|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Your reason for accepting evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Is Beretta still around?
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Yes, he's still around. He originally raised these issues in the What's the problem with teaching ID? thread and was encouraged to propose a new thread, which is this one. He later resumed posting about evolution in the ID thread again, and I've twice encouraged him to take such issues here. If he keeps it up I'll remove his permissions in the [forum=-4] forum, and that should solve the problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
When you start a thread, it is polite to reply to responses. Here it looks like you don't have anything to say in response, and try to run off to other threads to disguise some lack of ability, evidence and\or argument. For instance your Message 162 is more applicable to this thread than the one you posted on, so I will make a more complete response here. This was your (entire) post:
Thanks again for helpful tips Razd. I am getting the point.
The problem is that what you think, what you personally understand, and who you feel makes more sense, all have absolutely no bearing on what is true. You're absolutely right. You should join us creationists, that's why we exist. If something's not true, we don't care what the majority believes or was brainwashed into believing, we only care about what is true which is why we stick our necks out against tremendous odds.I hear all the 'evidence' on both sides but the evidence against evolution impresses me as well as the evidence for creation which makes evolution sound like a fairytale of epic proportions. it is evident that you don't really understand evolution as a starting point, so what you question is very likely a false impression. That again is what we say about evolutionists. They don't really understand the creation/ID argument but the problem is this, most creationists/ID proponents were evolutionists before. It's the world religion -we were all brought up on it -most evolutionists never hear the dissenting evidence but some, when they eventually do, are persuaded by logic to give it some thought rather than dismiss it summarily.Evolutionists have lots of stories, plausible stories unsupported by the evidence. Just because a story is plausible does notmean it is necessarily true. Check how many of their stories are actually experimentally verifiable and which ones are assumed after the initial assumption that evolution is true, being extrapolated on. The points:
You're absolutely right. You should join us creationists, that's why we exist. If something's not true, we don't care what the majority believes or was brainwashed into believing, we only care about what is true which is why we stick our necks out against tremendous odds. Truth is not a matter of belief, but of reality and what you can demonstrate to be true with logic and evidence and rational conclusions, conclusions that are tested for validity. If we don't do this then any fantasy you can name can be regarded as true no matter how fantastic it is, and particularly in spite of evidence that shows it is false. This is what I was talking about in Message 15, where I said (among other things):
quote: Let me further and point out that if we assume that some evidence is true and other evidence is false, which would appear to be a third alternative, that the results are the same as assuming that it is all false. Why is this? It is because evidence can be found to support any number of totally contradictory concepts, and as long as you are allowed to proclaim that any evidence that contradicts the concept is false, then you cannot determine what the truth is and you end up with the same end result:
quote: For how can you decide between two contradictory concepts when each says different evidence is false? For instance compare the claims of YEC fundamentalist christians with those of OEC fundamentalist hindus. One group (YEC fundy christians) says that any evidence that shows the earth is old is false beecause they believe the earth is only 6,000 years (or 10,000 or 12,000 or whatever) years old. The other group (OEC fundy hindus) say that any evidence that shows the earth is young is false because they believe the earth is hundreds of billions of years old. By allowing some evidence to be false it is possible to argue that the earth is flat and that all evidence to the contrary is false. Claiming that evidence is false when it contradicts a belief is not an alternative explanation, because it denies the evidence instead of explains it.
I hear all the 'evidence' on both sides but the evidence against evolution impresses me as well as the evidence for creation which makes evolution sound like a fairytale of epic proportions. There are no "both sides" as far as world views go, rather there are as many world views as there are people. The only people who talk about "both sides" are those that have been {brainwashed\hoodwinked\fooled} by the IDologist propaganda made for gullible people. For instance we can talk about "both side" of the design controversy - without even touching on the reality of evolution. However there are two sides to the issue of veracity: truth and falsehood. Science looks for truth with the assumption that all evidence is true to reality: feel free to take the other side.
That again is what we say about evolutionists. They don't really understand the creation/ID argument but the problem is this, most creationists/ID proponents were evolutionists before. I think you wil find that your claim that people don't understand the creation\ID argument is false: but you can test this by asking. The claim that "most creationists/ID proponents were evolutionists before" - another typical creationist PRATT - is demonstrably false, because anyone who is confused about the meaning of evolution cannot by definition be an evolutionist, just confused. Thus whenever a creationist is shown to have no real understanding of evolution it is clear that they could never have been an evolutionist. The most typical stumbling block is what creationists regard as macroevolution versus what the science of evolution regards as macroevolution. I've seen many creationists argue that the definition of evolution, the theory of evolution, and the boundaries of the science of evolution are not what evolutionists say, thereby demonstrating that they were never evolutionists. Perhaps you would like to participate in such a discussion to see whether your claim to have been an evolutionist holds up to closer inspection:
Let's see how you do.
