australopithecus
Active Member
How long before you run away back to EFF this time?
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Here comes another one...
- Thread starter AronRa
- Start date
gilbo12345
New Member
Isotelus said:
And your point of such is? (Red herring... which is a fish.. oh the irony).
My main point, (which you refuse to quote and discuss) is how the assumption that small changes leads to large-scale structural change is not based on experimentation and is simply assumed on faith. Where are the experiments? I refuse to get caught up in games of semantics.
I asked for experiments supporting the assumption that bacteria can "evolve" into you, (as assumed by the belief in common descent within the framework of evolution). With your reply here devoid of what I ask do you think that your reply is a rational one?
gilbo12345
New Member
australopithecus said:
Sigh... As I mentioned before all your posts are off-topic...
You can't even reply to my posts before, is that how atheists deal with a refutation? Simply ignore it?
Additionally how is such a snide remark befitting of an admin on a public forum?
gilbo12345
New Member
I thought this needs to be highlighted
It's not uncommon to have two different contexts -with completely different meanings- for one word. Look up the word, 'reason' for example. Is it the ability to extrapolate logically? Or is it a cause or catalyst? It is both, but not at the same time, not in the same context. So what I have done is strip away irrelevant contexts from this topic. I haven't boxed anything in.
Yes you just admitted to boxing in the definition... By striping away other contexts you are by definition boxing it in... On what authority do you have to do such? Are you the arbiter of words? This is called cherry picking
Instead I've sourced more than just one dictionary, and more than just dictionaries; I've sourced every definitive authority on that term.
Except for cherry-picking what you want out of them... As you admitted to above...
It's not uncommon to have two different contexts -with completely different meanings- for one word. Look up the word, 'reason' for example. Is it the ability to extrapolate logically? Or is it a cause or catalyst? It is both, but not at the same time, not in the same context. So what I have done is strip away irrelevant contexts from this topic. I haven't boxed anything in.
Yes you just admitted to boxing in the definition... By striping away other contexts you are by definition boxing it in... On what authority do you have to do such? Are you the arbiter of words? This is called cherry picking
Instead I've sourced more than just one dictionary, and more than just dictionaries; I've sourced every definitive authority on that term.
Except for cherry-picking what you want out of them... As you admitted to above...
australopithecus
Active Member
As far as I'm concerned you were given the oxygen of attention previously before running off back to EFF, and I have no obligation to reply to you as you deem fit. You've proven yourself both here and there to be a dishonest and petulant child without the requisite grasp of the subject you're trying to undermine.
You come from a forum that has sated they will ban people who use correct definitions of terms because the mods disagree with the definition, and you have the temerity to question my conduct?
You come barging back into the thread you ran from and abandoned months, and you start making demands on how people should address you? How about no?
I'll reply as I see fit. Don't like that? Well you know where the door is.
You come from a forum that has sated they will ban people who use correct definitions of terms because the mods disagree with the definition, and you have the temerity to question my conduct?
You come barging back into the thread you ran from and abandoned months, and you start making demands on how people should address you? How about no?
I'll reply as I see fit. Don't like that? Well you know where the door is.
gilbo12345 said:
It would have taken you less time if you had simply answered me, rather than dismissing and questioning the rationality of it. This isn't some sort of trick; my point is a very important one, and my having reserved any further comments is not a refusal to discuss it. I never waste my or other people's time playing what you think is simply a word game. My question is directly connected with your main point (as well as your demand for experiments concerning bacteria and us), and knowing how you're using the word "fish" will enable me to address your question in a more meaningful way than simply posting links to a bunch of articles. Please do me the courtesy of answering the question.
gilbo12345
New Member
Isotelus said:
Fair enough. Though I still do not see how this relates to my main point, that being the claim that small changes add up to larger ones has not been experimentally verified and thus is merely an unscientific assumption.
A definiton of fish I would accept is found here
http://animals.about.com/od/f/g/fish.htm
"Definition: The term fish is used to refer to any aquatic vertebrate that has a skin covered with scales, two sets of paired fins, some unpaired fins, and a set of gills. Fish do not represent a single clade but are instead paraphyletic. They include hagfishes, lampreys, lobe-finned fishes, cartilaginous fishes and ray-finned fishes. "
I already know that you will try and claim that there have been slight changes within the fish as shown, and I do not doubt that, small changes happen we directly observe them. What I do doubt is the assumption that because small changes occur then larger ones must also occur, this extrapolation has no scientific foundation, since to do such would take "millions of years" since that is how long these larger changes are claimed to occur.
