|
Author
|
Topic: Comparitive delusions
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
Message 121 of 216 (297857)
03-24-2006 5:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
03-24-2006 4:19 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
Faith, I'm puzzled. You said
The kind of research that would be required to look up the facts behind a hominid scenario for instance would require me to get a science degree. If having a science degree would allow you to evaluate critically the evidence which is purported to support evolution, why do you think that it doesn't allow others to do the same thing? Surely it makes sense to listen to what those in science actually think of the evidence in their own field? You've stated that this education in science would be required to allow you to look into this and evaluate it, yet you feel that you can dismiss this evidence without the "science degree". You feel you can have objections to this evidence, yet you don't feel you have the necessary education to research the facts of it. On the presentation of the evidence, if you feel that a science degree is necessary to understand the data in the primary literature, does that not make you think that explanations given in the same form might be beyond anyone without the science degree you consider necessary and that explanations which are more straightforward and less "data-heavy" might be the best way to communicate with the layman? This is the reason why we consult doctors when we're sick, plumbers when our pipes leak and electricians when we blow every fuse in the house - they have the necessary training and expertise to get to the bottom of the problem and fix it without (hopefully) causing more problems in the process. Scientists are of the same type - they're the ones that become experts in the field of science to work through the knotty problems then explain their findings to Joe Public in language that Joe Public understands. I'm not trying to have a go here, I'm just trying to explain how it appears to me when you make arguments like this.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 118 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 4:19 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 122 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 5:21 PM | | Trixie has replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 122 of 216 (297860)
03-24-2006 5:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 121 by Trixie
03-24-2006 5:04 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
You can have a science degree and not be focused on what I'm focused on, and now everybody here is so much in defensive mode since I brought this up, conversation is hopeless. Again, I'm no longer looking for the scientific reasoning behind such scenarios, I'm merely objecting that Joe Public is taught AS IF IT WERE KNOWN FACT what is only an imaginative scenario about the ancient untestable unrepeatable past, no matter WHAT scientific evidence supports it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 121 by Trixie, posted 03-24-2006 5:04 PM | | Trixie has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 123 of 216 (297864)
03-24-2006 5:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
03-24-2006 5:02 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
How do you know the few bits and pieces of skulls you take so seriously aren't either of an ape or a diseased human, or even just a human? How do you really KNOWWWWWWW????? The brain cavities are smaller.
"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 5:02 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 124 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 5:28 PM | | robinrohan has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: Reasoning
Smaller than what? Than a human being's? Then most likely it's an ape's. On the other hand, have you measured the brain capacity of all human beings? There are a lot of weird craniums out there if you pay attention. Or even if you don't pay attention. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-24-2006 05:30 PM
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 125 of 216 (297869)
03-24-2006 5:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
03-24-2006 5:28 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
Then most likely it's an ape's Too big for an ape, too small for a human. Obviously, a transitional.
"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 124 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 5:28 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 128 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 5:34 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: 09-20-2005
|
|
|
Message 126 of 216 (297870)
03-24-2006 5:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
03-24-2006 5:21 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
faith writes: I'm merely objecting that Joe Public is taught AS IF IT WERE KNOWN FACT what is only an imaginative scenario about the ancient untestable unrepeatable past, no matter WHAT scientific evidence supports it. There it is, plain for everyone to see... willful ignorance. "no matter WHAT" evidence is presented you will still deny it. No matter what, you are simply determined to deny it? no matter how compelling the evidence? Why on earth do you take part in these discussions? edited for spelling This message has been edited by Creavolution, 03-24-2006 05:35 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 122 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 5:21 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 127 of 216 (297871)
03-24-2006 5:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 126 by Heathen
03-24-2006 5:33 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
Why on earth do you take part in these discussions? It beats bingo.
