Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 61 of 78 (717127)
01-24-2014 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by AndrewPD
01-24-2014 1:43 PM


Re: Confusion and misinformation.
Evolution theory was used to justify atrocities...
And religion has been used all through recorded history to justify atrocities.
And it isn't even based on reality, just old tribal myths!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 1:43 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 2:45 PM Coyote has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 78 (717130)
01-24-2014 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by AndrewPD
01-24-2014 1:43 PM


Re: Confusion and misinformation.
The abuse of evolution has been the use/abuse of theoretical assumptions such as a hierarchy of species and fitness. It allowed people to assume a humans or ethnicity group was on a different level of a hierarchy and people could be deleterious and that humans could be extinguished to improve the process of selection.
People were doing that long before Darwin published the Theory of Evolution.
The ToE just provided them with new language to describe what was already happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 1:43 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 63 of 78 (717135)
01-24-2014 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coyote
01-24-2014 1:59 PM


Re: Confusion and misinformation.
And religion has been used all through recorded history to justify atrocities.
And it isn't even based on reality, just old tribal myths!
I am not religious and I have no desire to defend religious doctrine.
The crusades were not justified by anything in the bible post-Jesus, so a Pope at the time hands to sanction the violence with specially created dispensation.
I think the use of the Bible or any other religious book to justify anything is largely invalid unless you were looking at some kind of proverb or allegorical meaning.
There is no reason to take the Bible too seriously outside of its historical and social impacts. If you tried to follow its doctrine consistently you couldn't.
I believe in being skeptical about everything. The point is the ramifications of types of evolutionary explanations are intrinsically unpleasant. So I would be cautious about accepting them unless it was absolutely necessary. I am surely not going to drop dead because I am skeptical about evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 01-24-2014 1:59 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Granny Magda, posted 01-24-2014 2:57 PM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 66 by AZPaul3, posted 01-25-2014 6:59 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 64 of 78 (717137)
01-24-2014 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Pressie
01-22-2014 10:58 PM


The mining companies I work for validate the models about the past, built by the Geologists, by digging down to mine those minerals as indicated by the models. They get mightily upset when they spend billions on digging down to get to those minerals as indicated by the the models and find that those minerals are nowhere to be found.
Can you link me to papers or articles explaining these assertions?
What assertion based on the potential age of the hidden rock is at play?
Is it a case that rock B is usually found below rock A? Or is it an assertion that rock a is a million years old so rock B will be found beneath it?
I am not sure what work the age claim is doing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Pressie, posted 01-22-2014 10:58 PM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2014 9:09 AM AndrewPD has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 65 of 78 (717138)
01-24-2014 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by AndrewPD
01-24-2014 2:45 PM


Re: Confusion and misinformation.
I am not religious and I have no desire to defend religious doctrine.
Well don't then. Because what you're doing here comes across that way.
The crusades were not justified by anything in the bible post-Jesus
The Crusaders justified their actions by reference to their faith. The point is that any philosophy can be abused, especially by those who do not understand it.
I believe in being skeptical about everything.
The attitude you've been displaying in your recent posts is not scepticism. Doubting proven facts is not scepticism, it's just juvenile.
The point is the ramifications of types of evolutionary explanations are intrinsically unpleasant.
So what? Are we supposed to only believe what we find pleasant? I don't find the idea that smoking causes lung cancer pleasant; shall I be "sceptical" about that?
So I would be cautious about accepting them unless it was absolutely necessary.
Given the preponderance of evidence for evolution, it is absolutely necessary.
I am surely not going to drop dead because I am skeptical about evolution?
No. But you are kind of wasting your time.
A better use of that time might be to simply learn more about evolution, because, no offence, but you don't come across as having a great command of the subject.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 2:45 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 66 of 78 (717217)
01-25-2014 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by AndrewPD
01-24-2014 2:45 PM