Ergo how we define fish really has nothing to do with what I am asking. I am asking for the experiments that confirm the hypothesis, "small changes lead to large-scale structural changes" without any observable examples of large-scale structural change there can be no experiments to verify that hypothesis.
gilbo12345
New Member
Why has my reply from before disappeared?
australopithecus said:
gilbo12345
New Member
gilbo12345 said:
I'll unpack this a bit more.
Therefore if there is no verification of the hypothesis "small changes lead to large structural change" then how can anyone use examples of small changes as evidence of this larger change?
Additionally how can evolutionists make this assumption yet still claim their beliefs are scientific? There is no place in the scientific method where it claims "assume your hypothesis is correct", but it does mention that a hypothesis needs to be verified by experiment in order to be scientific, hence my question for experiments that verify this, (yet I already know there are none since its impossible to do due to the time constraints).
Therefore if there are no experiments supporting this you must admit that it is assumed on faith, no not Aron's definition since you guys think you have evidence for it, so its evidence based faith... (see that is an example of atheist faith in action
)....
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
gilbo12345 said:
That is where it was once issued and where you could reference it. Nowhere in AronRa’s statement does he say that was the forum he had in mind. Again, work on your reading comprehension.
gilbo12345 said:
Contradiction? As I quoted from hackenslash (and the reason I did that is because I thought he said it so well and wanted to give him credit) was because the point of what AronRa was doing was making a descriptive definition. Do you not understand the difference between a prescriptive and descriptive definition?
Yes, you are arguing semantics. You are complaining that AronRa’s definition is descriptive and not prescriptive, as you want it. You later demonstrate exactly why you want to use a prescriptive definition later in this post and I will point it out when you do.
gilbo12345 said:
Yes. His definition is lacking prescriptive aspects to it. That is the point of it. This is a very simple concept and I do not understand why you cannot grasp it.
gilbo12345 said:
You recognized how he demonstrated this here:
[url=http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=154078#p154078 said:
The difference is descriptive and not prescriptive.
gilbo12345 said:
Again, prescriptive vs. descriptive. Your inability to grasp this simple concept astounds me.
gilbo12345 said:
No. he is using that as an example of how dictionaries can be very wrong. Again, work on your reading comprehension.
gilbo12345 said:
This whole response is an example of you equivocating the two definitions of faith. The very instance you uses a prescriptive dictionary for your definition of faith is exactly what Mr. Comfort did in that video. Again, a great example of you doing this is coming up in this post, wherein you do almost exactly as Mr. Comfort.
gilbo12345 said:
The point is he is trying to be descriptive, so one can have a meaningful conversation, whereas, you are trying to be prescriptive, so you can hide your arguments behind semantics.
gilbo12345 said:
If you insist on using pejorative language, one could say AronRa is “boxing it in.” However, the points still stands using a descriptive definition in a discussion is far superior to a prescriptive one, because the meaning of the conversation is clear from the beginning. AronRa is not claiming any authority to do this, besides wanting a clear and concise discussion.
gilbo12345 said:
Once again, prescriptive vs. descriptive. However, your semantical argument is noted.
gilbo12345 said:
This is exactly what I have been talking about. You want to use a prescriptive definition of faith so you can say things like this and make it appear that AronRa has faith, perhaps just as much as you, in things like the fossil record. However, given a proper descriptive definition of faith, your argument melts away like mist at sunrise.
I also want to point out that no one has faith there is no god. Just about any atheist you ever talk to will disbelieve there is a god based on a lack of evidence. There is a difference. In addition, that difference is would you say, “You have faith there is no Zeus in that you have no evidence to demonstrate that there is no Zeus”? Actually, I would not put it passed you that you would say something like this.
gilbo12345 said:
Of course, and to argue otherwise would be solipsism and no one would argue for that.
gilbo12345 said:
Again, no one is claiming that there is no god. Stop creating straw men. Furthermore, your evidence as you put it is laughable. I hope that was a joke.
gilbo12345 said:
No. I think him pointing out that you are using prescriptive definitions, whereas he is using descriptive ones is the response. Again, work on your reading comprehension.
