|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 10/27/2007 : 11:49:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
And the next strawman award goes to H. Humbert, for his deficit in contributing to the debate and pouncing in to lie on the person he doesn't like.
|
Not a straw man, an analogy. And an apt one.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 12:43:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Coelacanth
And the next strawman award goes to H. Humbert, for his deficit in contributing to the debate and pouncing in to lie on the person he doesn't like.
|
Not a straw man, an analogy. And an apt one.
|
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Humbert... it was a strawman, no matter how you look at it. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 13:10:28 [Permalink]
|
It was not a straw man because it's not a misrepresentation of your position. You readily admit to changes within a species, but reject that these changes can ever add up to macro-evolution. And you do so without explaining what mechanism could hamper this process beyond offering the true but irrelevant objection that such changes have never been observed. (And since direct observation isn't a requirement in science, your objection is thus a red herring). So, in fact, your reasoning is identical to accepting inches but denying that they add up to miles.
It's pure irrational denial on your part. Science only needs to meet the standard of reasonable doubt, which in this case the theory of evolution amply has. There is no obligation to meet your unreasonable standards. No one can convince you if you refuse to view the evidence impartially. If you care nothing for truth, then it is easily dismissed. No one loses in such a circumstance but you.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/27/2007 13:11:21 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 13:13:01 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth:
Actually, creatures that exist at the beginning of the fossil record aren't less complex at all. |
Would you care to elaborate on that?
Coelacanth:
Maybe one could say less intelligent, but not less complex, they all suit their environments quite nicely. |
Of course they suited their environments nicely. But not less complex?
Coelacanth:
Some of them even have features more complex than our own. As discovered from the Coelacanth (ironically enough). |
That is a jump to a later period. I was speaking of the Cambrian. And I'm not sure what you mean by more complex.
Source please.
At this point, it is important to define our terms. While I would say that Precambrian life was less complex, those life forms most certainly did fill whatever niche was available to them at their stage of development.
But it is important to remember that a fish is complex and so we look at features that are primitive, in terms of time and based on comparisons to later versions of the same features, which says nothing about complexity.
Perhaps when talking about the Precambrian and the Cambrian we can speak of complexity. But further up the column, we are looking at the development of features that may have even lost some complexity but are better suited for a particular animal or plants survival. A feature may move and take on a different job like jaw parts becoming ear parts.
In any case, I suppose I will have to be more careful in my use of words when making generalizations.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 10/27/2007 : 13:21:43 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth:
I think they call this faith. |
Yes, I suppose it is when faith is used as a synonym for confidence earned. I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, because it always has.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 14:51:55 [Permalink]
|
I don't get it... "Goo to you via the zoo" I don't see how that's correct or even what it's supposed to mean. I'm not good at things like this, sorry.
|
C'mon 'Canth, you're smarter'n that!
What Sarfati means, in his own, unique way, is: abiogenesis in a "warm, little pond" to modern H. sapiens by way of various intermediate species. What's not to understand?
Yes, I done research on lung evolution. They have some very interesting stories, but in essence the fossil record shows the lung appearing suddenly. I know, I know there are explanations why that would have happened, but the lung isn't alone in this at all, which is why this supports creation. You must note that support for creation doesn't necessarily mean argument against evolution, but IMO the sudden appearance of limbs (on tetrapods) and organs like this. Are one of the lines of support for creationism.
Whether or not evolutionist have an explanation (speculation) of how it could be so...
As for the Jaw evolution, I've always been skeptical of the genetic studies, this one seems not to provide much to my skeptism. It seems to show that the Jaw and the lips before come from different genes, but do similar things. Under the idea that they are from the same creator this is very understandable.
|
So suddenly we're back into belief. I have stated my opinion of less-than-supported belief earlier on and it's not changed in the interm. "Belief" ain't hittin' on it -- never has; never will. It takes evidence to support a claim and money to buy good whiskey.
As stated by Kil, soft tissue doesn't fossilize well so we might never know when lungs actually came into use amongst fishes and later, amphibians. All we have at the moment is, not speculation, but educated conjecture.
As for limbs, have you ever raised frogs from eggs? There, in microcosm, you have genetics in action. As to how those genes came into being, the fossil record can't say. But the Theory of Evolution predicts that if a niche is open, a species will fill it by means of random mutations in individuals that spread through a population of the species, adapting that population to the ecological situation. Thus, in the Cambrian and over a great deal of time, fishes evolved fins and some fins became limbs. An over-simplifaction, but there you have it.
Um, why do jaws....
.... require lips?
Why because they are an aid in vacumn feeding and evolved seperatly.
