|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 06/01/2006 : 07:52:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
I rather be a fool in my attempt of letting the world know that mutations whether positive, neutral or negative over millions of years are one of the mechanisms of human (macro) development. I do not believe most people know this. Yet I'm helping your cause if evolutionary theory is correct.
You're not helping if you're spreading lies and misunderstandings about evoltion.
quote:
<snip> ... believing that rain on rocks over billions of years can develop on its own to a point of us having this discussion on this forum.
This is a text-book example of a Straw Man Argument. We both know that abiogenesis is not that simple, and you should also already know that abiogenesis and evolution are separate diciplines.quote:
Who's fooling who here?
Well, obviously you are trying to fool gullible people into believeing your misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Which I consider very dishonest. How can you live with yourself? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2006 : 08:49:08 [Permalink]
|
Bottom line Bibleland is that you promised that your arguments would be more compelling than the usual creationist arguments against evolution in both style and substance.
quote:
Bibleland from this thread::
One thing I've learned from you fine folks is you want hard evidence. Could I possibily supply what creationists promise but never seem to deliver?
Well get ready to experience things you never knew existed.
Well, lets see. Ummmmm, so far you have offered nothing of the kind. You did buy a one eyed cat, but so would have P.T. Barnum. (Barnum did have a mermaid. though. You might try to get your hands on one of those. A mermaid would definitely throw evolution into question!)
Anyhow, you raised our expectations. It would have been nice to not have run of the mill creationist arguments thrown our way. What you have “learned from [us] fine folks” is a mystery to me.
You are a disappointment.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2006 : 08:53:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
Just to be pedantic, evidence is not scientifically proven. Nor can it be used to prove.
To be even more pedantic, the word 'prove' comes to us from the Latin 'probare,' meaning "to test." And in that sense, evidence certainly does test theories. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2006 : 10:30:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
Just to be pedantic, evidence is not scientifically proven. Nor can it be used to prove.
To be even more pedantic, the word 'prove' comes to us from the Latin 'probare,' meaning "to test." And in that sense, evidence certainly does test theories.
I hate it when I'm out-pedanticed. 
And I understand Ricky's point that we shouldn't be too concerned with being so precise. However, I think it does tend to confuse things a bit when we talk as though some bit of evidence cam "prove" a theory. There are a lot of people out there who don't know the difference. Maybe they'll think that if some bit of evidence can prove a theory, then some bit can disprove a theory. Creationists are quite fond of taking bits of nonsensical evidence as "disproof" of evolution. Perhaps if they understood it better.....naaaah. Never mind.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2006 : 12:16:26 [Permalink]
|
Well, some bits of evidence can disprove theories. It's those bits which are exclusively contradictory to a theory's predictions which show that a theory is simply wrong. Fossils of a Devonian bunny would punch a big hole in common descent, since according to that theory, there can't be bunnies prior to there being mammals.
I understand Ricky's point, as well, but disagree with it. Because there is as much confusion in the public as to whether science can "prove" something as there is confusion about what a "theory" is, I think it's very important to be precise as to what science can or cannot do. Of course, no matter how pedantic one wishes to be, evidence certainly doesn't get "proven," as evidence consists of observations, not explanations. Ricky's problem is here:quote:
Science is always tentative, and when talking about science, you can assume a person is talking tentatively.
The problem is that this forum has zillions of examples of creationists and other pseudoscientists using scientific terms in wholly unscientific ways. Ricky would have a good point if this forum consisted of nothing but scientists talking to other scientists, but the fact that folks like Bibleland read and participate here means that we have to be as clear as possible and not allow ourselves "shortcuts."
And it's not a matter of being grammatically precise: when I read Reztasohk's post, I said to myself, "the meaning there is awfully sloppy." Reztasohk could have left out all punctuation and verbs, making a grammatical nightmare, but still conveying a more-precise meaning. Of course, you may think that's hair-splitting, too, and I'm not sure I'd disagree.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2006 : 13:59:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, some bits of evidence can disprove theories. It's those bits which are exclusively contradictory to a theory's predictions which show that a theory is simply wrong. Fossils of a Devonian bunny would punch a big hole in common descent, since according to that theory, there can't be bunnies prior to there being mammals.
I understand Ricky's point, as well, but disagree with it. Because there is as much confusion in the public as to whether science can "prove" something as there is confusion about what a "theory" is, I think it's very important to be precise as to what science can or cannot do. Of course, no matter how pedantic one wishes to be, evidence certainly doesn't get "proven," as evidence consists of observations, not explanations. Ricky's problem is here:quote:
Science is always tentative, and when talking about science, you can assume a person is talking tentatively.
The problem is that this forum has zillions of examples of creationists and other pseudoscientists using scientific terms in wholly unscientific ways. Ricky would have a good point if this forum consisted of nothing but scientists talking to other scientists, but the fact that folks like Bibleland read and participate here means that we have to be as clear as possible and not allow ourselves "shortcuts."
And it's not a matter of being grammatically precise: when I read Reztasohk's post, I said to myself, "the meaning there is awfully sloppy." Reztasohk could have left out all punctuation and verbs, making a grammatical nightmare, but still conveying a more-precise meaning. Of course, you may think that's hair-splitting, too, and I'm not sure I'd disagree.
Darn. I hate it when I say dumb things.
Sure, a bit of the right kind of evidence can indeed disprove a theory as you said. I guess what I should have been saying was that a bit of evidence can not "prove" a theory. It may be consistant, but it can't prove it.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