gilbo12345 said:
First off, like-minded people do not do it; it is up on the Ethernet for anyone to review. You, if you were able to point out a flaw in it, would be part of the review.
gilbo12345 said:
No, you did not. You demonstrated that you would rather use prescriptive definitions in order to further your semantical arguments. No one is arguing that what you provided is in many dictionaries, what is being argued is that for anyone to have a meaningful discussion; we need to be more concise than the dictionaries you are providing.
gilbo12345 said:
No one said it was; again, work on your reading comprehension. That was an example to show you just how wrong dictionaries definitions can be.
gilbo12345 said:
Because he cross-referenced the definitions he was using against several dictionaries in order to come up with descriptive ones. He said that several times throughout the section I quoted back to you. I am starting to wonder if English is your native tongue, because no one has reading comprehension this bad.
DutchLiam84
New Member
gilbo12345 said:
You seem to have a profound misunderstanding of what we mean by large changes. To give you an analogy:
Evolution can be compared to a color gradient, like the one below. If you zoom into this picture and divide into say a thousand slices from top to bottom, you will only see a very, very small change in color within each slice and between neighbouring slices, micro-evolution. Putting all these small changes together result in a completely different color, macro evolution. You're saying that all the small changes, all thousand of them, are possible and at the same time impossible. We don't argue that a large change happens in "an instant" (2nd picture) like a small change happens. It's a continues process, an accumulation of loads of small changes. It is not an assumption to state that loads of small changes result in a large change if you compare the first one with the last one.
Evolution is like this:
Not like this:
gilbo12345
New Member
Sigh.... Too much crap to sort out.....
I'd first mention that Aron's attempt to redefine any word and then force his opponents to use his definitions is akin to creating strawmen.
I already mentioned the contradictions... YOU need to learn to read my posts.
- He made up his definitions because the dictionary gets scientific words incorrect, ergo why redefine non-scientific words? There was no mention that the dictionary is incorrect on all fronts... And for you to now claim that it is, is overtly pessimistic.
- He claims his definitions are correct because they adhere to dictionaries, however how is this so when dictionaries get things incorrect? You are assuming that Aron is the arbiter of truth, capable of weeding out what is correct and not... Sorry to burst your bubble, Aron is not a God.
It seems you're only rebuttal is this "Descriptive vs Prescriptive". Perhaps you can unpack this "descriptive vs prescriptive" definitions and then demonstrate how that allows Aron to redefine words as he sees fit... As he admitted he is only using the context HE thinks applies, is he the arbiter of truth? Not sure how you can chide me for not knowing in the ins and outs of linguistics, I study Biology not linguistics....
In the study of language, description, or descriptive linguistics, is the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is spoken (or how it was spoken in the past) by a group of people in a speech community. All scholarly research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be.[1] <i></i>Modern descriptive linguistics is based on a structural approach to language, as exemplified in the work of Leonard Bloomfield and others.
Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially in education and in publishing. Prescription seeks to define standard language forms and give advice on effective language use, and can be thought of as a presentation of the fruits of descriptive research in a learnable form, though it also draws on more subjective aspects of language aesthetics. Prescription and description are complementary, but have different priorities and sometimes are seen to be in conflict. Descriptivism is the belief that description is more significant or important to teach, study, and practice than prescription.
Accurate description of real speech is a difficult problem, and linguists have often been reduced to approximations. Almost all linguistic theory has its origin in practical problems of descriptive linguistics. Phonology (and its theoretical developments, such as the phoneme) deals with the function and interpretation of sound in language. Syntax has developed to describe the rules concerning how words relate to each other in order to form sentences. Lexicology collects "words" and their derivations and transformations: it has not given rise to much generalized theory.
An extreme "mentalist" viewpoint denies that the linguistic description of a language can be done by anyone but a competent speaker. Such speakers have internalized something called "linguistic competence", which gives them the ability to extrapolate correctly from their experience new but correct expressions, and to reject unacceptable expressions.
Now using this context, please explain how "studying the linguistic world as it is" allows Aron to make up his own definitions, and create strawmen?
As I have asked earlier, why am I not allowed to use third party UNBIASED sources? Surely you can understand that an atheist redefining words will be just as biased as if a Creationist did it... If I forced you lot to accept a "Creationist Dictionary" I'd be run off the forum, why should Aron force his opponents to accept the definitions only HE thinks applies, when they may not apply to his opponent?
