide, and natural sources of deadly radiation. It inhibited populating the planet by throwing in large bodies of water. It made the weather colder than fuck in some places, and made cliffs that kill, water that drowns, earthquakes that squish and mountains that blow up. Do you call this designer intelligent because if we did the designing we would have out the bad stuff? Is that how you know it was intelligent. It did stuff you can't understand?

And where did an intelligent designer originate? Why is that of no concern? What does that not pique your interest? Why do you accept it as a given? Is it so important that your intelligent designer be superior that you are willing to forego questions about his/its/her origin?

Or is the intelligent designer the person who wrote a book that suckered you in? And do you really have any interest in the truth? Or are you just doing all this because you want your god, under any name, to be true?

If there was a god out there, one actually taking care of us and one actually demonstrating his love for us, a god who found ways to explain it all to us in human terms even if we couldn't see the big picture, a god who made himself apparent in unmistakable ways, who intervened when well-meaning but misinformed folks started bandying around the idea of evolution, who updated his books regularly and, when it became available, had a twitter account, if there was a god to whom prayer mattered and to whom we mattered, a god who was obvious, kind, and capable of creating a world that didn't require a sacrificed son, I'd be sending him thank you notes and everything.

But the god you claim, the history you claim, the reality you claim, the dreams you claim; all are stories, passed down frightened-generation to frightened generation. And all of your efforts to believe will be thwarted, in the end, by the fact that all of that is false. As you waste this reality denying the science you don't like, co-inventing a fantasy that you do like, and preening yourself for an after-death visit with your god that will never happen, just make sure you never look behind the curtain. Knowledge wouldn't fit into your worldview very well.

It saddens me, when anyone, let alone articulate persons such as yourself, insist of remaining two millennia behind the rest of us while trying to coexist. Especially when you are unwilling to accept the world as it is. That is far more frustrating that dealing with your voluntary scientific illiteracy. We could help you fix the latter, but first you have to fix the former.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #151 on: March 06, 2014, 03:00:06 AM »
In a nutshell, for me, the incredible complexity of life and the vastness of the universe points to an Intelligent Designer (the God of the Bible). The naturalistic worldview and the theory of evolution along with the various hypotheses relating to abiogenesis all present an alternate view but, even collectively, they come up way too short to convince me.

No, they don't all present an alternative view, and this has been your straw man problem from the get-go. The ToE does not equal naturalism. Hypotheses relating to abiogenesis do not equal naturalism. There are an abundance of theists and Christians who fully accept the ToE and understand the varying hypotheses for abiogenesis.

What I think you are really doing is saying that these all present alternative views to what the Bible states, and that because they are alternatives they naturally conflict. You have issue with them because you hang on to every word the Bible says like a concrete lifebelt, so anything that conflicts is automatically incorrect. You can give no justification as to why the Bible supersedes anything that contradicts it, and this is why you continue to drown on this forum.

It never occurred to me, but you are an agnostic, aren't you? If so, then shame on me for assuming you were an atheist. If my hunch is correct, then some of your previous posts now make sense to me.

Depending on what "god" is being proposed then yes, I'm an agnostic, but it's a package deal with my atheism. The terms are not mutually exclusive. However, there will be occasions where I am a gnostic atheist, or an ignostic atheist because of the way a god is defined.

Please, carry on with making posts unrelated to what you are responding to.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #152 on: March 06, 2014, 03:48:39 AM »
For the record, even if we concede a designer there is a lot of work to show that it is a particular god - it can't just be assumed as that would be "... so many assumptions guesses, dishonesty, and floating variables behind crucial areas of it[1]."
 1. biblestudent
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1283
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #153 on: March 06, 2014, 10:45:46 AM »
The trust that you place in science being able to someday explain what cannot be explained is not much different from the trust I place in God someday explaining what can not be explained. One of the things I find very intriguing is that the more I examine the evidence you rely upon, the stronger my confidence grows in my beliefs. Sometimes, I truly do wonder if there is a living force of some kind that drives the wedge that separates us. It all seems very peculiar to me.

emphasis added

the trust you speak of is so vastly different that it is laughable you would think they're similar.  Science has EARNED that trust by solving problem after problem after problem (as eloquently elucidated in several previous posts); by correcting itself when it is proven wrong; and by improving the lives of "The World" in general by orders of magnitude.

your myths have earned your trust...why again?
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #154 on: March 06, 2014, 11:01:09 AM »
The trust that you place in science being able to someday explain what cannot be explained is not much different from the trust I place in God someday explaining what can not be explained. One of the things I find very intriguing is that the more I examine the evidence you rely upon, the stronger my confidence grows in my beliefs. Sometimes, I truly do wonder if there is a living force of some kind that drives the wedge that separates us. It all seems very peculiar to me.

emphasis added

the trust you speak of is so vastly different that it is laughable you would think they're similar.  Science has EARNED that trust by solving problem after problem after problem (as eloquently elucidated in several previous posts); by correcting itself when it is proven wrong; and by improving the lives of "The World" in general by orders of magnitude.

your myths have earned your trust...why again?

