Originally posted by lemon limeYes, it is an IMMENSELY deep thought, only able to be understood by what, 2 people on the entire planet? Almost as hard to understand as Relativity in 1920.
My alternative theory is to allow evidence to be the determining factor whether it supports a particular theory or not. And if evidence does not support my alternative theory of allowing evidence to be the determining factor then I must reconsider and search for another alternative theory.
Careful there humy, you might blow out a circuit trying to understand this one.
Originally posted by lemon limeEvolution evolves.
Given what was known at the time of Lamarck and Darwin, I believe both of them showed a great deal of insight and ingenuity. But today we are able to see and understand (and not just theorize about) the inner workings of cells. And how DNA serves a two fold purpose by functioning as both library and machine shop for making molecular machines on demand and ...[text shortened]... e old neo-Darwinism? Or has evolution (theory of) moved on to something entirely different?
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt makes no sense to you because you are in agreement with evolution theory. Your argument from authority derives from the fact you do not question the authority of evolutionary science. You said:
Either you were, or this post by you makes no sense:
[quote]Before we can imagine how gaps in the fossil record occurred we must first believe that there are gaps. We don't need to do that with swiss cheese because the holes are there for anyone to see. Since we weren't there to see the fossil record being formed, then we are only assuming there are gaps ow I used an argument from authority. Or are you admitting that you were wrong on that point?
Your confusion arises from the fact that you can't seem to get it in to your head that evolution is an accepted part of science and has been for a very long time. Evolution or the theory of evolution doesn't 'need' anything. It is not being disputed.
You are assuming I'm confused because I do not accept that statement as it stands. You give no reason for me to accept the authority of evolution other than to say 1.) it is an accepted part of science and 2.) has been for a very long time and 3.) Evolution (or theory of) doesn't "need" anything (I can only presume you mean doesn't need verification) and 4.) it is not being disputed, in spite of the fact that it is being disputed by other reputable and credentialed scientists. You may claim there are no scientists who argue against evolution, but this simply isn't true.
So there you have it, you made four distinct statements that all fall under the definition of argument from authority. These statements were not an appeal to my intellect, there were an appeal to my emotions and to a presumed respect for authority. And not only that, but you conveniently ignore scientists who do not share your point of view, which can also been seen as part of your argument from authority, because 5.) you want me to believe no one opposes that authority.
Argument from authority is more or less self explanatory, and yet here you are once again demanding an explanation...why is that?
3 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
It makes no sense to you because you are in agreement with evolution theory. Your argument from authority derives from the fact you do not question the authority of evolutionary science. You said:
[b]Your confusion arises from the fact that you can't seem to get it in to your head that evolution is an accepted part of science and h m for some reason explaining it because you demand an explanation. Why is that?
and 4.) it is not being disputed, in spite of the fact that it is being disputed by other reputable and credentialed scientists.
This is a lie. No good scientist would ever dispute a proven scientific fact. And, in this modern age of science and reason, any 'scientist' that disputes proven scientific fact as being fact is either a misnomer or is an extremely very bad scientists indeed and thus is NOT "reputable" precisely because of his denial of fact!
In every profession, you get at least the odd rare moron that goes against the basic principles of his profession and science is no exception. For every example of a bad scientist you can give that says evolution is not proven despite the mountain of irrefutable physical evidence that proves it, there would be perhaps a thousand examples of good scientists that accept the fact of evolution as fact. The so-called scientists you speak of represent at most an extremely tiny crazed minority of modern scientists who are religious extremest. None of the most qualified scientists in evolutionary biology deny evolution.
Originally posted by humyI see... so in other words, anyone who disagrees with you is a moron.and 4.) it is not being disputed, in spite of the fact that it is being disputed by other reputable and credentialed scientists.
This is a lie. No good scientist would ever dispute a proven scientific fact. And, in this modern age of science and reason, any 'scientist' that disputes proven scientific fact as being fact is either a misnome ...[text shortened]... be perhaps a thousand examples of good scientists that accept the fact of evolution as fact.
Thanks for illustrating yet another logical fallacy:
Argument from insipid stupidity
I was going to say argument from ignorance, but I think my version is a better fit.
Originally posted by lemon limeHow does that change whether or not your statement makes any sense in context?
It makes no sense to you because you are in agreement with evolution theory.
You are assuming I'm confused because I do not accept that statement as it stands.
You are confused, because you clearly still don't know what I said. I did not say "the theory of evolution is true". I said "the theory of evolution is accepted as true". It seems you can't tell the difference.
You give no reason for me to accept the authority of evolution
Correct. And I wasn't trying to.
You may claim there are no scientists who argue against evolution, but this simply isn't true.
Give me one reference to a single article published by one of these scientists in a peer reviewed science journal that disputes the theory of evolution.
So there you have it, you made four distinct statements that all fall under the definition of argument from authority.
Wrong. I was not trying to convince you of the validity of the theory of evolution, nor did I claim it was valid because of some authority.
And not only that, but you conveniently ignore scientists who do not share your point of view, which can also been seen as part of your argument from authority, because 5.) you want me to believe no one opposes that authority.