It's the world religion ... Nope. This really betrays a lack of understanding of the fundamental difference between science and faith. There is no religion involved in science.
... we were all brought up on it ... We were all brought up on the validity of science in determining reality from fantasy, and those elements of science that could be taught in school on the various sciences within the constraints of time, school programs, and the knowledge and ability of the teachers and schools to present the truth. This does not mean that people that want to wallow in ignorance were forced to learn.
... most evolutionists never hear the dissenting evidence but some, when they eventually do, are persuaded by logic to give it some thought rather than dismiss it summarily. Actually there are many things that have in the course of studying evolution been found to be "dissenting evidence" for certain views, such as Lamarkism, various hoaxes, "Ontology Recapitulates Philology" and the like. All concepts that have been falsified by science in the course of determining the truth of reality. This is the way science operates, as opposed to faith or religions.
Evolutionists have lots of stories, plausible stories unsupported by the evidence. Just because a story is plausible does notmean it is necessarily true. Check how many of their stories are actually experimentally verifiable and which ones are assumed after the initial assumption that evolution is true, being extrapolated on. Of course, no science claims that what it regards as plausible is necessarily true, whether it is evolution or physics or chemistry or astronomy or ... But for the sake of discussion let's start with one: any one of your choice, but preferably the one that you think is the best argument you can make. Present one part of evolution that is not supported by evidence and then why you think you have a more plausible explanation. Enjoy compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
They don't really understand the creation/ID argument but the problem is this, most creationists/ID proponents were evolutionists before. Then why do the overwhelming majority of them know nothing about evolution? Have fundies invented some primitive form of brain surgery? This would explain much. For example: * You appear to believe that Evolution is "the world religion", which suggests that you have no idea what it is. * You think that the "starting point" of evolution is "I don't believe in the possibility of a transcendent creator", which again, shows that you know nothing whatsoever about it. * You assert that there is "evidence against evolution", which suggests that you are unfamiliar with the whole of natural history. You claim that creationists "only care about what is true", a proposition which would have had you rolling about on the floor half a minute after reading your first creationist pamphlet if you had even the barest familiarity with the facts. * You state that creationists and evolutionists reach their conclusions "from the same evidence", which suggests that either you have never read any scientific work on evolution, or (which I doubt) that you have never read any creationist propaganda on the same subject. So I am compelled to conclude that if you were one of those creationists who "were evolutionists before", then someone must have set about your cranium with some kind of a blunt instrument. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Evolutionists and creationists/ID proponents come to different conclusions from the same evidence. And yet, on another thread, you have just claimed:
I know of loads of facts that defy evolution and confirm creation and they just don't come up in your average bio text. Apparently, then, we are not looking at the "same evidence". I get my information about biology from what biologists write about it. You, evidently, have a different source of "facts" about biology. This source of your "facts" --- I'm just hazarding a guess here --- would it involve reading websites and pamphlets written by non-biologists in which they repeat what they've read in websites and pamphlets written by non-biologists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
This source of your "facts" --- I'm just hazarding a guess here --- would it involve reading websites and pamphlets written by non-biologists in which they repeat what they've read in websites and pamphlets written by non-biologists? That sounds about right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Between the two models, and given the success of the natural history model in its predictions - I'd go for the former There are too many anomalous findings to say that the natural history model is better. What about the Cambrian Explosion? Evolution predicts gradual transitions instead, suddenly complex and varied types all appear at once.Why? There is no sign of precursor forms in precambrian layers. The creation model says there was a worldwide flood - so sudden catastrophic processes buried billions of life forms in sediment, excluding oxygen, rapidly forming many sediment layers with sea creatures forming around 95% (or more) of the fossils that are found would seem to me to be a more acceptable proposition.Sea creatures would be the first to be rapidly covered and fossilized. Well preserved fossils don't form gradually by dying and being slowly covered over over a long time period.(They would rot or being scavenged).The uniformatarian principle became accepted as the alternative to the big flood by various atheist or materialistic geologists who were not keen on the flood proposition and wanted another explanation (any other explanation). This was rapidly accepted by those who wanted another explanation. Too many anomalous findings go against the uniformatarian principle hence the more recent increase in catastrophist geologists who go with rapid formation of fossils under catastrophic conditions but baulk at the possibility of a worldwide flood nonetheless - for reasons of their own. Birds and cats and everything appearing suddenly and simultaneously in the fossil layers would not be a creationist proposition since creationists do not believe that the sedimentary layers represent long periods of geologic time. Creationists believe in some kind of rapid hydrologic sorting such as that seen at Mt St Helens in 1980 as the mechanism at work in sedimentary layers.Sudden rapid formation of many layers simultaneously is what makes more sense to me and better explains so many of the anomalous findings that evolution simply can't explain -such as all sorts of things found in completely wrong layers that contradict long periods of evolutionary change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Yes but Beretta has had no time to reply and struggles with slow internet connection as well as limited time. I would like to stick with this 24/7 but can't though I should get more time soon. Don't worry I have not run away yet!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
What about the Cambrian Explosion? It turns out that there was no "Cambrian Explosion". First, the Cambrian Explosion represents when the first hard body parts (like shells, teeth, and bones) first appeared. Soft body parts are rarely fossilized, so it's obvious that fossils dating before the first hard body parts should be rare. Second, the "Cambrian Explosion" took place over several millions of years. Hardly an "sudden" appearance. Third, there are precursors to the Cambrian fossils found in Precambrian strata -- the so-called Ediacaran Fauna. Finally, the life represented in the "Cambrian Explosion" are nothing at all like the species we see today. That kind of goes against the creationist belief that life was created more or less like it is now at the beginning of time. Whatever problems you think it poses for evolution (and it actually doesn't), it poses worse problems for creationism. Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The "Cambrian Explosion" represents a relatively rapid period of evolution and one we are still learning about. However we are finding more fossils that helkp us decipher it. It is apparent that the divergence began well before the supposed "Explosion" and the "sudden appearance" is largely due to the limits of the fossil record.
The Young Earth Creationist "explanation" on the other hand is completely nuts. It doesn't explain the order in the fossil record, and that has been known for a long time. Cuvier's investigation of the geology and paleontology of the Paris Basin, for instance, found that a single flood was not a viable possiblity. Hydrological sorting is also a complete failure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The uniformatarian principle became accepted as the alternative to the big flood by various atheist or materialistic geologists who were not keen on the flood proposition and wanted another explanation (any other explanation). It was also accepted as the alternative to the big flood explanation by atheists, materialists, and Christians who understood that it best explained the data that they were seeing in front of their eyes. -
This was rapidly accepted by those who wanted another explanation. Actually, it was accepted by those who looked at the data and realized that the flood model didn't offer a cogent explanation for what they were seeing, but the "uniformitarian" model did. -
Creationists believe in some kind of rapid hydrologic sorting such as that seen at Mt St Helens in 1980 as the mechanism at work in sedimentary layers. Huh? I'm unaware of any hydrological sorting associated with the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Could you provide some details to this? Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are too many anomalous findings to say that the natural history model is better. What about the Cambrian Explosion? What about it? Hey, what do you think it is?
Evolution predicts gradual transitions instead, suddenly complex and varied types all appear at once.Why? There is no sign of precursor forms in precambrian layers. But this is not true.
The creation model says there was a worldwide flood - so sudden catastrophic processes buried billions of life forms in sediment, excluding oxygen, rapidly forming many sediment layers with sea creatures forming around 95% (or more) of the fossils that are found ... Perhaps you could point us to this "creation model", and explain in what way it is a model, rather than an ad hoc method of ducking the facts with no detail, no physics, and no math.
Well preserved fossils don't form gradually by dying and being slowly covered over over a long time period.(They would rot or being scavenged). I guess that's why most fossils are not well-preserved, and why the soft parts are usually rotted away. Very occasionally, paleontologists do find a fossil that was rapidly buried, and is therefore well-preserved, and then they dance around singing the Happy Paleontologist Song.
The uniformatarian principle became accepted as the alternative to the big flood by various atheist or materialistic geologists who were not keen on the flood proposition and wanted another explanation (any other explanation). But this, again, is untrue.
Too many anomalous findings go against the uniformatarian principle hence the more recent increase in catastrophist geologists who go with rapid formation of fossils under catastrophic conditions ... More stuff that you've made up, which is why you can't name any of these "catastrophist geologists".
Creationists believe in some kind of rapid hydrologic sorting such as that seen at Mt St Helens in 1980 as the mechanism at work in sedimentary layers. Well, when you say that this is what "creationists believe", you mean that this is what the creationists who you agree with believe. "Some kind of" hydrological sorting, you write. No-one has yet explained what kind of hydrological sorting could sort organisms in exact accordance with evolution. No-one ever will. If you claim that this happened at Mount St Helens, the words "don't talk rubbish" spring to mind.
Sudden rapid formation of many layers simultaneously is what makes more sense to me and better explains so many of the anomalous findings that evolution simply can't explain -such as all sorts of things found in completely wrong layers that contradict long periods of evolutionary change. The phrase "such as" is usually meant to be followed by specific examples. You haven't listed these "anomalous findings", or these "all sorts of things". You haven't named one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
What about the Cambrian Explosion? Evolution predicts gradual transitions instead, suddenly complex and varied types all appear at once. Evolution doesn't predict gradual transitions will be recorded in the fossil record.
Why? I'll quote the answer to you:
quote: From SciAm Before hard body parts, we have little fossil evidence because the kind of rock that preserves soft body parts is very very rare. So, as various lineages started to develop hard body parts their opportunity to be fossilized is raised. So we see in the non-lagerstatten, a sudden appearance of organisms with hard body parts. However - diversity did still increase rapidly. The theory here is that life was beginning to transform the world and a subsequent increase in the opportunities for life on it.
quote: The creation model says there was a worldwide flood - so sudden catastrophic processes buried billions of life forms in sediment, excluding oxygen, rapidly forming many sediment layers with sea creatures forming around 95% (or more) of the fossils that are found would seem to me to be a more acceptable proposition Which leads to the prediction that 5% or less of the fossils will be non-marine? Thus we should see this approximate mix equally in all layers in all places (since it was a worldwide flood).
Well preserved fossils don't form gradually by dying and being slowly covered over over a long time period.(They would rot or being scavenged). So your prediction would be that almost all animals were fossilized at this time, since they were all subject to approximately the same conditions?
The uniformatarian principle became accepted as the alternative to the big flood by various atheist or materialistic geologists who were not keen on the flood proposition and wanted another explanation (any other explanation). Irrelevant. Let's just look to the facts, not the motives behind various factions, OK?
Birds and cats and everything appearing suddenly and simultaneously in the fossil layers would not be a creationist proposition since creationists do not believe that the sedimentary layers represent long periods of geologic time. Creationists believe in some kind of rapid hydrologic sorting such as that seen at Mt St Helens in 1980 as the mechanism at work in sedimentary layers I'm aware of creationist propositions. They have yet to explain how this hydrologic sorting makes the layers in the pattern that they do, as if each different layer represented a different 'age'. Indeed many creationist geologists had come to the conclusion that to explain the evidence we would have to propose multiple catastrophes, Noah's being the last one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Let me explain in more general terms what is wrong with your post.
You've just given us what is known as the "Gish Gallop". You've recited falsehood after falsehood without even trying to back them up with any evidence. It's as though you said: "Pigs can fly. Only atheist materialists deny that pigs can fly, because they want to deny that pigs can fly 'cos they're atheist materialist. Why else do pigs have wings? How come their shape is perfectly aerodynamic? Why else are there so many reports of flying pigs? How do all the pigs that hijack planes get up there if they can't fly? What about all the pigs on mountaintops? This is an anomaly that atheist materialists can't explain." What else is there to reply to this but "none of this is true"? I guess there's one more thing we could say, which is: "If you think that this is true, then perhaps you could show us some evidence that it's true." Otherwise, if your sole debating tactic is to recite rubbish that you've read on some creationist website without a scrap of substantiating evidence, and expect us to take it on your say-so, then there's nothing I need to say in reply except: "That's rubbish that you people made up."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Huh? I'm unaware of any hydrological sorting associated with the Mt. St. Helens eruption. And not only that, but we are also unaware of any creationist rubbish connecting their rubbish about Mount St Helens with their rubbish about hydrological sorting. Although we are, of course, familiar with the standard creationist rubbish about Mount St Helens, which involves not knowing what the word "varves" means, and claiming that a local volcano is a good model for a universal flood. And if I had to guess what's happened, it went like this. He read on some website that hydrological sorting was what "creationists believe" about the fossil record, and he was told on another website that creationists are proved right about geology by Mount St Helens. After mixing this up in his head for a bit, he concluded that the eruption of Mount St Helens produced "hydrological sorting", even though no creationist, let alone any truthful source, had ever told him any such thing. And now he states it as fact even though this was something he made up in his own head. Sheesh. I think we might call it "second phase" creationism. The first phase is caused by creationists failing to understand science. The second phase is caused by creationists failing to understand creationism.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024