The irony is that BibleStudent trusts science as well, unless he is the type who doesn't see the doctor when he is sick and lives in a shack with no electicity, gas and running water.

Assuming BibleStudent lives his life like an average first world person, going to the doctor, using microwaves to heat food, turning on lights at the flip of a switch, posting on internet forums, then he has the exact same level of trust that we do.

The difference between BibleStudent and an atheist is that BibleStudent also trusts a mythology.  It is his trust in a mythology which he finds conflicts with science which causes him to try and change what science is so it fits with his mythology and justifies his trust in that mythology.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 11:05:43 AM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #155 on: March 06, 2014, 11:06:18 AM »

1. I am not interested in seeing the whole of evolutionary biology fall apart. There is an enormous amount of valuable knowledge connected to it. My interest is simply to see it presented in a more honesty and forthright manner.

Oh? And what "valuable knowledge" exactly can you share with us, since you haven't actually formally studied the science? The only people shouting "dishonesty" are creationists who haven't done their homework on the subject, and have presuppositional precommitments to their theology that they have assumed from the outset and want desperately to protect.

2. In many ways, the Theory of Evolution provides valuable insight into why God is the more rational and plausible explanation for the world we live in. Still, it’s existence is inconsequential to whether a belief in God is accurate or not.


First, you haven't even attempted to either define (in a coherent useful way) the term "God" (and I do not think you can), and second you (unlike the actual scientists who know this stuff) have been attempting to draw an arbitrary and artificial line of "micro/macro" when no such line exists. The scientific community at large is quite clear about this and there is no debate about it. Nothing stops small changes amounting to bigger ones. The fact that you don't accept the science is just evidence of your arrogance in ignorance and confirmation bias on the subject. This is evidenced by the fact that many professing Christians accept the science (such as Ken Miller from Brown University) and actually have room to talk about the subject because they are experts in their field.

I've asked you at least twice now to present the exact courses pertaining to biology you have taken. Still nothing.


Your comment here seems to presume that non-natural causes can only exist if naturalistic evidence for them can be presented. There is no logical path available to form such a demand. In other words, there are many non-empirical aspects to our reality that point more in favor of God than they do to naturalistic causes.

This is a "because I say so" argument. What the heck are "non-empirical aspects" and how does that (assuming it's even coherent) point to some "God" thing?? Furthermore, what the heck is "non-natural"?? What does that even mean? By what process can you even reliably define and demonstrate that there is such a thing as "non-natural"? These just sound like talking points you're taking from Christian creationist websites instead of actually thinking for yourself. If you are referring to philosophical arguments for a God, I've already dealt with the ones you presented before (cosmological, teleological, moral argument, etc) and none of those actually demonstrate what you claimed. Again, you just CLAIMED them but didn't bother defending the claims (or admitting your fallacies). How can you even begin to assess what "points to" where if 1) you haven't even coherently defined your terms, and 2) you have no data set by which to make such conclusions?
 

My arguments may not sound like they come from a very informed person. I get that. But, I really do think part of it is because what others see as “science” I see as made up stories so my arguments probably don’t seem scientific because I don’t think the topic is based on real science.

[EDIT: Please answer this one in the following post.]

Earlier, you said to someone else that you were willing to admit that ID is not science. Then, I asked you to specifically point out what it is (what the things are) about ID that are NOT science. Conveniently, you dodged the question and didn't answer. So please answer it. What exactly about ID is not science and why?