I will await those references. Its not that I 'conveniently ignore' them, its that I am not aware they exist. If you know better, please present them to me.
Argument from authority is more or less self explanatory, and yet here you are once again demanding an explanation...why is that?
Because you clearly used it wrongly because you apparently didn't understand what I said. Now that I have clarified, do you agree that I never used an argument of authority, or must I clarify further?
1 edit
Originally posted by humyUntil Newton they had Galileo's relativity. Newton insisted on absolute space, in contradiction to the known paradigm. Later Einstein argued for his relativistic theory, also in contradiction to the known paradigm. A good scientist will argue against established scientific 'facts', but only on the basis of good evidence.
No good scientist would ever dispute a proven scientific fact.
This doesn't translate well for the doubters of evolutionary theory or for that matter climate change skeptics, which seem to be the two most controversial subjects round here. That there are a number of areas where the information isn't so good, or anomalous, is not enough to overturn a paradigm. You need overwhelming evidence and a rival theory that explains both the data the old paradigm explains well, and the data that contradicts the old paradigm.
Before 1905 they had the theory of the aether, a substance that pervaded all space and was what electro-magnetic waves passed through, alongside Newton's absolute space and time. When they tried to measure the speed of light in the direction of the earths orbit they discovered it was the same as when they measured it the other way. This caused them a problem because under the Newtonian paradigm they should be different. They invented this idea of aether drag to explain it. Rather than drop the old paradigms straight away they tried to explain the results in terms of it. The explanation turned the aether into a fluid, but now one has to ask why the earth doesn't spiral into the sun. Einstein presented his rival theory which was accepted because it fit the experimental results better and so the paradigm changed.
To successfully change the paradigm you need consensus that there is a problem with the existing theories in the first place, with classical mechanics that happened around the end of the 19th Century. There simply isn't a consensus that there is anything wrong with the paradigm of evolution through natural selection.
Originally posted by lemon lime
I see... so in other words, anyone who disagrees with you is a moron.
Thanks for illustrating yet another logical fallacy:
[b]Argument from insipid stupidity
I was going to say argument from ignorance, but I think my version is a better fit.[/b]
I see... so in other words, anyone who disagrees with you is a moron.
No, that is nothing like what I said. I CLEARLY implied was that any scientists that disputes the scientific fact of evolution is a moron. I don't either have a problem nor expressed a problem with somebody merely disagreeing with me in particular.
Perhaps you cannot read? Or perhaps you cannot comprehend? -both possible symptoms of a moron.
Originally posted by humyI don't know if anyone has ever pointed this out to you, but the same hassling techniques a 14 year old might use against his peers on their Facebook pages will not work well against mature adults. You need to up your game if you hope to maintain any appearance of credibility.I see... so in other words, anyone who disagrees with you is a moron.
No, that is nothing like what I said. I CLEARLY implied was that any scientists that disputes the scientific fact of evolution is a moron. I don't either have a problem nor expressed a problem with somebody merely disagreeing with me in particular.
Perhaps you cannot read? Or perhaps you cannot comprehend? -both possible symptoms of a moron.
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtEvolution and climate change both have something in common. They both serve an unspoken purpose, and the science used to support these are secondary to that purpose. The skeptics are well aware of what these purposes are, but you will never hear about it from the proponents.
Until Newton they had Galileo's relativity. Newton insisted on absolute space, in contradiction to the known paradigm. Later Einstein argued for his relativistic theory, also in contradiction to the known paradigm. A good scientist will argue against established scientific 'facts', but only on the basis of good evidence.
This doesn't translate well s that there is anything wrong with the paradigm of evolution through natural selection.
I don't need to spell out the purpose of the climate change/global warming crises fear mongering scam, because the skeptics are constantly hammering away on that point. The purpose of evolution however is more esoteric... it provides validation for atheism. If religion is the opiate of the masses, then atheism is the opiate for those who are awaiting mindless oblivion. And apparently not just waiting, but also practicing for it.
Originally posted by lemon limeThat's an interesting point. If you can get us to swallow creationism then we'll believe pretty much anything, and so will let the oil companies continue to spew out greenhouse gasses until we become extinct.
Evolution and climate change both have something in common. They both serve an unspoken purpose, and the science used to support these are secondary to that purpose. The skeptics are well aware of what these purposes are, but you will never hear about it from the proponents.
I don't need to spell out the purpose of the climate change/global warming cri ...[text shortened]... ho are awaiting mindless oblivion. And apparently not just waiting, but also practicing for it.
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt would be enough if I could get you to separate intelligent design from the God hypothesis. Then I could expect to see a more honest debate coming from atheists and agnostics who automatically assume recognising intelligent design is a religious idea.
That's an interesting point. If you can get us to swallow creationism then we'll believe pretty much anything, and so will let the oil companies continue to spew out greenhouse gasses until we become extinct.