Double standards much?
You do realise that you are assuming that small changes add up to larger ones?... I am asking you for the evidence on which you make that assumption. What experiments have evolutionists performed that demonstrate that evolution is as you say it is...
I'd first mention that Aron's attempt to redefine any word and then force his opponents to use his definitions is akin to creating strawmen.
I already mentioned the contradictions... YOU need to learn to read my posts.
- He made up his definitions because the dictionary gets scientific words incorrect, ergo why redefine non-scientific words? There was no mention that the dictionary is incorrect on all fronts... And for you to now claim that it is, is overtly pessimistic.
- He claims his definitions are correct because they adhere to dictionaries, however how is this so when dictionaries get things incorrect? You are assuming that Aron is the arbiter of truth, capable of weeding out what is correct and not... Sorry to burst your bubble, Aron is not a God.
It seems you're only rebuttal is this "Descriptive vs Prescriptive". Perhaps you can unpack this "descriptive vs prescriptive" definitions and then demonstrate how that allows Aron to redefine words as he sees fit... As he admitted he is only using the context HE thinks applies, is he the arbiter of truth? Not sure how you can chide me for not knowing in the ins and outs of linguistics, I study Biology not linguistics....
In the study of language, description, or descriptive linguistics, is the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is spoken (or how it was spoken in the past) by a group of people in a speech community. All scholarly research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be.[1] <i></i>Modern descriptive linguistics is based on a structural approach to language, as exemplified in the work of Leonard Bloomfield and others.
Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially in education and in publishing. Prescription seeks to define standard language forms and give advice on effective language use, and can be thought of as a presentation of the fruits of descriptive research in a learnable form, though it also draws on more subjective aspects of language aesthetics. Prescription and description are complementary, but have different priorities and sometimes are seen to be in conflict. Descriptivism is the belief that description is more significant or important to teach, study, and practice than prescription.
Accurate description of real speech is a difficult problem, and linguists have often been reduced to approximations. Almost all linguistic theory has its origin in practical problems of descriptive linguistics. Phonology (and its theoretical developments, such as the phoneme) deals with the function and interpretation of sound in language. Syntax has developed to describe the rules concerning how words relate to each other in order to form sentences. Lexicology collects "words" and their derivations and transformations: it has not given rise to much generalized theory.
An extreme "mentalist" viewpoint denies that the linguistic description of a language can be done by anyone but a competent speaker. Such speakers have internalized something called "linguistic competence", which gives them the ability to extrapolate correctly from their experience new but correct expressions, and to reject unacceptable expressions.
Now using this context, please explain how "studying the linguistic world as it is" allows Aron to make up his own definitions, and create strawmen?
As I have asked earlier, why am I not allowed to use third party UNBIASED sources? Surely you can understand that an atheist redefining words will be just as biased as if a Creationist did it... If I forced you lot to accept a "Creationist Dictionary" I'd be run off the forum, why should Aron force his opponents to accept the definitions only HE thinks applies, when they may not apply to his opponent?
Double standards much?
DutchLiam84 said:gilbo12345 said:
You seem to have a profound misunderstanding of what we mean by large changes. To give you an analogy:
Analogy... I was hoping for REAL evidence, since that is what I have been asking for... Where are the experiments that support your assumption that small changes can add up to larger ones?
Evolution can be compared to a color gradient, like the one below. If you zoom into this picture and divide into say a thousand slices from top to bottom, you will only see a very, very small change in color within each slice and between neighbouring slices, micro-evolution. Putting all these small changes together result in a completely different color, macro evolution.
You're saying that all the small changes, all thousand of them, are possible and at the same time impossible. We don't argue that a large change happens in "an instant" (2nd picture) like a small change happens. It's a continues process, an accumulation of loads of small changes.
I never said that they all happen at once, in fact I said that the reason you guys cannot do experiments to confirm this hypothesis is precisely because if it does happen it takes too long... Ergo I ask that you READ my posts, since what you say here has nothing to do with what I have been asking
It is not an assumption to state that loads of small changes result in a large change if you compare the first one with the last one.
How can you compare the first one to the last one without first assuming that the small changes can add up and lead to the last one?