Second, you don't think your accusations of "made up stories" could have anything to do with your confirmation bias, and the fact that you have so much at stake in your theological precommitments? You don't think that has anything to do with why you continually seek out creationists sites instead of actually taking classes? Others have been trying to point this out to you. You have built up some weird expectation of what you think evolution is, and what you should be presented with. Then on top of that, it seems you've built up your own expectation of what you personally think the expectation should be regarding evidence in evolutionary biology. I'm sorry, that isn't how science works b/c many of the things scientists discover are counter-intuitive and require years of intense study (specializing in particular fields). Did you not know this? Instead of trying to tear down evolution by nit picking from creationist website (which nearly always misrepresent what evolution actually is) why don't you consider enrolling in some actual courses and sit under some actual evolutionary biologists and paleontologists?

Despite what some may think, I am NOT this militant anti-evolution thug who thinks that the theory is a complete farce. Some of it is, indeed, a theory….and a solid one. Unfortunately, a lot of it is not theory and that is what I contend. Too much of it has a religious overtone to it. The ToE reminds me of one of those exploding golf balls. It looks like a real golf ball. It feels like a real golf ball….and it does good at tricking the ball striker into believing it is real. But, when you hit it, that mutha' blows up and you realize that what seemed real, was actually just an illusion. The inside was filled with a bunch of white powder that rendered the ball completely unfit for the game of golf…..just like a lot of the storytelling does to an otherwise good theory.

Your statement here demonstrates quite clearly that 1) you don't understand the science in the manner in which both evolutionary biologists and paleontologists do (or their students do), and 2) you have built up your own non-scientific expectation of what you think the evidence should do for you (i.e. - what exactly it should say to you - that somehow it should meet your standard). How arrogant!! Sorry (and once again), that isn't how science works. You don't get to pick and choose what counts as evidence of common ancestry and what doesn't. Perhaps instead of tirading on this anti-common descent parade you are on you should humbly sit under the scientists who have spent their lives studying this stuff and try to figure out (directly from them) why they hold the positions they do on evolution (i.e. - that it is a theory; meaning the highest point in science). Scientists have just as much evidence for plate tectonics, germ theory, and gravitational attraction as they do for evolution by natural selection. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are singling out evolution and not those other theories. Could it be because you have a bias which is based upon your theology and that evolution is the only one of those that conflicts with your personal theology? Only you can answer that but this seems certainly the case from where we stand (especially since common descent and god belief are not mutually exclusive!). This is why I asked you how much you have to lose in this. If you found out common descent was true tomorrow how would your life (theology, family, friends, social situation, etc) change?

Absolutely. All it would take is one confirmed trail of fossils that clearly depicted the transition of a dinosaur evolving into a bird.

There it is right there, for all to see - your faulty expectation of what you think evolutionary theory must give you in order for you to accept it. This demonstrates that you clearly do not understand how the science works and need to stop trying the Google Scholar approach and actually take some real classes in evolutionary biology, biological anthropology, and related fields.

Conversely, scientists DO actually have very good transitional fossil evidence (along with multiply attested genetics, geological time scales, and a ton more) . Have you even bothered to research this? Why not dedicate yourself to staying away from creationists websites and actually research the specific scientific sources that do not agree with you (b/c this is what academic and intellectual honesty requires).

Using the current demarcation criteria, probably not. The methods used to qualify some of the methods as scientific are disturbing. I know the following quote has probably been cited excessively but I think it describes how many of us see the science behind evolution:

1.   We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.  Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

Here again is your confirmation bias for all to see. Is Ken Miller a materialist?? NOPE! He is a Christian. There are hundreds of Christians, Jews, Hindus, and spiritualists that accept evolution and common descent as well. This assertion of "a commitment to materialism" (or "not letting a divine foot in the door") is absolute and utter fucking bullshit (and you know it). The fact that you can't see your own blatant bias here is astonishing. Countless scientists are god believers and accept the theory. Further, you haven't even begun to discuss the bounds of science. So your attempts to demonize those who want to keep pseudoscience and non-science out of the scientific community (what you call the demarcationists) is nonsense. Is astrology science? Is alchemy science? Is witchcraft science? You aren't standing on anything firm here. It's just moaning and groaning b/c you don't like how science works.

The bottom line here, I think, is that you just don't like science b/c it conflicts with your theological precommitments (I would say the same thing to a Muslim). Intellectual honesty dictates, though, that you change your position when shown to be irrational and/or in error (which I have shown numerous times in your fallacies prior). So why aren't you actually demonstrating honesty? Aren't you supposed to be a follower of Christ?

That may have been the case at one time. In fact, I’m sure it was. When I realized, though, that making an honest assessment of the opposing views required an unbiased examination of the evidence, I started doing what was fair for myself.

You haven't even attempted to make an honest detailed depiction of what evolutionary biology actually states (all you did was post one link in the Texas thread and act like that counts). I don't buy this for a second. Until you actually present ToE as the biologists/paleontologists would depict it (along with their reasons/evidences) these will be nothing but words with no backing. You clearly have a strong bias toward an attempt to redefine what science is in order to smuggle in non-science through the back door. That isn't an honest way of going about things. Anyone can just redefine their terms when they don't like the outcome of the evidence but that isn't honest either. Science has no reliable method for investigating or demonstrating the "supernatural". If you think it does then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how you think you know it can. If you can't demonstrate it, and you wind up using irrational/fallacious arguments (as you have been trying thus far) then you are in error and should correct your position to fit with the evidence, instead of leading the evidence where you already want it to go (aka - to be in favor of the theology you started with).

Truth !!!

You say that if you had to choose between truth and your current belief you would choose truth, but actions speak louder than words and your actions here thus far show the opposite.
 
Quote
I'd also like to know how much is at stake for you. If you stopped being a Christian today, and admitted to all your friends and family that you were having doubts and no longer knew if Christianity was true, what would be the likely consequence or fallout that would ensue?

I think the fallout would be minimal. Many of the people I associate with are non-theists or ‘quiet” Christians anyway. I would probably be asked a lot of questions by fellow Christians but I am rather certain that I would not be ostracized.

Really...You don't go to church? You don't have Christian friends or family? You don't associate with others of like mind? So if you stopped being a Christian today, and told people that you accept evolution and that you no longer believe in Jesus or the things in the bible you think that the people in your church would still be around calling you and wanting to hang out with you (who is no longer a believer like them)? After being a Christian for 20+ years I find this assertion very hard to believe. It's easy to say things like this on a website with no way for anyone to verify but my experience tells me otherwise. What kinds of people are your closest friends in terms of theology? Are your family members believers like you? How would any of your closest, most important and cherished people in your life react if they suddenly discovered you are a non-believer? Remember: Jesus is listening to your answers: Thou shalt not bear false witness.

This isn't a question you need to answer to me here, b/c only you can answer it in time. The subject is meant to ask you to look within yourself for your motivations and biases which are keeping you from seeing things a different way than you now see them (and what emotional mechanisms might be causing you to push back so hard against this one particular scientific enterprise). Do you think it could have anything to do with your prejudices and/or theological precommitments? If so, what steps will you take to minimize the effects of those biases?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 11:46:44 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #156 on: March 06, 2014, 11:24:50 AM »

That is perfectly acceptable to me. If you want to concede that significant aspects of the ToE are not scientifically supported (which is what you just implied) then I will concede that ID is also not scientific.

If (hypothetically) you were to concede that ID is not scientific, what exactly about ID is not science? What specifically about it is not scientific?

I wish the word “science” was eliminated. It has become a ridiculously large and malleable concept with too much power and influence. We would all be better off if we stuck to the non-scientific definition of theory and ceased from using the word “fact” as a compliment to it. I think there needs to be a clear distinction made between what is observable and testable and what is unobservable and not testable. When the word “science” is connected to that which cannot be observed and tested , it is not science…..it is speculation. That is to say, when we start deducing that scientific evidence can lead to so-called "scientific" conclusions about what cannot be deemed a fact, we are creating blurry distortions of what may or may not be reality…… and since the word “science” carries as much weight and influence as it does, we should not be using it to explain such things.

Having given an abbreviated and brief description of what I believe science is really all about, I would say that any aspect of Intelligent Design Theory that attempts  to point exclusively to a ’designer’ is not scientific. Unless it were possible to observe and test the “intelligence,” there is nothing scientifically factual about concluding that a ‘designer’ is the cause. That is a philosophical and/or theological question, not a scientific one. Personally, I think ID has a difficult time keeping the ‘designer’ out of the picture which is why the critics have a field day with it.

Science should be about exploring what the reality of the world can tell us and not about what we would like science to be telling us. Anytime we start taking facts and creating un-facts from them, we have abandoned the concept of science.

That’s my answer based on my .02 about science. The world according to Biblestudent.

This entire post of yours is a complete dodge. Go back and read again what I was asking you and answer the question directly.

If you conceded today (as you indicated in your statement above) that Intelligent Design is NOT science, what exactly about Intelligent Design would be NON-scientific (aka - what about ID is not science)? Please be specific in your answer.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 11:26:25 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2191
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #157 on: March 06, 2014, 11:52:13 AM »
The trust that you place in science being able to someday explain what cannot be explained is not much different from the trust I place in God someday explaining what can not be explained.