"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by Heathen, posted 03-24-2006 5:33 PM | | Heathen has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: Reasoning
No, obviously an anomalous form of either an ape or a human, possibly a representative of a particular species or race of ape or human, that no longer exists, that's all. Giants once walked the earth. Many types/varieties/races of humans and apes and all other living things once walked/ran/swam in and flew over the earth that no longer do. Nothing transitional about them. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-24-2006 05:40 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by robinrohan, posted 03-24-2006 5:30 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
|
Message 129 of 216 (297873)
03-24-2006 5:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
03-24-2006 5:21 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
But Faith, when science presents its evidence to Joe Public in the same format that it presents it to the scientific community, it's accused of using impenetrable jargon or of blinding everyone with science. You said yourself that someone on here couldn't expect you to read a whole paper that they'd kindly provided a link to, I think it was PaulK. You can't really have it both ways, you've either got to make the effort to look at the primary data, to educate yourself in understanding the primary data, or you have to accept what those with the expertise say about the primary data. I'm not in defensive mode here, I'm genuinely trying to understand why you think that you need a science degree to understand the primary literature and data, yet you don't require a science degree to reject the conclusions of those who do understand it. You seem to be saying that it's alright to reject something that you don't understand on the basis that you don't understand it. That implies that you can't really know what it is you're rejecting in the first place.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 122 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 5:21 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 131 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 5:39 PM | | Trixie has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 130 of 216 (297875)
03-24-2006 5:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 126 by Heathen
03-24-2006 5:33 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
Why don't you pay attention, learn to follow the argument? I know why, you just like to Bash the Fundie, SUCH sport. Well, I can't fault that as a thrilling pastime, BUT the argument is that the evidence CANNOT BE TESTED. You can construct a hypothesis from it, but anybody can do that. Real science starts when you can test your hypothesis and you cannot do that with the ancient past. Especially with some of the fantastical scenarios that are concocted out of the evidence. Chortle.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by Heathen, posted 03-24-2006 5:33 PM | | Heathen has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 131 of 216 (297877)
03-24-2006 5:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 129 by Trixie
03-24-2006 5:36 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
Science is within its true boundaries when what it does can be tested. The ancient past cannot be tested. Period. Doesn't matter how much data appears to construct the imaginative scenario, since it cannot be replicated, tested, witnessed etc., it cannot rightly be treated as fact. The only reason scientists get away with calling it fact is BECAUSE it cannot be tested.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 129 by Trixie, posted 03-24-2006 5:36 PM | | Trixie has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 134 by Trixie, posted 03-24-2006 5:49 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: 09-20-2005
|
|
|
Message 132 of 216 (297878)
03-24-2006 5:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
03-24-2006 5:34 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
faith writes: Giants once walked the earth
So were these giant civilised? did they bury their dead? where are all the remains of this race of Giants?
faith writes: Many types/varieties/races of humans and apes and all other living things once walked/ran/swam in and flew over the earth that no longer do Uhm.. didn't god make man in his image? was a 'Giant' considered 'man'? In genesis, are Adam & eve giants? or are Giants considered 'beasts' among all the other animals? did Noah take two Giants on the ark?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 5:34 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 133 of 216 (297879)
03-24-2006 5:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 132 by Heathen
03-24-2006 5:40 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
did Noah take two Giants on the ark? He took 2 basketball players. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 132 by Heathen, posted 03-24-2006 5:40 PM | | Heathen has not replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
|
Message 134 of 216 (297882)
03-24-2006 5:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
03-24-2006 5:39 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
We're getting back into the realms of the crimescene here. it's in the past too - how do you test that? You collect evidence. You use the evidence to build a theory, then you test the theory. The point I'm trying to make is that if you would look at the primary literature and data you would discover how this is done and how conclusions can be drawn about the past. Think of it like an archaeological dig. Two feet below the surface they find pottery dated to the 1400s. Four feet below that, they find Roman pottery. Both are in the past, but we can conclude that the pottery from the 1400s was deposited after the Roman pottery because it's above it. What we know of history supports that the Roman pottery is older than that from the 1400s. Would it be sensible to say that the conclusion is invalid because the past can't be tested? Edited as per usual for typos :sigh: This message has been edited by Trixie, 03-24-2006 05:50 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 131 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 5:39 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 136 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 5:52 PM | | Trixie has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 135 of 216 (297883)
03-24-2006 5:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 132 by Heathen
03-24-2006 5:40 PM
|
|
Re: Reasoning
I don't know but I suppose the giants were civilized. Why not? They were human. There are some mentioned in the Bible. I assume their remains perished the way most remains perish -- although it's a big planet. May yet find a fossilized giant's skeleton somewhere. Who knows? Follow the argument please. Giants were a RACE of men, men no less. Of course they were made in God's image and they didn't need to be represented on the ark as Noah and his family represented the human race on the ark.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. Deu 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims. Deu 2:20 (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; Deu 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead [was] a bedstead of iron; [is] it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits [was] the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. Deu 3:13 And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, [being] the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. Jos 12:4 And the coast of Og king of Bashan, [which was] of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei, Jos 13:12 All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants: for these did Moses smite, and cast them out. Jos 15:8 And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same [is] Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that [lieth] before the valley of Hinnom westward, which [is] at the end of the valley of the giants northward: Jos 17:15 And Joshua answered them, If thou [be] a great people, [then] get thee up to the wood [country], and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee. Jos 18:16 And the border came down to the end of the mountain that [lieth] before the valley of the son of Hinnom, [and] which [is] in the valley of the giants on the north, and descended to the valley of Hinnom, to the side of Jebusi on the south, and descended to Enrogel,
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 132 by Heathen, posted 03-24-2006 5:40 PM | | Heathen has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2