Evolution is like this:
Not like this:
You do realise that you are assuming that small changes add up to larger ones?... I am asking you for the evidence on which you make that assumption. What experiments have evolutionists performed that demonstrate that evolution is as you say it is...
DutchLiam84
New Member
It might have been an assumption (and a logical one) if it weren't for the fossil record or DNA evidence. If you want a beautiful example of small changes resulting in major change just look at the fossil record, the whale one particularly. That record shows awesome small changes like a gradual loss of the hind legs, the gradual inner ear changes, the gradual upwards migration of the nostrils, flattened tail vertebrae, all found in a sequence as they should be found if evolution were correct. The fossils fit perfectly in a nested hierarchy that the researchers made prior to finding them meaning they had a land mammal and a modern whale and predicted what changes they should find in the fossil record and at what geographical position. And guess what, they found exactly that. Is it a coincidence? Did your god just put them there to fuck with us?
Look man, you would agree that if you give me DNA from your entire family I could contruct a phylogenetic tree composing the relationship between them all with an extremely high level of accuracy. You would never ever say that it's just an assumption that the relationships are as they are based on the DNA. Yet when it comes to other animals, it's suddenly a problem. And if you say that it is completely different because it's a tree constructed between different species then please give some evidence why it is incorrect.
You look like the type of person that is overly skeptical of everything you don't agree with but don't hold up to that standard when it comes to stuff you agree with. While being a scientist, like I am, means you should be skeptical of everything. It doens't matter how much evidence there is for it; I'm skeptical of evolutionary theory when I'm doing evolutionary experiments. I create an experiment that could potentially falsify and confirm my hypothesis. If it doesn't comply with evolutionary theory and I have strong evidence supporting it, I would try and publish it and have it scrutinized by dozens of other scientists, if it doesn't hold up with them I'm probably wrong. What we don't do, like you guys, is push it onto people regardless of whether it's true or not. You guys don't give a crap about what is true because something is only true if it complies with what the Bible says. We would never do that. Something is true regardless of what some ancient book or what evolutionary theory would predict. We don't say that it's wrong because it doesn't comply with the theory, it means you would have to revise the theory. We would never say something is true because it is "just so".
EDIT:
BTW: Predictive power is the basis and backbone of every good scientific theory.
EDIT2: They're called biologists, not evolutionists.
Look man, you would agree that if you give me DNA from your entire family I could contruct a phylogenetic tree composing the relationship between them all with an extremely high level of accuracy. You would never ever say that it's just an assumption that the relationships are as they are based on the DNA. Yet when it comes to other animals, it's suddenly a problem. And if you say that it is completely different because it's a tree constructed between different species then please give some evidence why it is incorrect.
You look like the type of person that is overly skeptical of everything you don't agree with but don't hold up to that standard when it comes to stuff you agree with. While being a scientist, like I am, means you should be skeptical of everything. It doens't matter how much evidence there is for it; I'm skeptical of evolutionary theory when I'm doing evolutionary experiments. I create an experiment that could potentially falsify and confirm my hypothesis. If it doesn't comply with evolutionary theory and I have strong evidence supporting it, I would try and publish it and have it scrutinized by dozens of other scientists, if it doesn't hold up with them I'm probably wrong. What we don't do, like you guys, is push it onto people regardless of whether it's true or not. You guys don't give a crap about what is true because something is only true if it complies with what the Bible says. We would never do that. Something is true regardless of what some ancient book or what evolutionary theory would predict. We don't say that it's wrong because it doesn't comply with the theory, it means you would have to revise the theory. We would never say something is true because it is "just so".
EDIT:
BTW: Predictive power is the basis and backbone of every good scientific theory.
EDIT2: They're called biologists, not evolutionists.
Hi Gilbo, welcome back! It seems you're still fighting the good fight.
Anyhoo....most of what you're moaning about appears to be semantics, so I'll stay clear on that one. I just thought I'd pop in here.
I'd say the assumption is all yours, unless you can show why small changes wouldn't build to larger changes? Is there somekind of genetic mechanism that keeps species strictly within their "kind" (presuming you ascribe to that nonsense attempt at classification)? What is it EXACTLY that causes genetic mutations, at a certain point, to stop?