The thing is, BS, that science has explained many things that were mysteries to previous generations, so there's a very high probability that science will solve the mystery of biogenesis too. The supernatural has yet to be needed to explain anything in the natural world. Well, except for that one...oh wait, no it hasn't. Ever.

Quote
One of the things I find very intriguing is that the more I examine the evidence you rely upon, the stronger my confidence grows in my beliefs.

Then that's your own biases working against you. The ToE is as solid a theory as theories get. If it didn't work as stated, we'd have a nearly, if not completely, impossible time of coming up with vaccinations, antibiotics, genetic engineering, and a whole host of other modern medicinal marvels.

As I said before, I understand that you cant accept it, and why you cant accept it. But that doesn't make it any less true. It only puts you as an outsider with an ancient, illegitimate, and incorrect view of how the 'verse works.

Now, the only question that remains is; Are you asking these questions to try to understand the ToE and perhaps change your world view, or are you trying to change ours?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #158 on: March 06, 2014, 12:56:45 PM »
Your statement here demonstrates quite clearly that 1) you don't understand the science in the manner in which both evolutionary biologists and paleontologists do (or their students do),

If I had a quarter for every time someone said this (or a similar variation of it), I could buy another house.

What I find most interesting, though, is that RARELY does anyone even try to explain why what I said is in error. Instead, I just get “see, you don’t know what science is really about.” Why is that? Why is it that VERY FEW people on only rare occasion will provide me with the version of science that would somehow correct me? Is this just an attempt to be theatrical and create the impression of forcefulness in the hopes of somehow discrediting me? Simply asserting that whatever I said is wrong without providing some response to the specific error is more indicative of an argumentative maneuver than it is a genuine critique. I mean, how could anyone possibly really know what I know and don't know?

Here it is again:

There it is right there, for all to see - your faulty expectation of what you think evolutionary theory must give you in order for you to accept it. This demonstrates that you clearly do not understand how the science works and need to stop trying the Google Scholar approach and actually take some real classes in evolutionary biology, biological anthropology, and related fields.

I’m not intentionally selecting Median’s posts to criticize Median. It’s just that Median’s latest post contained a few of these types of comments. So, this really goes for most people that respond to me in this manner.

?????

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1340
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #159 on: March 06, 2014, 01:05:54 PM »
BS you claim to be applying the scientific method to evolution but you are not because you are not applying the scientific method to your own thoughts. Nothing you say is worth anything until you sort out your own analytical techniques.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1283
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #160 on: March 06, 2014, 02:01:58 PM »

What I find most interesting, though, is that RARELY does anyone even try to explain why what I said is in error. Instead, I just get “see, you don’t know what science is really about.” Why is that? Why is it that VERY FEW people on only rare occasion will provide me with the version of science that would somehow correct me?

Does that include this, and related, threads??  Because...*scratching head*
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #161 on: March 06, 2014, 02:29:18 PM »



What I find most interesting, though, is that RARELY does anyone even try to explain why what I said is in error. Instead, I just get “see, you don’t know what science is really about.” Why is that? Why is it that VERY FEW people on only rare occasion will provide me with the version of science that would somehow correct me? Is this just an attempt to be theatrical and create the impression of forcefulness in the hopes of somehow discrediting me? Simply asserting that whatever I said is wrong without providing some response to the specific error is more indicative of an argumentative maneuver than it is a genuine critique. I mean, how could anyone possibly really know what I know and don't know?