Ain't evolution grand?!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
recurve boy
Skeptic Friend
Australia
53 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 16:42:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
My my... you seem to be making the same mistake a lot of evolutionists make.
WHAT evidence? You didn't post evidence at all. You only posted an explanation of how someone thinks it could have happened. Not evidence of it happening. If I post a quote from some monk explaining how Moses crossed the Red Sea and how it could happen. That doesn't mean anything... It's just an explanation.
Try and think about whether something is actual evidence before you post it.
Eye evolution is a very fickle subject, it is a thing that supposedly evolved and "devolved" many times, however I find convergent evolution to be quite farcical for several reasons.
1. They lack a mutation which demonstrates how these supposed evolutionary traits could have happened in the first place.
2. The amount of mutations to compliment each other is astronomical in just one evolutionary leap. Not to mention that the eye, nerve, brain and memory has to evolve for such as thing to work.
3. This is supposed to happen several times throughout time.
|
Oh, so what you are really asking for is proof, not evidence.
I did indeed provide evidence. We had a problem, how an eye develops. We wonder how it could have happened. Perhaps someone noticed that in 2 different eye structures, the difference is a "step" away from each other. They form a hypothesis and go look for evidence. Lo and behold! The structures they predict from their hypothesis exist.
This is supporting evidence because we found something existing and it fits a particular aspect of our theory - there are eye structures and can fit into a nice neat logical progression.
I only imagine that someone would come up with the hypothesis and models first, because knowing all the animals that fit off the top of your head is unlikely. That's a lot of animals.
To address your points:
1. Science is an iterative process and we often don't know or understand all the parts. We may never find something. But missing pieces is not reason to abandon theories. By that reasoning, we should abandon quantum mechanics, and if we did that none of us could sit at home and point out why creationists are wrong (since we would not have personal computers).
2. So what? The the precise sequence of events that led to earth being formed is also astronomical. The precise sequence of events that led to you arguing on the forum is astronomical.
3. And it did, the structure of the mollusc eye is different than the, the mammalian(?) eye. The mammal eye is flawed (I guess God was high when he designed it). The "wiring" is placed in front of the retina. This isn't the case with the mollusc eye.
Edit: BBcode, not HTML. |
| Edited by - recurve boy on 10/27/2007 20:03:31 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 19:00:25 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth doesn't realize how exactly he is falling into the typical pattern of evo-doubters who come to these fora.
Make a bunch of unsupported claims, provide no evidence for any claim you make, refuse to engage in specific discussions, and so on.
Its just sadly predictable. And boring.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 20:40:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Coelacanth doesn't realize how exactly he is falling into the typical pattern of evo-doubters who come to these fora.
Make a bunch of unsupported claims, provide no evidence for any claim you make, refuse to engage in specific discussions, and so on.
Its just sadly predictable. And boring.
|
Also, add: Make contradictory statements, prove your ignorance not only of the science under discussion, but of how science works in general, while insisting you are well-read on the subject. But throw in that you really don't have time to read the links people have given you. Then attack anyone who points out your contradictions and borrowings from the usual Creationist screed, and call those people ad hom attackers.
Sweet. Yawn.
I admit to being taking in earlier by his tactics, but no longer. Too much blatant distortion for someone who is merely innocently ignorant. This seems to be more like a would-be fundy preacher practicing. I'm no longer interested in, with my limited skill, trying to educate this guy, as he's not interested in learning.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/27/2007 20:42:09 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 01:03:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
It didn't?
I think this may be a case of trying to look deeper into what I'm actually saying. |
I see: problems of perception are my fault when you're being purposefully ambiguous.| I'm purposely being ambiguous by not answering all of you all's questions. I have a lot to answer, I'm just saving some of it so as not to give myself too much the next time I get here. |
You could, of course, simply decline to answer until you've got enough time, rather than presenting purposefully ambiguous answers which, when replied to themselves, give you the opportunity to cry "strawman!"| The predict, test and confirm parts are too part of the speculation. I consider speculation looking at facts and then coming to a conclusion based on the evidences. |
Okay, so for you personally, "speculation" is a synonym for "science," and so it is quite literally impossible to present to you any science of any sort which is not speculative, because they're the same thing to you. I understand now. Even science in favor of God's existence must be speculative, it's some other kind of something in support of God's existence which isn't speculative, which you won't talk about.Originally posted by Dave W.
How often are people wrong about basic observations (as opposed to hypotheses)? |
That's a little ambiguous. |
Was it, or were you looking deeper than what I'm actually asking?| How often are people wrong about making conclusions from basic observations as opposed to hypothesis? |
A hypothesis is a (very) tentative conclusion based upon basic observations, so there is no "as opposed to."Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, that's not a definition of "science." |
You can't sum up science in a few dictionary terms, here's a better reference Science.
Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject of the field of study. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. |
I fail to see how this snippet from a discussion of the scientific method supports your assertion that the "definition of science" is "people are wrong all the time" or "realigning with the facts." After all, the mechanisms through which one does science are not synonymous with science itself. If things were otherwise, then a map would be the same as the terrain.Originally posted by Dave W.
To reiterate: would you care to discuss just how God is not speculative? |
What observations or facts were considered and then a conlusions drawn from it? |
Oh, right: you've redefined "science" to equal "speculation," and so if God isn't scientific then God isn't speculative. If you'd publish your personal dictionary, it would be helpful to this discussion.Originally posted by Dave W.
The truths that science can't find are those for which there can be no unequivocal evidence. |
But alike for evolution there are evidences or proofs which help elucidate those truths. |
Say what to the who? Your response doesn't make sense even in light of your personal definition of the word "science."
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, "Ford automobiles are manufactured by the Ford Motor Company" is a perfectly viable, scientifically testable hypothesis. "Ford makes Ford cars" is a scientific proposition. |
Yes, but 200,000 years from now that would be very hard to prove? |
How hard something is to prove is utterly irrelevant to whether it's amenable to scientific exploration - the phenomenon in question need simply be testable in principle for it to be scientific (using everyone else's definition, here, not yours).
For example, since God can change what we know of as "reality" on a whim, that means that there is no conceivable test which could in principle distinguish a universe in which God exists from one in which God does not exist. God is thus not something that science could ever investigate.
You also wrote:| Oh please, if you really want. Do be sarcastic, but know that I will retaliate and this will very quickly turn from civilised debate to a sarcasm war and then perhaps to a flame war and then lead to anything from there. |
This has yet to become a civilized debate. Creating your own definitions of common words but acting as if we should understand what you say is anything but civilized.As for the experiment to show a experiment that scientists could do?
I think those have already come up in the fossil record, but they're not paying any attention to it because one of the laws of science is that you can't claim any supernatural cause...
Which is what that would signify. |
I didn't ask you if any experiments had been done, I asked you to describe one. You failed to do so, and instead fabricated a mythical "law of science."
You also wrote:Ok... let's look at some facts shall we?
Homology or more simply put:-
Creature A has X
Creature B has X
surely they evolved from a common ancestor.
No... that's under the assumption that evolution CAN happen.
So is:-
Creature A has X
Creature B has X
Surely they have the same designer.
Under the assumption that God exists.
Basically anything can be put there...
Creature A has X
Creature B has X
Surely they <insert your connection here>.
None of the facts of homology require a person to believe evolution happened. |
You've got the science backwards, and are ignoring facts about the God hypothesis.
The science is that if creatures A and B evolved from a common ancestor, then they should share trait X.
The God hypothesis can be:- If creatures A and B have the same trait X, then God exists,
- if creature A has trait X and creature B does not, then God exists,
- or if creature A has trait X and creature B has trait Y, then God exists.
The only reason to think that God would "design" in one way or another is if you think that you know God's Divine Plan, which would be hubris beyond measure. Traits matching (or not) can thus not be used as evidence for God, if you've got any humility at all in the face of omnipotence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 04:09:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Originally posted by HalfMooner
That implies a false conclusion, and specious reasoning. It shows you do not indeed yet understand science as it is, only as you were told it is. The fact that the vast majority of scientists in general (and virtually all of those in the biological and geological fields) support evolution cannot be twisted into an argument against evolution, Coelacanth. |
Actually all these ideas I have come up with are my own. I have not been told any of this. The only things I have been told were things from evolutionist websites. I have read a bit of creationist material here and there and whilst some of them have some good point a lot of them are plain stupid. Everything I have said in this thread is pretty much my own ideas, nothing told to me at all. |
Bolding mine
I've decided to leave most of this argument for those that are tackling it with more skill and patience than I have at hand.
Your statement above however, intrigues me greatly in terms of defining the context for the whole discussion.
Do you really mean this? Have you come to your conclusions from first principles, revelation or some other method I cannot imagine?
Surely, if you had reviewed the various positions on such matters, and there are many, you would soon discover that your ideas, at least those that you've presented in sufficient detail, are far from unusual or unpopular. So far, there's really nothing you've said that hasn't been discussed at great length all over the place.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 10/28/2007 04:10:18 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 08:45:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
The only reason to think that God would "design" in one way or another is if you think that you know God's Divine Plan, which would be hubris beyond measure. Traits matching (or not) can thus not be used as evidence for God, if you've got any humility at all in the face of omnipotence.
|
And that, I think, is really the crux of the issue here. Coelacanth thinks just because some evidence for evolution or common descent can be equally explained by "magic man done it," then creation is on equal footing with evolution and it's simply a matter of how one interprets the evidence. But there is a huge difference between following the evidence to a conclusion, and using a conclusion to explain away the evidence ad hoc. So despite Coelacanth's wishes, evolution and creationism are not both suppositions. Only creation is a bias held before examining the data. Evolution is a conclusion which follows from the data.