I take it you won't accept the fossil record, ring species, vesitigial structures, the evidence from developmental biology, biogeography, endegenous retroviruses, witnessed speciation or any of the massive amounts of evidence that illuminates the stupidity of your position?
Speciation events have been witnessed, predictions about retrovirsuses have been confirmed, the appearance of certain fossils in predicted parts of the geologic column confirm predicted lineages in the evolutionary tree
These experiements support evolution, these experiments also debunk your silly suggestion that species stay within their species. I'm sure you have been shown all of this before, it's not new, I'm also sure you didn't accept it the first time and I'm sure you won't accept it now. But it does always strikes me as curious that humans are the only organism to have evolved the trait of not believing in evolution.
Anyhoo....most of what you're moaning about appears to be semantics, so I'll stay clear on that one. I just thought I'd pop in here.
gilbo12345 said:
I'd say the assumption is all yours, unless you can show why small changes wouldn't build to larger changes? Is there somekind of genetic mechanism that keeps species strictly within their "kind" (presuming you ascribe to that nonsense attempt at classification)? What is it EXACTLY that causes genetic mutations, at a certain point, to stop?
I take it you won't accept the fossil record, ring species, vesitigial structures, the evidence from developmental biology, biogeography, endegenous retroviruses, witnessed speciation or any of the massive amounts of evidence that illuminates the stupidity of your position?
Speciation events have been witnessed, predictions about retrovirsuses have been confirmed, the appearance of certain fossils in predicted parts of the geologic column confirm predicted lineages in the evolutionary tree
These experiements support evolution, these experiments also debunk your silly suggestion that species stay within their species. I'm sure you have been shown all of this before, it's not new, I'm also sure you didn't accept it the first time and I'm sure you won't accept it now. But it does always strikes me as curious that humans are the only organism to have evolved the trait of not believing in evolution.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
gilbo12345 said:
I pointed out how they were not contradictions. The only reason you think they are contradictions is because you would rather have a word be as vague as possible so you can make semantical arguments.
gilbo12345 said:
Again, he did not make up his definitions because dictionaries get scientific words wrong, nor did anyone claim that they get everything wrong on all fronts (stop creating straw men), you need to read my post again (or AronRa’s). He created definitions by comparing dictionaries to come up with a descriptive definition of the words most often used in discussions of this nature. That way time is not wasted on semantics, but on substance.
gilbo12345 said:
No one ever thought AronRa was a god, not sure, why you would say something that foolish. I am not assuming AronRa’s definitions are correct either, I have looked at what he did in creating descriptive definitions and agreed with just about all of them. You do understand what he did, right? So far, your only objection to this tactic is to point out that you want to use prescriptive definitions, so your argument can be left in a haze of nonsense. Again, your semantical argument is noted.
gilbo12345 said:
I did unpack it; reread my post. Perhaps you should look up what descriptive and prescriptive mean in this context? I mean, I am an archeologist, not a linguist and this seems very simple and straightforward.
Than you go on to quote something irrelevant and state this:
gilbo12345 said:
Funny how you call what AronRa has done a straw man while constructing one yourself. Projection much?
However, I will unpack this again for you. Words (e.g. faith or reason) can have two meanings. AronRa (and others, like myself) would like if the words could be taken down to one meaning, that way in any context within a discussion, everyone knows exactly what is being said. That is the whole point of using and agreeing to use the same definitions for words. It is to avoid exactly what you have done here by equivocating words. Perhaps, I should have saved myself the trouble and just said this to begin with. I would not have had to use large words like descriptive and prescriptive which seemed to confuse you. I mean, you are studying biology after all.
gilbo12345 said:
Again, the point is to have a concise and coherent discussion. We all know that you would rather hide behind semantics then make a logical argument for your case and that is why you would not want to use concise definitions for words. Furthermore, this is AronRa’s pet peeve and not mine. I rather enjoy pointing out when creationists (such as you have done) use equivocations in their arguments. It shows how weak their arguments are and how all they have anymore is semantics. Furthermore, you would not be run off this forum for using a “creationist dictionary”, but laughed off has a very high possibility of happening.
gilbo12345 said:
No double standard, just a creationist that is afraid to have is arguments exposed for what they are.
You just used an argument from incredulity to prove that you've never used an argument from incredulity... :lol:
But you never apologized for accusing them of insulting you did you?
You frequently use the lack of response from "evolutionists" as proof that your arguments are valid and you do this on a website where almost every "evolutionist" has been banned. And you're right; it is childish.
gilbo12345
New Member
DutchLiam84 said:It might have been an assumption (and a logical one) if it weren't for the fossil record or DNA evidence.
Umm no unless you have an experiment that demonstrates small changes leading to larger ones then you are simply assuming it... Doesn't Dawkins say that you need evidence for whatever you believe in? What is the evidence that small changes do indeed lead to larger ones?
If you want a beautiful example of small changes resulting in major change just look at the fossil record, the whale one particularly. That record shows awesome small changes like a gradual loss of the hind legs, the gradual inner ear changes, the gradual upwards migration of the nostrils, flattened tail vertebrae, all found in a sequence as they should be found if evolution were correct.
Firstly this has nothing to do with the evidence small to large changes.... Since you are merely assuming ad hoc "evolution did it". How do you know that each of these forms actually did evolve to the other?
Where are the experiments that support that hypothesis? Remember the scientific method? You cannot assume your hypothesis of "evolution did it" is correct without demonstrating it via experiment.... By the way, ad hoc observation are not experiments... An experiment is repeatable, observable, measurable and falsifiable. Without means to test the cause of the similarities in fossils (since its a past event), it is not falsifiable nor repeatable.
The fossils fit perfectly in a nested hierarchy that the researchers made prior to finding them meaning they had a land mammal and a modern whale and predicted what changes they should find in the fossil record and at what geographical position. And guess what, they found exactly that. Is it a coincidence? Did your god just put them there to fuck with us?
The nested heirarchy means nothing, when you define organisms then it is you who is defining the organisms... Its a man-made construct and one that has been created with evolution in mind. Hence this is an example of circular reasoning...
Look man, you would agree that if you give me DNA from your entire family I could contruct a phylogenetic tree composing the relationship between them all with an extremely high level of accuracy. You would never ever say that it's just an assumption that the relationships are as they are based on the DNA. Yet when it comes to other animals, it's suddenly a problem. And if you say that it is completely different because it's a tree constructed between different species then please give some evidence why it is incorrect.
You look like the type of person that is overly skeptical of everything you don't agree with but don't hold up to that standard when it comes to stuff you agree with.
Really... And you know my inner thoughts how? Special atheist superpowers like your admin Austral?
I've done plenty of research into this topic and used to be an evolutionist myself, until I looked at the specific details behind evolution... One such detail is the lack of experimental verification for the assumptions being made.
While being a scientist, like I am, means you should be skeptical of everything.
I am. My only grievance with Creation is the incest that is implied by Adam and Eve.
It doens't matter how much evidence there is for it
Actually the evidence is all that matters, as a scientist you should know this
; I'm skeptical of evolutionary theory when I'm doing evolutionary experiments. I create an experiment that could potentially falsify and confirm my hypothesis.
Which hypothesis? So you have an experiment that supports the hypotheis that small changes add up to larger ones? and here I was thinking you were going into a tangent
If it doesn't comply with evolutionary theory and I have strong evidence supporting it, I would try and publish it and have it scrutinized by dozens of other scientists, if it doesn't hold up with them I'm probably wrong.
What we don't do, like you guys, is push it onto people regardless of whether it's true or not.
So the evolutionist missionaries I have encountered in the past were imaginary? So my lecturer screaming "evolution is a fact" 10 times in a lecture was also imaginary, having evolution forced onto you in tertiary studies in almost every topic in science you undertake is also imaginary.. True evolution doesn't have churches or doorknockers but they are adept at pushing their philosophy onto others... Just in a different arena.
You guys don't give a crap about what is true because something is only true if it complies with what the Bible says.
Where have I mentioned anything like this? Or is this an attempt at a strawman?
We would never do that. Something is true regardless of what some ancient book or what evolutionary theory would predict.
Evolution cannot predict anything since it is based on random change, randomness cannot be predicted (if you can do that you'd be a winner with the pokies
We don't say that it's wrong because it doesn't comply with the theory, it means you would have to revise the theory. We would never say something is true because it is "just so".
EDIT:
BTW: Predictive power is the basis and backbone of every good scientific theory.
What predicitons have evolutionists made BEFORE they were discovered? Please provide quotes of the person / people making said predictions and the time of said quote and discovery. If its claimed ad hoc then its not a prediction by definition.