We know what you know by your own demonstrations and the answers you give, how else?? Did you bring your B game instead of your A game here? By making demands that others must provide you with X animal turning into Y animal you are showing that you don't know the science, because if you did you wouldn't be making demands like this b/c it is NOT what the theory states. If you were asking for transitional fossils, there are plenty for numerous different species. However, as others have noted, just because you can bring up one or two specific examples of where science does not yet have sufficient fossils to your liking doesn't tell us anything about whether or not evolution took place. Furthermore, you haven't even once attempted to properly represent the theory. You just keep setting arbitrary standards that you think apply to science (when they don't). The demands you are making don't have anything to do with whether or not evolution actually took place. They are just strawmen you are setting up based upon your flawed thinking of how things in science are demonstrated (and that isn't by 'absolute' proof btw, it is by multiple independently attested lines of evidence and inference to the best possible explanation at the time - see video below). You keep acting as if your standard of what science should be is the only one that counts (instead of actually deferring to the standard of experts in the field - i.e. - by taking courses from them, speaking with them, or putting down your presuppositional bias toward your assumed theology; aka - doing disinterested research as best as can be done). "Ha! See, you fuckers don't have enough fossils for my taste. So I won't accept it!" What makes you think your personal expectations are viable for scientific research and knowledge?
Others in this discussion (in the prior threads and here) have presented you with numerous lines of evidence that strongly support the theory of evolution (of which there is no debate in the scientific community - and no, appeals to experts in such fields is not ad populum so don't even bring it up). You could have chosen to go and do the research on those topics, then come back here and properly represent them (not just by links or claiming "Oh, there's just so many flaws there! Sorry!"). But you don't have any interest in actually understanding or reading material that strongly goes against your presumptions, do you? You're just on here to poke holes in a well attested theory that best explains all of the available evidence while sitting there with your presumptions of what counts as 'enough' evidence.

Why is it that you are getting so much push back from people on here? Because you have demonstrated quite clearly that you aren't really open to learning anything new or challenging your own presumptions, expectations, or definitions. You don't have any actual evidence for your claims of ID. You just have claims, pokes, and more claims with no evidence (that, and some whack definition of science that would include astrology, which-craft, and magic as science). All of that is working against you here. If you weren't actually trying to redefine science in an attempt to smuggle in supernaturalism you would be getting better responses.

Here it is again:

There it is right there, for all to see - your faulty expectation of what you think evolutionary theory must give you in order for you to accept it. This demonstrates that you clearly do not understand how the science works and need to stop trying the Google Scholar approach and actually take some real classes in evolutionary biology, biological anthropology, and related fields.

I’m not intentionally selecting Median’s posts to criticize Median. It’s just that Median’s latest post contained a few of these types of comments. So, this really goes for most people that respond to me in this manner.

?????


That is exactly what you are doing - cherry-pick selecting parts of my posts and ignoring the rest. You claimed in a previous thread that you properly represented the ToE, and when I asked you to demonstrate where all you did was direct me to some link to another website. Real honest there BS!




Btw (and once again), even if you could overturn all of evolutionary biology it wouldn't lend one bit of credibility to your assertion that a "God" thing did it. Ever hear of the null hypothesis? Judgment and belief are to be withheld until AFTER sufficient evidence has been presented - not before. So even if you could overturn the ToE you would then have to admit ignorance - instead of saying "God did it" like you are doing.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 02:34:18 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #162 on: March 06, 2014, 02:30:01 PM »
Your statement here demonstrates quite clearly that 1) you don't understand the science in the manner in which both evolutionary biologists and paleontologists do (or their students do),

If I had a quarter for every time someone said this (or a similar variation of it), I could buy another house.

What I find most interesting, though, is that RARELY does anyone even try to explain why what I said is in error. Instead, I just get “see, you don’t know what science is really about.” Why is that? Why is it that VERY FEW people on only rare occasion will provide me with the version of science that would somehow correct me? Is this just an attempt to be theatrical and create the impression of forcefulness in the hopes of somehow discrediting me? Simply asserting that whatever I said is wrong without providing some response to the specific error is more indicative of an argumentative maneuver than it is a genuine critique. I mean, how could anyone possibly really know what I know and don't know?


No, you really don't understand science.  Unfortunately, everytime someone explains to you what you don't understand, you just dismiss the explanation with more misunderstandings of science.

It's like your entire knowledge base is based on misunderstandings of science.  Every time we try to explain to you why and how you misunderstood science in one instance you just dismiss it with one of your many other misunderstandings. 

Explaining your misunderstandings is like trying to escape from sinking in quicksand without external help.  The problem is, you've already sunk underneath the sand, we're jumping in to help and you're just pulling us down with you.  We try to throw you a line or a long piece of wood but you burn everything we throw at you.


EDIT: Spelling.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 02:39:09 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #163 on: March 06, 2014, 03:02:12 PM »
Here's a funny article too. It shows creationists who can't agree on whether or not these particular skulls are ape or human (though they are "sure" each fossil can't be transitional, lol).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #164 on: March 06, 2014, 03:32:50 PM »
What I find most interesting, though, is that RARELY does anyone even try to explain why what I said is in error.

