|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2007 : 16:19:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I never said that we could not convict him. |
You never said it, but it surely is your intent.
You are attempting to label evolution as just a belief in order to place it on the same level as your creation myth, and if it gets to that point - two equally "reasonable" beliefs vying for the jury's attention - it will create "reasonable doubt" and conviction will be impossible.
You've said it what, 5 or 6 times now?
Unfortunately, to get to that point, you've got to delve into solipsism, turning anything we might think of as a "fact" into just a mere belief, thus undercutting your own argument (because "it's nothing more than a belief" becomes just another unsupportable belief).
And, of course, it also destroys the "facts" presented in the Bible (perhaps most importantly the Resurrection).| I am not claiming the theory is based on them, if I implied that then that was not my intention. |
Well, you clearly said so, several times. It wasn't implied, it was stated outright. By you.| What I am saying is that because of the endless amounts of unknowns that would go into such a vast subject that it would be unreasonable to challenge the notion that the conclusion is a belief of that which is thought to be the most reasonable explanation based on the interpretation of the evidence. |
All our sciences have exactly the same "problem," but you only pick on one aspect of evolution, and much of global warming. Why is that, Bill? Why aren't you complaining about electron theory or optics? Why is it that you don't start threads talking about how the results of the Two Slit Experiment are just mere beliefs? Why is it that you're so complacent, Bill, in allowing us to think of those other things as "facts?" Why is it just "fish to philosopher evolution" that earns your posting time, but not the materials science that gives us better, faster computers every year?
I suspect it's because those other "beliefs" don't directly contradict what's in the Bible. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2007 : 16:58:41 [Permalink]
|
| Again, I have a belief in God while you have a belief in fish-to-philosophers. I have said this like 5 or 6 times now. |
We know, we know. Yeesh! Give it a rest!
Bill your fish to unemployable nerd statement sort of & in a way reminds me of the felon Hovind's $250,000 challenge to prove evolution. Under his slightly insane rules, his money was safe enough.
So it is with your own challenge. The topic is simply too big. Anything that graduate students write thesis' on, spending years in the effort and still only cover a portion of it, cannot be dealt with on some small forum in the backwaters of the internet by mostly laymen. There's just too damned much to it. Indeed, various unrelated species have an influence upon our ancient ancestors and they too, must be discussed. And there are a great many of those ancestors, from fish to mere cretin even, the bulk of them unknown. Most of those will never studied nor even discovered.
Red herring, Bill, red herring. A fat, smelly one.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 18:29:36 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| I never said that we could not convict him. |
You never said it, but it surely is your intent. |
That is not true. I simply pointed out how someone can be convicted, with scientific evidence, and a consensus, and still be innocent of the crime. That it is possible.
| You are attempting to label evolution as just a belief in order to place it on the same level as your creation myth, |
Again not true. I am labeling molecules-to-man evolution a belief, well, because it is a belief. Your speculation on my motive does not negate this fact. And I am rather surprised to see you go down the cynic road.
| and if it gets to that point - two equally "reasonable" beliefs vying for the jury's attention |
Again not true. What ever makes you think that I believe that the two belief systems are equally reasonable?
| it will create "reasonable doubt" and conviction will be impossible. |
I am just trying to get a full consensus from all that what we have here is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution. It's that simple. The resistance is futile as this is known.
| Unfortunately, to get to that point, you've got to delve into solipsism, turning anything we might think of as a "fact" into just a mere belief, thus undercutting your own argument (because "it's nothing more than a belief" becomes just another unsupportable belief). |
I believe that certain beliefs carry more reason to trust in their validity, as do you. But in the end they are still beliefs.
| And, of course, it also destroys the "facts" presented in the Bible (perhaps most importantly the Resurrection). |
Evidence can be presented for the Resurrection but in the end I would say it comes down to belief.
Well, you clearly said so, several times. It wasn't implied, it was stated outright. By you. |
I said that TOE was based on all the gaps?
| All our sciences have exactly the same "problem," but you only pick on one aspect of evolution, and much of global warming. Why is that, Bill? |
Yes, all our sciences do have exactly the same problem, but you pick to highlight this problem in the Biblical creation account many times over while at the same time you appear to have a problem accepting the fact that you have a belief in molecules-to-man evolution. Why is that, Dave?
| Why aren't you complaining about electron theory or optics? Why is it that you don't start threads talking about how the results of the Two Slit Experiment are just mere beliefs? Why is it that you're so complacent, Bill, in allowing us to think of those other things as "facts?" |
I barely have time |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 19:08:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Yeah, billy is so ridiculous. All he is capable of doing is creating strawmen and telling lies.
