RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence

RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

drmark -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/16/2008 6:06:00 PM)
quote: Apes are writing these posts. That's the point. Yes, and it's as preposterous a point as defining evolution as a change in gene frequency. So I guess the best you all can do is merely evolve terminology to make it mean whatever you wish. Nice chatting with you, Method.

Method -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/16/2008 6:15:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark Yes, and it's as preposterous a point as defining evolution as a change in gene frequency. So I guess the best you all can do is merely evolve terminology to make it mean whatever you wish. Nice chatting with you, Method. Humans have been classified with the great apes since the very beginning of taxonomy. Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy and a creationist, even suggested that humans and chimps should be in the same genus (hence the original classification of Homo troglodytes). The similarity between humans and chimps has always been inescapable. I can quote many people from the 19th century who agree. But here is the strange thing for me. People have a problem being considered apes but most have no problem being considered mammals. That one has always confused me. But the whole point is that classifications are classifications. They do not tell us what we can and can't do. We decide that for ourselves. Instead of thinking of ourselves as darn dirty apes perhaps we should take the view that we have elevated the place of apes within the animal kingdom.

theo_book -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/1/2008 8:17:45 AM)
quote: On the other hand, a statement like "there exist parallel universes which cannot interact with our universe" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether such a universe does or does not exist. When the statement is made in a volume purporting to explain such to be reality, and when in that explanation the author (David Deutsch)resorts to such subterfuge as "assume there is no chaos in this universe;" and when that author proceeds to build alternate universes and states them into existence; the "assume" becomes "therefore because" in his argument; Welll, its not science and its not scientific, and its certainly not scientifically developed. It is pure hypothoesis based on guesses based on pure assumption. Yet it consumes some "scientists" carreers. so I feel safe in "speaking it out of existence" in the same fashion some scientists "speak God out of existence" with a casual "prove it."

swan42 -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/2/2008 2:11:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: On the other hand, a statement like "there exist parallel universes which cannot interact with our universe" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether such a universe does or does not exist. When the statement is made in a volume purporting to explain such to be reality, and when in that explanation the author (David Deutsch)resorts to such subterfuge as "assume there is no chaos in this universe;" and when that author proceeds to build alternate universes and states them into existence; the "assume" becomes "therefore because" in his argument; Welll, its not science and its not scientific, and its certainly not scientifically developed. It is pure hypothoesis based on guesses based on pure assumption. Yet it consumes some "scientists" carreers. so I feel safe in "speaking it out of existence" in the same fashion some scientists "speak God out of existence" with a casual "prove it." Fair enough. Except that, In the first case, you dismiss A due to lack of proof. That's fair. In the second case, you affirm B due to lack of dis-proof. That's illogical.

theo_book -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/2/2008 5:49:47 PM)
quote: Fair enough. Except that, In the first case, you dismiss A due to lack of proof. That's fair. In the second case, you affirm B due to lack of dis-proof. That's illogical. I know. But THAT is how the Darwinian THEORY of Evolution became the Darwinian FACT of Evolution that is now being debated all over the net. Glad you can see it.

Method -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/3/2008 10:51:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book I know. But THAT is how the Darwinian THEORY of Evolution became the Darwinian FACT of Evolution that is now being debated all over the net. Evolution is supported by such a large amount of evidence that it is considered to be fact by most biologists. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity or germ theory.

