|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Equating science with faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||
key2god Junior Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 4 From: USA Joined: |
Acknowledging the absolute truth Heaven, God our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus are real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
You will have to read over more carefully the topics you are posting to. I'll give you a four hour suspension to allow you time to do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
antiLIE writes: I wasn't the one nitpicking the words and arguing semantics, that was Granny Magda. Don't try childish games with me sunshine. It doesn't make you look as clever as you seem to think it does. If you were interested in arguing anything of substance you would have addressed the points I made in Message 257 instead of only answering an aside. You say;
antiLIE writes: I have never claimed not to be creationist. You certainly suggest it here in Message 250.
antiLIE writes: Evolution and Creation are both something that you can not observe and study in a lab. They are both the study of Origins. The problem I have is when they (both sides) try to make it seem like their opinion on Origin, is science. I propose that neither are science. But both use science to try and prove their dogma. The implication of the section I have bolded is pretty clear. You are seeking to portray yourself as being on neither "side", thus not a creationist. How's that for semantics? Of course, if at any point you actually feel like discussing anything related to the topic, you might start by answering my point about tiktaalik and explaining how anything about its discovery is based on faith or dogma. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
First. the remains of the Tiktaalik [intermediate form between sea and land animals] that was found, consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin. Some think it is an intermediate form because similarities to both fish and tetrapods. it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet". For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. [c&p: Tiktaalik - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science ]
Second, granny magada Message 257 writes:
I would like to point out to every one what a Straw Man fallacy in the art of debate is because I see the term flung about more than it should be in these forums. It is interesting that you claim not to be a creationist, but you employ familiar creationist strawmen, like "macroevolution", not a term that scientists tend to use. Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong. In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.[c&p: Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate ] Okay, now you said "macroevolution, not a term that scientists tend to use." ... Indeed it is. I do not like this term, I just use it because Biology books call it that. This is NOT a straw man by any means. Macroevolution - Wikipedia Also Talk Origins [dot] org claims that Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms. Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and
History Edited by antiLIE, : added more nifty links *smile* Edited by antiLIE, : i misspelled a word.. oops Agent antiLIE of the AGDT 7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV] I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
LIAR writes:
For the last time, the reason it is a strawman whenever you guys use it is because you're using it to mean something completely different than what science text books use it for. Okay, now you said "macroevolution, not a term that scientists tend to use." ... Indeed it is. I do not like this term, I just use it because Biology books call it that. This is NOT a straw man by any means. When science text books use the term, they are using it to refer to many many many tiny little changes in a population over a very long time added together. When you guys use the word, you want to give the impression that "macroevolution" means a dolphin morphs into a shark or a croc morphs into a crocoduck and into a duck. That's why it's a strawman everytime you guys use the term. In fact, just the other day I talked to someone just like you. He insisted that the theory of evolution stated that some time in the past a crocodile decided to morph into a duck and that's why evolution is silly. When I confronted him on it, he pointed out that science text books use the word "macroevolution" all the time. Isn't there a commandment that says thou shalt not lie or else thy god shalt pwnz thee? Stop purposely misusing the word. It's annoying as hell. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs.
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale. This understanding is disputed by some biologists, who claim that there may be macroevolutionary processes that cannot be described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics. Agent antiLIE of the AGDT 7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV] I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
And thus you just demonstrated my point exactly. You know what science text books meant when they use the word "macroevolution". And yet you continue to use the word to imply a croc morphing into a duck. This is using a strawman because you know damn well that the general public have absolutely no clue what "macroevolution" really means and so everytime you people use the word they will automatically assume we're talking about a croc morphing into a duck or a dog morphing into a snake. Even if you don't say outright what the lie is, this is bearing false witness because you're using advantage of people's ignorance.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
wikipedia.org writes: How is this not crock to duck ideology? An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs. Agent antiLIE of the AGDT 7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV] I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
antiLIE writes:
They didn't use the word "appearance" to mean feathers started popping up in a population. This is like trying to portray the theory of walking as saying I could take a step forward and I've gone from New York to Austin, Texas. That's what you're doing. You're trying to discredit a theory by using a strawman and language ambiguity. The word "appearance" in there doesn't mean feathers started popping up on an individual in a generation. How is this not crock to duck ideology? You are playing that semantic game again. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
seekingthetruth Junior Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 23 From: Austin, Texas Joined: |
You sir are the one playing word games. What else could the word appearance mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1071 Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 61 From: AUSTIN, TX, USA Joined: |
talkorigins.org writes:
In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct. In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels. I am not misusing the word nor am I setting up a straw man and taking advantage of people's ignorance.. I am not in a semantic battle. I am not the one with the problem with the definition of the word. This is a typical Red herring fallacy in the art of debate: RED HERRING: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.) It is not fallacious, however, to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind. In the example given, concern about providing shelter for the poor would not refute concerns about crime, but one could plausibly argue that a somewhat higher level of crime is a justifiable price given the need to alleviate poverty. This is a debatable point of view, but it is no longer a fallacious one. The term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary tactic, such as presenting relatively unimportant arguments that will use up the other debaters' speaking time and distract them from more important issues. This kind of a red herring is a wonderful strategic maneuver with which every debater should be familiar. Agent antiLIE of the AGDT 7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV] I klinamaksa exei afypnistei
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
seekingfurtherdelusion writes: You sir are the one playing word games. What else could the word appearance mean? You, sir, are the one with limited understanding of language. "Appearance" implies neither sudden nor gradual coming into view, but can mean either. So, what else other than sudden? Gradual. You won't find a definition of the word with a time limit on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4629 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
antiLIE writes: I am not misusing the word nor am I setting up a straw man and taking advantage of people's ignorance. Yes you are. You where told:
Taz writes: When science text books use the term, they are using it to refer to many many many tiny little changes in a population over a very long time added together. You even posted:
antiLIE writes: macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale Yet you still are found to be promoting a strawman when saying rubbish like this:
antiLIE writes: How is this not crock to duck ideology? For a croc to turn into a duck, or the sudden appearance of feathers you are leaving out the "time" factor of macroevolution and the compounded effects of microevolution. This is a misuse of the word and a total setup to agrue a strawman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
seekingthetruth Junior Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 23 From: Austin, Texas Joined: |
Vacate writes: For a croc to turn into a duck, or the sudden appearance of feathers you are leaving out the "time" factor of macroevolution and the compounded effects of microevolution. This is a misuse of the word and a total setup to agrue a strawman. Even if it takes a billion years to happen, you are still claiming a croc can turn into a duck. That is the whole point of this argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
antiLIE writes: I am not misusing the word nor am I setting up a straw man and taking advantage of people's ignorance.. I haven't looked at all the ways you've used the word, but I do remember you claiming that Macroevolution can't be observed. By the TalkOrigins definition you've given, it can be directly observed, and it can certainly be indirectly observed. In relation to the topic of this thread, are you trying to argue (or hint) that belief in macroevolution is based on faith, rather than observation and evidence, or have I got it wrong?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024