He and his fishy new friend are quite the pair.
|
Just acknowledge that what you hold firmly too is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution and then we can precede forward. Until then your just an indoctrinated cynic. |
"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 - 10/30/2007 : 19:08:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I am just trying to get a full consensus from all that what we have here is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution. It's that simple. |
No, it's not that simple, because the basis on which you're doing that invalidates all of science. You claim you just don't have time to demolish the rest, but the fact is that if you stuck to the root philosophy, you wouldn't have to treat evolution any different than gravity: it's all "belief."
That you're resistant to discussing the core problem makes this issue very complex, indeed, and not as simple as you'd like to have it. Especially when you refuse to provide a single example of an assumption or speculation within the theory your tunnel-vision is latched onto.
In other words, it looks like you haven't thought this through, Bill.| I believe that certain beliefs carry more reason to trust in their validity, as do you. |
No, actually, I don't. As I said, I don't "believe in" the theory of evolution. I have no reason to "believe in" it any more than I "believe" there's a ten-dollar bill in my wallet.| But in the end they are still beliefs. |
Not even at the deepest core of my philosophy is that true. Your solipsistic one, perhaps.| Evidence can be presented for the Resurrection but in the end I would say it comes down to belief. |
No, in the beginning it comes down to belief, and that destroys the possibility of "evidence."| I said that TOE was based on all the gaps? |
Gaps? No. Speculation and assumption, yes.| All our sciences have exactly the same "problem," but you only pick on one aspect of evolution, and much of global warming. Why is that, Bill? |
Yes, all our sciences do have exactly the same problem, but you pick to highlight this problem in the Biblical creation account many times over while at the same time you appear to have a problem accepting the fact that you have a belief in molecules-to-man evolution. Why is that, Dave? |
Because I don't have any "belief" in any form of evolution, and I don't pick on the Biblical creation account, either: just those who assume that it must be read literally. Your attempted turn-around has failed, Bill.| but not the materials science that gives us better, faster computers every year? |
What does materials science have to do with molecules-to-man evolution? |
The same problems exist within materials science that exist for evolution, Bill. Didn't you just agree that's the case? Yes, you said, "Yes, all our sciences do have exactly the same problem..." Why aren't you attacking the core problem, instead of making it look like your rancor is reserved for that which conflicts with your faith?| I would suspect that your constant attacks against the Bible and it's version of the creation account have a root in the fact that it contradicts molecules-to-man evolution. |
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2007 : 19:29:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I would suspect that your constant attacks against the Bible and it's version of the creation account have a root in the fact that it contradicts molecules-to-man evolution.
|
It's not because it contradicts molecules-to-man evolution, but because it contradicts reason.
While I cannot speak for Dave or anyone else in this matter, I'm still sure that Dave and practically all SFN-members do agree with me.
Edited to add:
Ok, In the post above, Dave qualified it a bit to the literal reading of the creation account. I suppose that's what I mean also. |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/30/2007 19:38:34 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 20:04:32 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| No, it's not that simple, because the basis on which you're doing that invalidates all of science. |
Stating that it is a belief does not negate science. You know that science, and the scientific method, can come to the wrong conclusion, don't you? That is always a possibility, right? I gave you the example of how a lawyer can present evidence in a scientific manner, and get a unanimous verdict from the jury, and put an innocent man behind bars. It happens. It was scientific, it was reached by a consensus, and it happened to be wrong. Something can be 100% science and still be 100% wrong at the same time. Something tells me you're having a hard time accepting this known.
| but the fact is that if you stuck to the root philosophy, you wouldn't have to treat evolution any different than gravity: it's all "belief." |
That's not true. While they are both beliefs I find gravity much more reasonable to believe then m-t-m evolution. But that is just my belief. You are welcome to yours.
| That you're resistant to discussing the core problem makes this issue very complex, indeed, and not as simple as you'd like to have it. Especially when you refuse to provide a single example of an assumption or speculation within the theory |
You have already acknowledged that they exist so why is it so important to you that I provide an example of that with which you agree?