Re: Confusion and misinformation.
I am surely not going to drop dead because I am skeptical about evolution?
Not physically, but intellectually you are well on your way. The kind of intellectual atrophy you display here is the same as the eugenicists and the crusaders you have decried.
Edited by AZPaul3, : spl

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 2:45 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 67 of 78 (717223)
01-25-2014 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by AndrewPD
01-24-2014 1:43 PM


Confusion, misinformation and misuse
The abuse of TNT was not an abuse of a theory it was an abuse of a disposition of TNT.
It was a misuse of knowledge. It doesn't have to be a theory to be misused. It stems from misrepresenting evolution as "survival of the fittest" (so therefore the "fittest" are superior ... then convince yourself that you are superior). Evolution is survival of those able to survive, and that determines "fitness".
The abuse of evolution has been the use/abuse of theoretical assumptions such as a hierarchy of species and fitness. It allowed people to assume a humans or ethnicity group was on a different level of a hierarchy and people could be deleterious and that humans could be extinguished to improve the process of selection.
So? The fact remains that this was incorrect. There is no ladder of evolutionary development, as all living organisms are the result of equal evolution. The "tree of life" is more like a bush, and all the limbs are the same length.
The Belgian Ethnologists used this assumption when handing out ID cards and identifying Rwanda as either Hutu or Tutsi. They gave people with paler skin and more European features higher status. They were using homology here and what previously a serious scientific theory phrenology.
It is the theory that allows for the propagation of these ideologies that directly follow its logic.
No, it is ideology that misuses knowledge, ideology that makes car bombs with TNT. The idea of some group of people being superior to others did not arise after Darwin, but has a long human history.
This is History. Evolution theory was used to justify atrocities ...
And here you have it in the correct light. The people doing the atrocities are no different than groups using different knowledge to justify atrocities, whether genocide or terrorism.
... it is not a case of the assumptions in the theory simply being benign truths.
All knowledge is benign, it is the use that is the problem. Nuclear information can be used to make bombs or generators. Should we not study nuclear physics because a terrorist country dropped an atomic bomb on civilians?
This is history, this isn't science.
Edited by RAZD, : st

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 1:43 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 12:23 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 68 of 78 (717225)
01-25-2014 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by AndrewPD
01-24-2014 2:56 PM


What assertion based on the potential age of the hidden rock is at play?
The observation that new rock can cover old rock but old rock cannot magically rise up to cover new rock without some force that overturns the rocks.
It's called the law of superposition:
quote:
The law of superposition (or the principle of superposition) is a key axiom based on observations of natural history that is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy and so of other geology dependent natural sciences:
Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.
The law was formulated in the 17th century by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.
If a volcanic ash deposit covers a sedimentary deposit which is more logical -- that the ash is newer than the sediment or that it is older than the sediment?
The "geological column" was developed by relative dating of rock layers long before radiometric and other means were developed to provide absolute dating of many types of rocks (not all).
A good source for information on radiometric dating is Radiometric Dating.
I am not sure what work the age claim is doing?
Some layers are observed to have oil/etc in them, other layers are observed to never have oil/etc in them. These layers are observed to have certain relative ages in the geological column. Drilling to those layers is observed to have a high positive result in finding the oil/etc. wanted.
Curiously absolute dating is not necessary to accomplish this.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 2:56 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 1:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 69 of 78 (717250)
01-25-2014 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Granny Magda
01-23-2014 10:03 AM


What I find truly disappointing about this attitude - and indeed that of many creationists - is the total lack of intellectual curiosity. Do you really want us to just throw up our hands and give up? To regard all inferences about the past as taboo? That strikes me as rather tragic.
What am I supposed to be giving up on?
If a scientists tells me one day "This fossil is 2 million years old" then a week later says "We have reassessed this find and it is actually 1 million years old."
I would have been harbouring a false belief if I accepted the first account. I prefer not to harbour false and unproven beliefs thanks.
It seems you want me to be live the latest dogma and sabotage my own judgements. For what purpose? Being unskeptical of evolutionary claims would in now way enhance my life.
Why is important to you that I hold the same beliefs as you about the past? Thought Police?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Granny Magda, posted 01-23-2014 10:03 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Granny Magda, posted 01-25-2014 2:18 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 70 of 78 (717252)
01-25-2014 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
01-25-2014 9:09 AM