Also, before crediting anything to his magic man, before creationism could be considered a viable alternative, Coelacanth would of course first have to prove his god exists. And despite Dude's encouragement to open a thread to do just that, Coelacanth has declined. Which I suppose is for the best, since thus far Coelacanth has only been able to cite certain features of biological life as evidence for his creator, proving that his reasoning is not only spurious but circular.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/28/2007 08:46:37 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 07:21:27 [Permalink]
|
While I have enjoyed and apreciate the effort that Coelacanth has put forth in this thread so far, this has resonated with me the most:
| In the end as skeptics, we must realise. There is no real knowledge. There is only what is most reasonable to believe. |
This is what has frustrated me many of time whilst discussing the subject of fish-to-philosopher evolution on this forum. I understand that critters such as HH and dude are beyond any doubt that fish-to-philosopher is the most reasonable to believe, ok fine, they have their conclusion. But the way they parade the fish-to-philosopher "theory" of Evolution around as empirical fact and refuse to acknowledge that they, in reality, have no real knowledge, and therefore are speculating on what they find most reasonable, is what frustrates me. Add to this the fact that anyone who does not tow the fish-to-philosopher theory lock stock and barrel is certified "insane." And so I would agree, it sounds like a clear cut case of indoctrination for these guys.
I can really appreciate Ricky's observation of this precise issue and he said what I have been thinking better then I ever have when I said it. In regards to HH:
| How did you come to such a conclusion that Coelacanth was in fact indoctrinated? He has yet to state what he believes, whether or not he actually agrees with evolution. I don't see how you could ever make a conclusion on someones knowledge of biology from 4 sentences. That is quite ridiculous, isn't it? |
and in regards to dude:
| However by saying it is not possible, you close your eyes off from seeing new evidence. If you truly believe something isn't possible, you would have to be a moron to investigate new evidence concerning it (by definition of "not possible"). This is where you cross over the line from skeptic to cynic. |
In my humble opinion he was spot on in his observations.
I can relate to Coelacanth's point as well, which if I may paraphrase, more or less said that it will be a waste of time to debate an indoctrinated cynic. (Example: HH or dude.)
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 07:38:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
But the way they parade the fish-to-philosopher "theory" of Evolution around as empirical fact... |
And what frustrates them, Bill, is your mis-use of the word "theory" and now, "empirical." The theory of evolution is the only empirical theory of biological diversity we have, because neither God nor an unidentified designer is an empirical premise. And your scare-quotes around "theory" show that despite everything that's been shown to you over the years, you simply refuse to use the term as scientists do.| ...and refuse to acknowledge that they, in reality, have no real knowledge, and therefore are speculating on what they find most reasonable, is what frustrates me. |
Yet you haven't demonstrated a lack of "real knowledge" (whatever you really mean by that). You simply assert this as a "fact," and then run with it.
This would appear to make you no different from the people you're attacking, Bill. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 08:42:26 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| And what frustrates them, Bill, is your mis-use of the word "theory" and now, "empirical." The theory of evolution is the only empirical theory of biological diversity we have, |
Just so we are clear here, I fully accept the empirical evidence we have observed in TOE as far as explaining the adaptation of critters to certain environments etc... What I question is the speculative evidence and assuming that go into the fish-to-philosopher portion of it.
| because neither God nor an unidentified designer is an empirical premise. |
I don't recall ever claiming that it was. If I did then I was sorely mistaken.
| And your scare-quotes around "theory" show that despite everything that's been shown to you over the years, you simply refuse to use the term as scientists do. |
A little sarcasm, sorry. I have already acknowledged that I consider TOE to have been observed and empirical, just not the fish-to-philosopher part of it.
| Yet you haven't demonstrated a lack of "real knowledge" (whatever you really mean by that). You simply assert this as a "fact," and then run with it. |
So are you saying that the fish-to-phlospher portion of TOE is without any assumption or has a zero factor of speculation involved?
| This would appear to make you no different from the people you're attacking, Bill. |
Why? I don't claim to hold empirical information to the notion of God and/or a designer. Nor do I consider that which I find more reasonable to belive enough reason to label someone insane.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 10/29/2007 08:45:27 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger
Topic Locked