| No, actually, I don't. As I said, I don't "believe in" the theory of evolution. I have no reason to "believe in" it any more than I "believe" there's a ten-dollar bill in my wallet. |
Because of your confusion that anything which requires “belief” is then equally probable to anything else that requires “belief.” Which I think is a reason why you have a hard time acknowledging that you have a belief in m-t-m evolution.
| Not even at the deepest core of my philosophy is that true. Your solipsistic one, perhaps. |
So you're saying we can know for sure?
| No, in the beginning it comes down to belief, and that destroys the possibility of "evidence." |
What's your problem with belief and evidence? A jury looks at the evidence and convicts or acquits a man based on their beliefs all the time.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 20:11:08 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
| It's not because it contradicts molecules-to-man evolution, but because it contradicts reason. |
Certainly you're entitled to your own opinion.
| While I cannot speak for Dave or anyone else in this matter, I'm still sure that Dave and practically all SFN-members do agree with me. |
Yipieeeeeeeeeeeee…………………
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 21:31:59 [Permalink]
|
Gosh the word indoctrinated is being thrown around a lot. As though there is no evidence for evolution and we are all just brainwashed.
So a magic guy in the sky did it makes more sense to you Bill? Okay, whatever floats your boat.
Magic guy
Natural process
Magic guy
Natural process
Magic guy
I'm sorry but I just have to go with natural process. Enjoy your lack of indoctrination though…
|
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 - 10/30/2007 : 21:41:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Stating that it is a belief does not negate science. You know that science, and the scientific method, can come to the wrong conclusion, don't you? That is always a possibility, right? I gave you the example of how a lawyer can present evidence in a scientific manner, and get a unanimous verdict from the jury, and put an innocent man behind bars. It happens. It was scientific, it was reached by a consensus, and it happened to be wrong. Something can be 100% science and still be 100% wrong at the same time. Something tells me you're having a hard time accepting this known. |
Bill, something doesn't have to be a "belief" to be wrong. People can have incorrect knowledge, too. You're trying to equate "knowledge" with "belief," despite the fact that the words mean different things.
On a deeper level, neither do I believe nor do I know that the world actually exists. There is at least one other choice. Can you figure out what it is? If you can, you'll understand why I don't believe in evolution, and perhaps get a better handle on what "science" is at its heart.| That's not true. While they are both beliefs I find gravity much more reasonable to believe then m-t-m evolution. But that is just my belief. You are welcome to yours. |
And thus is science invalidated. Thanks for proving my point.| You have already acknowledged that they exist so why is it so important to you that I provide an example of that with which you agree? |
Because I don't think you can provide any such example. I think your claim is smoke-and-mirrors. And I don't agree with you in the first place, because the speculation and assumptions I'm talking about are much more basic than what you're willing to discuss.| No, actually, I don't. As I said, I don't "believe in" the theory of evolution. I have no reason to "believe in" it any more than I "believe" there's a ten-dollar bill in my wallet. |
Because of your confusion that anything which requires “belief” is then equally probable to anything else that requires “belief.” Which I think is a reason why you have a hard time acknowledging that you have a belief in m-t-m evolution. |
No, you're terribly mistaken, but you don't know why, and you've shown yourself to be unwilling to ask.| Not even at the deepest core of my philosophy is that true. Your solipsistic one, perhaps. |
So you're saying we can know for sure? |
I never said that, but what do you mean by "know?"| What's your problem with belief and evidence? A jury looks at the evidence and convicts or acquits a man based on their beliefs all the time. |
Your equation of a jury trial and the process of science is part of the problem. The rest is that you're unwilling to tackle the core issue, and yet you keep making claims that require its discussion. |
- 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 - 10/31/2007 : 05:38:52 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Because I don't think you can provide any such example. I think your claim is smoke-and-mirrors. And I don't agree with you in the first place, because the speculation and assumptions I'm talking about are much more basic than what you're willing to discuss. |
How about the fact that the geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution.
| I never said that, but what do you mean by "know?" |
What do you mean by "knowledge?"
| Your equation of a jury trial and the process of science is part of the problem. |
What problem? All I did was provide an easy to understand scenario where evidence can be looked at using scientific methods and a consensus is reached and the conclusion is completely wrong. Are you saying that this scenario is not possible in regard to m-t-m evolution science? Because that is why I keep bringing it up. It is my belief that you have a hard time acknowledging that the possibility exists, that using scientific methods to examine the evidence can come to any incorrect conclusions, at least as far as m-t-m evolution science goes .