theo_book -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/3/2008 6:04:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book I know. But THAT is how the Darwinian THEORY of Evolution became the Darwinian FACT of Evolution that is now being debated all over the net. Evolution is supported by such a large amount of evidence that it is considered to be fact by most biologists. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity or germ theory. Glad to see you equate a fact (gravity) and a theory (germ). THAT is EXACTLY the way Darwinism became factual. Change the terminology with no proof whatsoever, and in some cases, contrary to proof, and voila, the theory becomes the fact.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/3/2008 6:19:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: Method quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book I know. But THAT is how the Darwinian THEORY of Evolution became the Darwinian FACT of Evolution that is now being debated all over the net. Evolution is supported by such a large amount of evidence that it is considered to be fact by most biologists. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity or germ theory. Glad to see you equate a fact (gravity) and a theory (germ). THAT is EXACTLY the way Darwinism became factual. Change the terminology with no proof whatsoever, and in some cases, contrary to proof, and voila, the theory becomes the fact. There is the fact of gravity: things fall when you let go And there are various theories of gravity that seek to explain the facts: Aristotelian, Newtonian, Einsteinian... There is the fact of evolution: the populations of fossils found in strata of different ages demonstrate change-over-time. And there are various theories of evolution that seek to explain the facts: Lamarckian, Darwinian, neo-Darwinian...

swan42 -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/3/2008 6:41:39 PM)
quote: And there are various theories of evolution that seek to explain the facts: Lamarckian, Darwinian, neo-Darwinian... I wish Larmarckian were true... I'd be a better basketball player.

Method -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/3/2008 10:57:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book Glad to see you equate a fact (gravity) and a theory (germ). Gravity is also a theory. quote: Change the terminology with no proof whatsoever, Proof is for math and alcohol. There is mountains of EVIDENCE which support the theory of evolution just as there are mountains of evidence which support germ theory, and less that supports the theory of gravity. Just a small tidbit of the evidence that supports evolution quote: and in some cases, contrary to proof, Such as? quote: and voila, the theory becomes the fact. Actually, what we are seeing is scientific ignorance becoming misguided skepticism.

theo_book -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/4/2008 9:28:44 AM)
quote: Actually, what we are seeing is scientific ignorance becoming misguided skepticism. Sounds kinda like a religion, doesn't it?

Method -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/4/2008 11:07:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: Actually, what we are seeing is scientific ignorance becoming misguided skepticism. Sounds kinda like a religion, doesn't it? Yes, it does. So you agree that the criticisms of evolution coming from creationists is fueled by religion and not science?

theo_book -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/4/2008 1:22:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: Actually, what we are seeing is scientific ignorance becoming misguided skepticism. Sounds kinda like a religion, doesn't it? Yes, it does. So you agree that the criticisms of evolution coming from creationists is fueled by religion and not science? What I agree to is that Darwinianism is more religion than science. It asks us to believe in things we cannot see, have never seen. THAT is one of the tennants of religion. To believe in it because we have not disproved it is parallel to religious fervor.

gluadys -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/4/2008 2:21:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: Method quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: Actually, what we are seeing is scientific ignorance becoming misguided skepticism. Sounds kinda like a religion, doesn't it? Yes, it does. So you agree that the criticisms of evolution coming from creationists is fueled by religion and not science? What I agree to is that Darwinianism is more religion than science. It asks us to believe in things we cannot see, have never seen. THAT is one of the tennants of religion. To believe in it because we have not disproved it is parallel to religious fervor. No, it's different from religion, because although some things have not been observed directly, they are inferred from what is observed. All it really asks is that we consider that what we observe taking place today has probably been taking place yesterday and the day before and the year, century, millennium, etc. before that. IOW that what we see today in terms of mutations, selection and speciation are not events unique to our generation, but part of the constant routine and rhythm of nature. Religion OTOH often rests on faith that unique, unrepeatable events have occurred with few if any witnesses and no physical evidence.

Method -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (6/4/2008 2:40:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book What I agree to is that Darwinianism is more religion than science. How is that so? What supernatural deities are worshiped as part of the theory of evolution? quote: It asks us to believe in things we cannot see, have never seen. Such as? The nested hierarchy is observed. Transitional fossils are observed. Genetic evidence is observed. quote: THAT is one of the tennants of religion. But it is not one of the tennants of the theory of evolution. quote: To believe in it because we have not disproved it is parallel to religious fervor. Evolution is accepted because of the mountain of evidence supporting it and it's usefulness in actual biological research.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI