|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2007 : 14:37:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And of coarse one investigator might test to see if the products of the gasoline in the soot came from the can of gas found at the scene while another one might just assume that it did. My point being that there are always situations to point to where speculations are involved. When the fire investigator comes out with his final conclusion we just speculate that he tested in all the right ways and assume he would have tested the can as the source of the gasoline as well as looking at another possible source. Maybe the fire inspector was paid off to deceive the final result by someone who wanted to collect the issuance money. A scientific study can still be based and conclusion come too on speculation and assuming. We might now believe the fire investigator got the theory right, but we still have no real knowledge that he did. |
That's why we have Peer Review. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2007 : 14:43:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
That's why we have Peer Review. |
Were I Bill, I'd probably point out that peer review isn't perfect (look at the recent published scientific frauds, for examples), and so you have to assume that the peer reviewers did a good job. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 15:23:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Boron10 |
| If you want to get philosophical, you could say that nobody knows that anything is true, but where will that get us? Why don't we instead say that we can draw theories from facts and experiments? |
Agreed.| That is as close to truth as we cat get. |
Which would give you a belief in fish-to-philosopher evolution and not a known. |
Ok, your words above explain the root of your problem, Bill scott. If you want to argue that way, nothing is known. This is a dead end. End of argument. Nobody knows anything.
Rather than kvetch about our lack of 100% certainty, why don't we stick to what we can know, given the "assumptions" that we exist, that reality exists, and that we can observe reality? Of course everything we know is only as true as the facts we observe, and the assumption that we can observe them. Otherwise, we might just live in the matrix. Again I ask, "where will that get us?"
I strongly encourage you to read Kil's essay, Faith. Perhaps this can repair some of your dead ends and let us begin a useful discussion. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 15:56:55 [Permalink]
|
Bill, your attitude toward evolutionary science is classical skepticism.
The very first skeptical philosopher, Pyrrho of Elis, might agree with you, since he seemed to think all knowledge was impossible to gain. (Modern skepticism, and science for that matter, are very different from Pyrrho.) According to Wiki: The main principle of Pyrrho's thought is expressed by the word acatalepsia, which connotes the impossibility of knowing things in their own nature; against every statement its contradiction may be advanced with equal justification. Secondly, it is necessary in view of this fact to preserve an attitude of intellectual suspense, or, as Timon expressed it, no assertion can be known to be better than another. Thirdly, Pyrrho applied these results to life in general, concluding that, since nothing can be known, the only proper attitude is ataraxia, "freedom from worry".
The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask himself three questions. Firstly we must ask what things are and how they are constituted. Secondly, we ask how we are related to these things. Thirdly, we ask what ought to be our attitude towards them. Pyrrho's answer was that things are indistinguishable, unmeasurable, undecidable, and no more this than that, or both this and that and neither this nor that. He concluded that human senses neither transmit truths nor lie.[2] Humanity cannot know the inner substance of things, only how things appear.
The impossibility of knowledge, even in regard to our own ignorance or doubt, should induce the wise man to withdraw into himself, avoiding the stress and emotion which belong to the contest of vain imaginings. This theory of the impossibility of knowledge is the first and the most thorough exposition of agnosticism in the history of thought.[citation needed] Its ethical implications may be compared with the ideal tranquility of the Stoics and the Epicureans.
An alternate interpretation is that Pyrrho was not a Skeptic according to the Skeptic's own standards - even though he was considered to be a Skeptic in antiquity - but rather a negative dogmatist. Having a view of how things are in the world makes Pyrrho a dogmatist; denying the possibility of knowledge makes his dogma negative. |
Of course, this doesn't really describe your thinking, Bill, as that's your attitude only toward non-Biblical knowledge that you think contradicts your scripture. You are selective about what evidence you choose to doubt. Pyrrho at least was consistent, but not you.
You swallow the whole Bible without even chewing, but evolution gets Pyrrho's "impossible to prove" treatment.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/29/2007 16:07:57 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 16:05:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
That's why we have Peer Review. |
Were I Bill, I'd probably point out that peer review isn't perfect (look at the recent published scientific frauds, for examples), and so you have to assume that the peer reviewers did a good job.
|
And did the scientiffic fraud get exposed eventually? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2007 : 16:32:57 [Permalink]
|
Always happy to help out, I am, and never let it be said that I failed in my Samaritan duties. 
Dig it:
EVOLUTION FRAUDS
In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic
Human Ancestral Frauds
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.
Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)
Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
Human Ancestor Fraud - Creationist Links
|
And it continues on.... Most enlightening.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 18:28:19 [Permalink]
|
That's a Creationist list of "frauds," Filthy. It's quite suspect, not to be believed.
Right away, I see the "Nebraska Man," silliness, which was a pig tooth briefly misidentified as hominid by a scientist who later corrected himself. It was never taken seriously by science.
Java Man was not a fraud, though the first specimen was a poor one and was controversial. Other fossils were found, confirming that Java Man (an example of Homo erectus) was real.
Piltdown was indeed a fraud, but one probably perpetrated upon scientists, not by them, and not accepted by science outside of England (where national pride may have played a part).
"Orce man" is a Duane Gish favorite. There's really no scientific claims to it. The fossil was simply too incomplete it identify.
The above quote seems an attempt to say Neanderthal was fully human, a claim to be expected from Creationists, who only believe in human and ape "kinds."
So, really, only one fraud there, the infamus Piltdown, who taught science to be more careful.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/29/2007 18:31:44 |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 01:59:15 [Permalink]
|
Sorry I was away for a few days, I'm sure you all missed me.
Originally posted by H. Humbert
It was not a straw man because it's not a misrepresentation of your position. You readily admit to changes within a species, but reject that these changes can ever add up to macro-evolution. And you do so without explaining what mechanism could hamper this process beyond offering the true but irrelevant objection that such changes have never been observed. (And since direct observation isn't a requirement in science, your objection is thus a red herring). So, in fact, your reasoning is identical to accepting inches but denying that they add up to miles. |
No I think they call this burden of proof, I'm saying there's no proof of any mutations that could lead to such a change and you're saying they can anyway. Your words was a strawman argument because billions and millions of mutations have been observed with no macroevolution going on. Changes within a species, yes, but macroevolution is not a must. Creatures can undergo millions and billions of changes without evolving. That doesn't disprove evolution, but it just shows how your "analogy" was infact a strawman.
Creatures that have been observed to undergo changes and not evolve are called "Live Fossils", among those are Coelacanths, Mosquitos and Starfish... so you see inches and miles can exist, yet no macro-evolution.
As more evidence, the influenza virus has a high rate of mutability approximately an insertion occurs once every ten thousand nucleotides, given that statistic there is enough potential to rewrite the entire genome more than 10,000,000 times in the Spanish flu epidemic alone. Yet no observations have shown that influenza has become anything else.
Inches and Miles can exist together, influenza "evolves" all the time. Yet nothing similar to macro evolution occurs.
No more strawmen please. Just because you compare it to miles and inches, doesn't mean that is true.
Burden of proof...
Originally posted by Kil
That is a jump to a later period. I was speaking of the Cambrian. And I'm not sure what you mean by more complex.
Source please. |
Exactly, more complex or primitive is ambiguous as each creature is complex in it's own unique way. This stems all the way down to cellular organisms.
[url=http://sacoast.uwc.ac.za/education/resources/fishyfacts/coelacanth.htm]Here's a little on the coelacanth.[/url]
I thought it's electro-receptive rostral organ was an interesting feature for a once considered "primitive" fish.
Originally posted by Kil
At this point, it is important to define our terms. While I would say that Precambrian life was less complex, those life forms most certainly did fill whatever niche was available to them at their stage of development.
But it is important to remember that a fish is complex and so we look at features that are primitive, in terms of time and based on comparisons to later versions of the same features, which says nothing about complexity.
Perhaps when talking about the Precambrian and the Cambrian we can speak of complexity. But further up the column, we are looking at the development of features that may have even lost some complexity but are better suited for a particular animal or plants survival. A feature may move and take on a different job like jaw parts becoming ear parts.
In any case, I suppose I will have to be more careful in my use of words when making generalizations. |
But then all that is under the assump |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 03:07:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
That's a Creationist list of "frauds," Filthy. It's quite suspect, not to be believed.
Right away, I see the "Nebraska Man," silliness, which was a pig tooth briefly misidentified as hominid by a scientist who later corrected himself. It was never taken seriously by science.
Java Man was not a fraud, though the first specimen was a poor one and was controversial. Other fossils were found, confirming that Java Man (an example of Homo erectus) was real.
Piltdown was indeed a fraud, but one probably perpetrated upon scientists, not by them, and not accepted by science outside of England (where national pride may have played a part).
"Orce man" is a Duane Gish favorite. There's really no scientific claims to it. The fossil was simply too incomplete it identify.
The above quote seems an attempt to say Neanderthal was fully human, a claim to be expected from Creationists, who only believe in human and ape "kinds."
So, really, only one fraud there, the infamus Piltdown, who taught science to be more careful.
|
Of course it is! I said that I was trying to help out, didn't I? They really don't have much of anything else, so I figgered I'd give 'em a little something to work with.
Did you check out the links? They're Tony the Tiger greeeat!
Edit: OK, who fucked up the format! 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/30/2007 03:11:45 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 04:57:47 [Permalink]
|
Dude-theindoctrinatedcynicforatheism- said:
I'll offer you the same opportunity. Go and start a thread in this folder, pick a specific piece of evidence for evolution and explain how and why it is "speculative." |
Sure, I will be glad to start that thread. You only have one thing to do for me first, dude. Acknowledge that which is already known. That you, dude, believe fish-to-philosopher evolution to be the best explanation on the decent line of man, but, you do not know this to be true.
That's it, dude. After all the reason I chimed in on this thread was to agree with the notion that fish-to-philosopher evolution was a belief and not a "known." And that I agreed with Ricky's take on you, that you demonstrated yourself to be an indoctrinated cynic. Here is a chance to prove me wrong on my "indoctrinated cynic" belief of you. Simply acknowledge that which is already known. I will have no reason to continue in this thread once you have done so and I will then be glad to start a new thread on any topic you see fit.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 06:58:52 [Permalink]
|
| Oh... that's a little silly though. Abiogenesis to H. sapiens is less supported than Fish to Man. |
No sillier, or perhaps equally as silly (to be fair about it) as Bill's "Fish to Philosopher" catch phrase.
Abiogenesis to man: you are correct, for now. Abiogenesis is still being studied.
Oh that's hardly true...
Jellyfish fossilise and part of evidence used against evolution is the fossilised lung in some ancient fish of a different lineage than the original assumption.
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1786505.stm]Here's some more on jellyfish[/url]
That's some soft tissue fossilising right there... |
Neither Kil nor I said that it never fossilizes. The Burgess Shale shows a great many soft tissued animals. But that is an exceptional, even unique, fossil bed. Unfortunatly, it is from the Middle Cambrian, well before fish became common, and will tell us nothing about lungs. Yes, I'm aware of these supposed random mutations thing, but there is no evidence of such a thing being able to cause such diversity.
|
Mutations...
| Well it is well supported, the problem is that atheists don't want to listen to the support under the indoctrination that anything supports it. |
Hand waving. Lessee, do you have anything of support that would be acceptable to an independent third party?
| I thought jaws had lips so we could close our mouths in an air tight fashion so as to avoid any foreign media from entering. (like french wine) |
Nope; quite the contrary. Their orginal design was to suck stuff in. The Matamata Turtle shown feeds by collapsing it's huge neck and sealing it's mouth. When something, anything, containing protine swims by, it expands it's neck and opens it's mouth, scarfing up everything within range of the suction. Surinam Toads, aquatic salamanders, and a great many fish feed in much the same way.
What is your problem with French wine? When I was in France, I found it very palatable.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 06:59:12 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Were I Bill, I'd probably point out that peer review isn't perfect |
Or you could replace "Bill" with "skeptic" and the point would still stand.
| (look at the recent published scientific frauds, for examples) |
Or just mistakes and not necessarily fraud, or maybe fraud
| and so you have to assume that the peer reviewers did a good job. |
Yes, you do. Any time you are dealing with man's conclusions that he arrived at based on his interpretation of the evidence that fact that man is a fallible creature must always be considered. And with a vast theory such as fish-to-philosopher evolution where we have many contributors to the final conclusion you have that many opportunities for an incorrect conclusion to be injected, and then built upon.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 07:37:19 [Permalink]
|
So, Bill doesn't believe* in some part of ToE because it is speculative (according to him). However, he does believe in god (and a specific flavor) and that this god brought about life/humanity/etc even though it is speculative (according to everyone).
Does this sum it up?
* I don't believe in any part of ToE either. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/30/2007 07:41:48 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 07:49:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Yes Bill you are indeed correct they are indoctrinated, it's a very deep issue. I believe it stems mostly from their atheism (I could be wrong) which makes them close up their mind to the possibility that evolution could be false so much so that they blindly follow the theory into eventual factualisation within their minds. This is the sad story that can be told for a great many in their predicament.
I'm making a little You-Tube documentary about it actually, maybe I could show you it sometime.
|
I would enjoy that very much. I hope you do not mind if I run with some of your material. Such as this:
| In the end as skeptics, we must realise. There is no real knowledge. There is only what is most reasonable to believe. |
A classic case of, I couln't have said it any better myself. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 08:06:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
So, Bill doesn't believe* in some part of ToE because it is speculative (according to him). However, he does believe in god (and a specific flavor) and that this god brought about life/humanity/etc even though it is speculative (according to everyone).
Does this sum it up?
* I don't believe in any part of ToE either.
|
Like I said before, I don't think the problem is the ToE or its evidence at all. I can understand people debating about the evidence, trying to understand how it works. I know it's not an easy process to learn.
What I don't understand is the almost irrational (or at least baseless) rejection that things can add up to small changes, because, d'oh, it happens everyday and it's pretty hard to argue otherwise, but somehow not to big ones (like Mab used to say, how many micros it takes to make a macro?). Especially considering the time scale and environment pressure involved, as the myriad of other things covered in evolutionary biology. It's not like a drastically physically different beastie will pop up in a fortnight. Nobody's arguing that.
I still think the problem isn't with the ToE at all. The problem is with people's emotions and their resistance to understand life as something natural, not divine, not especially tailored, not in anyone's image, not mystical. That isn't restricted just to theists, mind you, though that's often the case. Probably there are some atheists who think we aren't special enough if life wasn't seeded here by alien races. Who knows what justifications people will create to keep their emotions sated.
But then, what do I know. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger
Topic Locked