Your next move is to pull out your "get out of jail free" card and boast: "that in the very rare chance that a m-t-m evolution scientist did make a mistake then it is certain that another would soon correct him. The chances of a m-t-m evolution scientist making a mistake and then no other m-t-m evolution scientist correcting him is the lowest possible value next to zero. And we can prove that claim with m-t-m evolution theory as well."
Oh brother. It's like putting the inmates in charge of the inmates. Forgive me if I challenge the logic of your checks and balances.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 05:58:03 [Permalink]
|
Amazing how this whole debate sounds a lot like spontaneous generation vs. germ theory. The proponents of SG used observation and common sense to come up with:
Observation: Every year in the spring, the Nile River flooded areas of Egypt along the river, leaving behind nutrient-rich mud that enabled the people to grow that year's crop of food. However, along with the muddy soil, large numbers of frogs appeared that weren't around in drier times.
Conclusion: It is perfectly obvious that muddy soil gave rise to the frogs.
Observation: In many parts of Europe, medieval farmers stored grain in barns with thatched roofs (like Shakespeare's house). As a roof aged, it was not uncommon for it to start leaking. This could lead to spoiled or moldy grain, and of course there were lots of mice around.
Conclusion: It is obvious that the mice came from the moldy grain.
It wasn't until scientists with new technology showed that large organisms did not spontaneously generate. They saw tiny organisms in their new fangled microscopes. But the believers in SG would not let go, they said that now these were the ones to spontaneously generate. Later, they claimed a "life force" in the air that caused it.
Only until 1864 a certain scientist showed that this didn't happen either. He performed experiments adhering to the scientific method. To quote Louis Pasteur:
| Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment. |
I have no fear that the creationists like Bill and Coelacanth will fade into the laugh-bin of history, much like their brethern believers of spontaneous generation. The death of creationism will be slower, due to many factors. But it is inevitable. They know it, and they desperately grasp at any sliver of help like a drowning man. Because to admit that natural processes gave rise to the life forms we see today is too much for the box they have constructed around themselves. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 06:46:28 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by pleco |
| Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment. |
I have never advocated spontaneous generation and have you/anyone ever observed m-t-m evolution or it's working mechanisim under a microscope?
| I have no fear that the creationists like Bill and Coelacanth will fade into the laugh-bin of history, much like their brethern believers of spontaneous generation. |
So now your tying me in with every believer throughout the boundaries of time?
| The death of creationism will be slower, due to many factors. |
Speculation based off of your indoctrination.
Is this your belief?
| They know it, and they desperately grasp at any sliver of help like a drowning man. |
Sensationalism.
| Because to admit that natural processes gave rise to the life forms we see today |
You got any evidence/proof on that natural process giving rise to life?
| is too much for the box they have constructed around themselves. |
Box? If I lived in a box then I would never have visited this forum on a regular basis.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 07:09:38 [Permalink]
|
How about the fact that the geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution.
|
I'm afraid that you have it exactly backward. The Geologic Column, being an accurate record of geologic time, supports the Theory of Evolution.
I am not comfortable with your courtroom anology, although on the surface it seems a fairly good one. The thing is that, after the trial and some appeals, the matter is closed for good or ill. With the ToE, the appeals are endless as it is tested and verified constantly. New information can support or cast into doubt the original 'conviction' or 'aquittal,' whatever that might have been.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 07:43:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
The Geologic Column, being an accurate record of geologic time, supports the Theory of Evolution.
|
It is amazing how consistent two things can be when one is calibrated by the other.
| I am not comfortable with your courtroom anology, although on the surface it seems a fairly good one. The thing is that, after the trial and some appeals, the matter is closed for good or ill. With the ToE, the appeals are endless as it is tested and verified constantly. New information can support or cast into doubt the original 'conviction' or 'aquittal,' whatever that might have been. |
My point was not to bring the statute of limitations or the process in which new evidence is entered for cases that are already decided into the debate, but to rather point out the possibility of a conclusion that was reached by a consensus, using scientific methods to observe the evidence, can be incorrect. I thought the courtroom analogy would be an easy way for all to understand what I was saying.
|
"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 10/31/2007 07:44:24 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ID predicts.......