Believe it or not, recognising intelligent design is something people do every day. Without it we would have to discard forensics and archeology and yes, even paleontology, because it would no longer be vailid to recognise anything according to any design model if there was even a hint of intelligence involved. A dino bone could just as easily be a fossilized tree branch, because if we say it's a dino bone we've somehow become intelligent design proponents. Why, because we've looked at it through eyes that have discerned it's not a tree branch but in fact a dino bone. Do you really want to throw out the baby with the bath water? Or do you want to keep the bath water and just throw out the baby?
But maybe you're right, maybe we should not assume a footprint is anything but an act of nature, and anything that looks like a birds nest must be something else, and we should expect to see naturally formed snowmen every winter and the beach littered with natural formations that look suspiciously like sandcastles. In other words, to what extent are you willing to take this just to get God off the table and out of the halls of science?
The fear of intelligent design supporting a God hypothesis is what drives the unintelligent design argument to the point it has become self contradictory. And for what? For the fear that it might help creationsists in their arguments favoring the existence of a God? If God actually does exist, then I'm afraid there is nothing you can do about it. You won't be able to simply wish him away like you can with almost anything else. But here's a novel idea, if you don't want God to be a part of your discussion, then ignore any reference to God. It's really that simple. Or make it illegal, that would work too... it's not like it hasn't been tried before.
I'm still waiting for evidence humy and twhitehead exist, and are not simply question/answer machines, where the answers to questions have been pre-programmed and made available courtesy of the automated wiki-piki information dissemination system.
Originally posted by lemon limeWho's the designer if not God? If you have benevolent aliens creating life on earth, where did they come from? Sorry, I don't buy this, everyone I've met (including online and real life) who supports intelligent design is a creationist - even if our creators are material eventually they have something gnostic at the start. Since your post complains about atheists and agnostics that only leaves theist. I've seen the MO before, sorry, but if you want to argue the evidence go ahead, but please don't attribute the notion of intelligent design to anyone but theists, cultists, and Science Fiction authors.
It would be enough if I could get you to separate intelligent design from the God hypothesis. Then I could expect to see a more honest debate coming from atheists and agnostics who automatically assume recognising intelligent design is a religious idea.
Believe it or not, recognising intelligent design is something people do every day. Without it we wo ...[text shortened]... ade available courtesy of the automated wiki-piki information dissemination system.
Incidentally I'm reading David Brin's Exile trilogy, which is a successor to his uplift trilogy. The 5 galaxies have a 3 billion year old civilization where intelligent (defined as space-faring) species arise because a patron species adopts them as clients and turns pre-sentients into fully sapient species. Humans burst on the scene as "Wolflings" who have already uplifted chimps and dolphins, but have apparently evolved space-faring intelligence for themselves, and that starts a war.
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI wolfed down my fare share of science fiction up until about my mid twenties. I still occasionally enjoy a good sci-fi flick because of the ideas, but mostly I enjoy it now because of the special effects. Real science has kind of ruined it all for me, because most science fiction I've seen or read over the past 50 years will take just one little part of an idea or theory and then run it into the ground.
Who's the designer if not God? If you have benevolent aliens creating life on earth, where did they come from? Sorry, I don't buy this, everyone I've met (including online and real life) who supports intelligent design is a creationist - even if our creators are material eventually they have something gnostic at the start. Since your post complains ab ave apparently evolved space-faring intelligence for themselves, and that starts a war.
But old habits die hard, and I still prefer a bad sci-fi movie to any well done insipid tear jerking folks all sitting around the table and acting like childish morons feel good movie....? Come to think about it, the only reason I'm sitting here now typing this is because there's not much to watch on TV... how's that for an insipid tear jerking story? Doesn't it just make you want to cry your eyes out? Yeah, me neither... I can't even work up much sympathy over my own sad story.
I swallowed the evolution story a long time ago and without any resistence. By the time climate change became popular I had already given up reading the pop science mags, so it didn't take long to read up on everything relevant to that. I've never been paid to build shrines to evolution, or been paid to have an opinion about global warming or have an ax to grind with the oil companies. I'm free to have whatever opinion I'm inclined to have on those subjects, without anyone pressuring me to support what they believe. It's nice not having to whore myself out to universities and research groups just because I might happen to need the money.
Originally posted by lemon limeIf your argument held any water, you would be able to show that intelligent design had the evidence in its favour. Yet you have not. In fact, you have consistently made false claims.
The fear of intelligent design supporting a God hypothesis is what drives the unintelligent design argument to the point it has become self contradictory.
In science when a claim is being made it should be supportable with evidence, and you should be able to explain your claim to others in such a way that they can understand and agree with you. Even for such non-intuitive things like quantum mechanics, this is possible.
I simply don't buy your claim that this doesn't happen because some of the scientists are atheist. A large number of the scientists are in fact theist and the intelligent design lobby has not even been able to support their claim to them.
At one moment you claim 'its obvious' but when asked for details, you fumble and fail to answer.
If you can truly see intelligent design in a foot print then please go ahead and tell us what the formula is. Intuition is simply not good enough in science. I need a set of criteria that I can use to apply to new phenomena. When I present you with a new phenomena you must be able to tell me conclusively whether or not it shows traces of being designed using your criteria. This must be applicable to phenomena whose origin you do not personally know ie we must rule out personal knowledge in the methodology.