My impression is, BibleStudent, that they do, or did at one point, explain.  You are just defensive and quick to dismiss pretty much everything we have to say.  I've not found you particularly open to answers we give.  I would also say that your questions are not genuine inquiry, but taylored to evoke a particular response so you can make a specific argument.  You do not appear to be here to listen, but to be heard. 

That is my impression, but I could be mistaken.

Unfortunately, that is kind of the nature of the beast, particularly on an internet forum.  It is adversarial debate, which no one wants to lose or give quarter.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #165 on: March 06, 2014, 04:03:35 PM »
Here it is again:

There it is right there, for all to see - your faulty expectation of what you think evolutionary theory must give you in order for you to accept it. This demonstrates that you clearly do not understand how the science works and need to stop trying the Google Scholar approach and actually take some real classes in evolutionary biology, biological anthropology, and related fields.

I’m not intentionally selecting Median’s posts to criticize Median. It’s just that Median’s latest post contained a few of these types of comments. So, this really goes for most people that respond to me in this manner.

?????


That is exactly what you are doing - cherry-pick selecting parts of my posts and ignoring the rest. You claimed in a previous thread that you properly represented the ToE, and when I asked you to demonstrate where all you did was direct me to some link to another website. Real honest there BS!



Is this a really old film or something? At around the 8:00 mark, he uses Tiktaalik as an example of how evolution accurately predicted where this 'transitional' fossil would be found....which, as I recall, was refuted by some four legged prints found in Poland??

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #166 on: March 06, 2014, 04:42:32 PM »
Is this a really old film or something? At around the 8:00 mark, he uses Tiktaalik as an example of how evolution accurately predicted where this 'transitional' fossil would be found....which, as I recall, was refuted by some four legged prints found in Poland??

Refuted? No.

Was additional new evidence found?  Yes.  Well actually, I would say the find in Poland is still being examined.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.1.html

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1704/432.full.pdf

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6370
  • Darwins +751/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #167 on: March 06, 2014, 04:46:48 PM »


Is this a really old film or something? At around the 8:00 mark, he uses Tiktaalik as an example of how evolution accurately predicted where this 'transitional' fossil would be found....which, as I recall, was refuted by some four legged prints found in Poland??

Ah, but what you recall has been updated by what I recall, so everything is back to being consistent with the video. Don't worry about it.

I'd give specifics about what I recall, but since you didn't give specifics about what your recall, I feel no compunction to be helpful in this regard.

However, you are allowed to notice how opinion and unsubstantiated statements don't contribute to the conversation without the addition of supporting documentation.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #168 on: March 06, 2014, 04:51:02 PM »


Is this a really old film or something? At around the 8:00 mark, he uses Tiktaalik as an example of how evolution accurately predicted where this 'transitional' fossil would be found....which, as I recall, was refuted by some four legged prints found in Poland??

Ah, but what you recall has been updated by what I recall, so everything is back to being consistent with the video. Don't worry about it.

I'd give specifics about what I recall, but since you didn't give specifics about what your recall, I feel no compunction to be helpful in this regard.

However, you are allowed to notice how opinion and unsubstantiated statements don't contribute to the conversation without the addition of supporting documentation.

Sorry ParkingPlaces, I may have ruined your point.

Although you are right.  Maybe we should start behaving like BibleStudent and just assert things without providing any supporting documentation.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #169 on: March 06, 2014, 04:51:43 PM »

Is this a really old film or something? At around the 8:00 mark, he uses Tiktaalik as an example of how evolution accurately predicted where this 'transitional' fossil would be found....which, as I recall, was refuted by some four legged prints found in Poland??


This is just another example of your bias - oh and your because I say so fallacy. Notice how you did absolutely NOTHING in this comment to actually discuss the video, it's entire contents, the specific examples presented, etc. All you did was CLAIM that Tiktaalik is not a transitional fossil. But you didn't actually do anything to support this claim, nor did you do any explaining of this fossil whatsoever. Notice the arrogance and hubris in your attitude (which I have previously noticed multiple times). You are flippantly dismissive of anything that would overturn your assumptions and theology, and yet you call yourself someone who cares more about 'truth', claims to be open-minded, and claims to be willing to be corrected? NO. If you were any of those things you wouldn't post back handed comments like 'Oh that was refuted...' with ZERO supporting evidence (while simultaneously completely ignoring all of the other evidence in the video). And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously here.

So it seems that turn-about is not fair play for you. You can post links, quote mined quotations, and references to books etc (which we are supposed to research and be open to) but when we post something, that it would take you some time to actually investigate, you just brush it off based on a belief you have from some creationist websites which caters to your biases again. Real honest there! Are you just here to waste everyone's time?


"Regardless of the gait Tiktaalik used, it's clear that the emphasis on hind appendages and pelvic-propelled locomotion is a trend that began in fish, and was later exaggerated during the origin of tetrapods."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140113154211.htm

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/casey-luskin-em.html

Stop reading creationist websites for a while and actually read the words of the scientists themselves.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 04:57:54 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6370
  • Darwins +751/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #170 on: March 06, 2014, 05:04:32 PM »


Is this a really old film or something? At around the 8:00 mark, he uses Tiktaalik as an example of how evolution accurately predicted where this 'transitional' fossil would be found....which, as I recall, was refuted by some four legged prints found in Poland??

Ah, but what you recall has been updated by what I recall, so everything is back to being consistent with the video. Don't worry about it.

I'd give specifics about what I recall, but since you didn't give specifics about what your recall, I feel no compunction to be helpful in this regard.

However, you are allowed to notice how opinion and unsubstantiated statements don't contribute to the conversation without the addition of supporting documentation.

Sorry ParkingPlaces, I may have ruined your point.

Although you are right.  Maybe we should start behaving like BibleStudent and just assert things without providing any supporting documentation.

Nah, that's okay. You went first, and as always, you tried. But you'll notice that BS thinks that he can diss the entire video based on his recollection (which I assume wasn't literal. Modern humans have google for that, and I doubt he would bother keeping what he considers minuta in his own head.)

But again, unless he can state specifically why he disagrees with any point, and simultaneously agree to read rebuttals from us, this thread alone will end up disproving evolution because nothing will ever change. ;)
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #171 on: March 06, 2014, 05:23:28 PM »


Is this a really old film or something? At around the 8:00 mark, he uses Tiktaalik as an example of how evolution accurately predicted where this 'transitional' fossil would be found....which, as I recall, was refuted by some four legged prints found in Poland??

Ah, but what you recall has been updated by what I recall, so everything is back to being consistent with the video. Don't worry about it.

I'd give specifics about what I recall, but since you didn't give specifics about what your recall, I feel no compunction to be helpful in this regard.

However, you are allowed to notice how opinion and unsubstantiated statements don't contribute to the conversation without the addition of supporting documentation.

I wasn't sure if my memory was correct or not which is why I put question marks at the end of my post.

I did do a little research, though, and the narrator of the film indicated that the Tiktaalik discovery was an example of an accurate evolutionary prediction. But, the prints that were found in Poland suggested that Tiktaalik was not an accurate prediction after all. If the prints have been subsequently dismissed as inconsequential to the prediction, then I am unaware of that.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6370
  • Darwins +751/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #172 on: March 06, 2014, 05:31:44 PM »


Is this a really old film or something? At around the 8:00 mark, he uses Tiktaalik as an example of how evolution accurately predicted where this 'transitional' fossil would be found....which, as I recall, was refuted by some four legged prints found in Poland??

Ah, but what you recall has been updated by what I recall, so everything is back to being consistent with the video. Don't worry about it.

I'd give specifics about what I recall, but since you didn't give specifics about what your recall, I feel no compunction to be helpful in this regard.

However, you are allowed to notice how opinion and unsubstantiated statements don't contribute to the conversation without the addition of supporting documentation.

I wasn't sure if my memory was correct or not which is why I put question marks at the end of my post.

I did do a little research, though, and the narrator of the film indicated that the Tiktaalik discovery was an example of an accurate evolutionary prediction. But, the prints that were found in Poland suggested that Tiktaalik was not an accurate prediction after all. If the prints have been subsequently dismissed as inconsequential to the prediction, then I am unaware of that.

And if new information has indeed come along to change the Tiktaalik story, does that mean everything else in the video is equally wrong? Does that mean that you can dismiss the entirety of it because intervening information may or may nor have challenged the prediction mentioned? Or are you jumping on a tiny detail that you think is wrong and using that as an excuse to make a big deal out of it in hopes of never having to discuss, let alone challenge, the remainder of the video?
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
  • Darwins +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #173 on: March 06, 2014, 05:35:38 PM »
BibleStudent

I don't expect you to acknowledge my post. But, anyway....

Where do you draw the line between micro and macro evolution?
How do you distinguish between human and 'non-human' ape fossils?
God(s) exist and are imaginary