The observation that new rock can cover old rock but old rock cannot magically rise up to cover new rock without some force that overturns the rocks.
Well that's not profound or rocket science is it?
You don't need to posit a date for the rock to assume the lower strata would be placed earlier.
I would still value an actual article from the mining community.
What I see here as using induction to assess what might be in a rock layer not a strong assertion about the date of the rock.
It is not as though there is no controversy in geology however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2014 9:09 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2014 9:49 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 71 of 78 (717257)
01-25-2014 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AndrewPD
01-25-2014 1:52 PM


Pig Ignorance for the Win!
What am I supposed to be giving up on?
Learning. Knowledge. Understanding. Curiosity. Intellectual stimulation. That sort of thing.
Of course, you may prefer pig ignorance, but don't expect me to join you in the sty.
If a scientists tells me one day "This fossil is 2 million years old" then a week later says "We have reassessed this find and it is actually 1 million years old."
I would have been harbouring a false belief if I accepted the first account. I prefer not to harbour false and unproven beliefs thanks.
Excuse me, but are you the Pope by any chance? Only you seem to think that you are in some way infallible.
Meanwhile, for those of us who are not infallible, the possibility exists that we will make mistakes. The scientific method exists for that very reason. It's how we minimise mistakes. It's how we build confidence in our conclusions. It's how we avoid errors in the first instance and correct them where they occur.
Would you prefer that we refuse to correct our errors? Or, given that we are fallible, would you prefer that we refuse to engage in any sort of scientific enquiry at all, lest some error be made.
These are our choices; either acknowledge that we are prone to err and proceed in honest enquiry, or simply give up and wallow in ignorance. If you would truly prefer the latter, I pity you.
It seems you want me to be live the latest dogma and sabotage my own judgements.
Only an fool would view scientific conclusions as dogma that must be believed without fail. This is not how I view science. It is not how scientists view their conclusions. Science does not deal in holy writ.
I think you might benefit from reading up a little on how real scientists, in the real world - as opposed to the imaginary straw-man versions that live in your head - view the scientific method and the conclusions that we derive from scientific enquiry. In particular, you might be interested to know that scientists emphasise that conclusions must be regarded as tentative, allowing for the possibility of further evidence coming to light.
The fact that science is deliberately constructed to allow for new evidence and new conclusions is a strength, not a weakness.
Being unskeptical of evolutionary claims would in now way enhance my life.
Please list all of the specific, concrete ways in which being an evolution naysayer has enhanced your life.
Why is important to you that I hold the same beliefs as you about the past? Thought Police?
It is not important. Let us be quite clear - you are not important. You and I are not important, just anonymous voices on the internet. You can doubt evolution as much or as little as you like and precisely nobody is going to give the tiniest sliver of a shit. You can believe whatever you like. If you chose too spend your days waffling half-understood piffle about a theory that you clearly do not understand that is your right. Go right ahead. Knock yourself out.
Just don't expect to voice such ill-informed rubbish on a forum such as this without opposition and, especially, don't expect anyone else to take you seriously enough to stifle their own curiosity about the past, because that, my ignorance-embracing friend, is never going to happen.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 1:52 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 12:16 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 72 of 78 (717289)
01-26-2014 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Granny Magda
01-25-2014 2:18 PM


Re: Pig Ignorance for the Win!
You can doubt evolution as much or as little as you like and precisely nobody is going to give the tiniest sliver of a shit.
Except that you do and obviously can't contain your anger.
This is an informal discussion forum not a peer reviewed journal.
I look forward not very excitedly for the occasion when you present an argument on the issue as opposed to ad hominem. Accusing people of ignorance does not replace an argument.
It sounds more like you want to stifle argument for you own dogma. Sad.
I presented two bits of evidence for my case here one undermining the strength of the claim for a falsifiability phylogenetic tree and the other casting doubts on the provability of claims of pseudogenes (which are an integral part of the claim for consillience).
Do you intend to debate that or just be insulting? I think I have my answer for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Granny Magda, posted 01-25-2014 2:18 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Granny Magda, posted 01-26-2014 5:46 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 73 of 78 (717290)
01-26-2014 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
01-25-2014 8:39 AM


Re: Confusion, misinformation and misuse
No, it is ideology that misuses knowledge, ideology that makes car bombs with TNT. The idea of some group of people being superior to others did not arise after Darwin, but has a long human history.
The point with the Rwandan case is that they abused the concept of homology and morphology in creating false classifications.
There are implications behind making homology and hierarchical claims.
Someone describing how the heart works does not carry those ramifications. And notable Atheists like Dawkins have actively used evolution to make socio-political anti religious points. The people in the field are the ones who have tried to enforce the alleged ramifications.
I don't think you can claim humans evolved and not expect to have deep consequences to how we view ourselves and society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2014 8:39 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Coyote, posted 01-26-2014 12:45 AM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2014 10:06 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 74 of 78 (717292)
01-26-2014 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by AndrewPD
01-26-2014 12:23 AM


Re: Confusion, misinformation and misuse
I don't think you can claim humans evolved and not expect to have deep consequences to how we view ourselves and society.
So scientists should have to self-censor their research lest they offend some elements of society?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 12:23 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 75 of 78 (717294)
01-26-2014 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by AndrewPD
01-26-2014 12:16 AM


Re: Pig Ignorance for the Win!
Except that you do and obviously can't contain your anger.
'Fraid not mate. The most you're likely to elicit from me is mild irritation. Fortunately, you're funny, so that works out even.
I've seen all of this before. Nothing you've said is in the least bit original. You're simply the latest in a long line of science deniers.
I look forward not very excitedly for the occasion when you present an argument on the issue as opposed to ad hominem.
There is no ad hominem in my post. Not every insult is an ad hominem. That is obviously something else you don't know the meaning of. I'll add it to the list.
Accusing people of ignorance does not replace an argument.
Embracing ignorance does not replace science.
I presented two bits of evidence for my case here one undermining the strength of the claim for a falsifiability phylogenetic tree and the other casting doubts on the provability of claims of pseudogenes (which are an integral part of the claim for consillience).
In discussion with others, yes. I'm still trying to get you to expand upon your unwillingness to accept the conclusions of science in general. Sadly, every time I post, you only respond to a single line, usually the one with the least substance.
In my first message I asked why any scientist should seek permission to study nature. You declined to reply.
In my second message I asked if you would prefer to give up upon scientific knowledge. You declined to reply.
In my last message, I asked how denying evolution has enhanced your life. You declined to reply.
Now you complain that I do not debate in good faith. Perhaps if you responded to what was said to you your hypocrisy would be less evident.
I am content with what others have said on the subjects of phylogeny and pseudogenes. I am more interested in getting an answer out of you regarding the more general question of what can be known by means of scientific enquiry. So, again;
Granny Magda writes:
Would you prefer that we refuse to correct our errors? Or, given that we are fallible, would you prefer that we refuse to engage in any sort of scientific enquiry at all, lest some error be made.
Granny Magda writes:
Are we supposed to only believe what we find pleasant? I don't find the idea that smoking causes lung cancer pleasant; shall I be "sceptical" about that?
AndrewPD writes:
The implications attached to the ramifications of evolution are largely negative and derogatory to human status.
Granny Magda writes:
Really? How so?
When you can be bothered to respond to what I say, then you can chide me for poor debating form. Until then, I'm still waiting for my answers.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by AndrewPD, posted 01-26-2014 12:16 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024