So my question stands, where are the experiments that support large changes from small ones?
he_who_is_nobody said:
Can you read the green parts? (Can you read my posts?)
You know that using the lack of evidence for something is Argument from ignorance?
Perhaps I need to help you out here...
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
You do realise that you are admitting that you base your worldview on a logical fallacy? This is the League of Reason is it not?...
Perhaps I can help demonstrate further how idiotic it is?
Using the "logic" of the argument from ignorance.
I have no evidence that you are a male, therefore you are not a male?
I have no evidence that you are a female, therefore you are not a female?
You have just entered the twilight zone....
Frenger said:Hi Gilbo, welcome back! It seems you're still fighting the good fight.
Trying to help educate the masses, as seen above apparantly a logical fallacy is a good thing to base ones own worldview on... Imagine that!
Anyhoo....most of what you're moaning about appears to be semantics, so I'll stay clear on that one.
How is posting "evidence" staying clear?
gilbo12345 said:
I'd say the assumption is all yours, unless you can show why small changes wouldn't build to larger changes?
Actually the assumption is the evolutionist since they claim it can. As I was told before by Liam, scientists need to be skeptical.. Ergo they don't assume stuff happens. They'd be more likely to do as I do and say that nothing happens UNTIL there is evidence for it... Hence why I am asking for the evidence... If I am given the evidence (real evidence mind you, with no assumptions included) then I'd be happy to change my mind since its been demonstrated rather than asserted.
Is there somekind of genetic mechanism that keeps species strictly within their "kind" (presuming you ascribe to that nonsense attempt at classification)? What is it EXACTLY that causes genetic mutations, at a certain point, to stop?
I believe in our discussions on EFF I already told you this. Whenever we see a trait go into its extreme it leads to complications unique with that trait... Larger pigs = more mass but leads to decreased fertility, angled legs = better ability to mate (jumping) but leads to issues with joints and leg durability. A good observable example of this are Persian cats. Essentially with every trait there is a trade-off when it gets over expressed in the extreme.
I take it you won't accept the fossil record, ring species, vesitigial structures, the evidence from developmental biology, biogeography, endegenous retroviruses, witnessed speciation or any of the massive amounts of evidence that illuminates the stupidity of your position?
Eager to hurl elephants are we?
Speciation events have been witnessed, predictions about retrovirsuses have been confirmed, the appearance of certain fossils in predicted parts of the geologic column confirm predicted lineages in the evolutionary tree
These experiements support evolution, these experiments also debunk your silly suggestion that species stay within their species. I'm sure you have been shown all of this before, it's not new, I'm also sure you didn't accept it the first time and I'm sure you won't accept it now.
I'd ask that you unpack each argument since its your argument not mine to make. Feel free to post quotes from your links and your own description how this is an experiment that directly demonstrates large changes from smaller ones.
But it does always strikes me as curious that humans are the only organism to have evolved the trait of not believing in evolution.
Except for the fact that no other species is sentient, ergo they don't "believe" in evolution for the fact that they cannot.
Dave B. said:
AGAIN I ask you for evidence...
Assertum non est demonstratum fallacy, you really think that you can simply trash talk and people will believe you because you can write words...
he_who_is_nobody said:
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
gilbo12345 said:
gilbo12345 said:
Obviously I read what was in the green because I said “… no one is claiming that there is no god.” Having a disbelief in something is different from claiming there is not something. Amazing how you have the audacity to ask if I can read your post when I used part of what you said in my post.
Furthermore, I will simply spell it out for you, I do not disbelieve there is a god; I have a lack of belief in a god(s). There is a difference. However, seeing how much trouble you have with understanding definitions means that this difference will also fly right over your head. I am not sure at this point if it is down to your poor reading comprehension or just plain dishonesty. Thus again I ask, Do you have faith there is no Zeus in that you have no evidence to demonstrate that there is no Zeus? What is your evidence that there is no Zeus? Otherwise you simply have a circular reason for not believing in Zeus.
The rest of what you say is nothing more than a straw man and will be ignored.
Edit: fixed a mistake in my comment.
No, but claiming that evolution cannot logically occur is an argument from incredulity.
If I were to claim that god cannot logically exist you would most certainly accuse me of not having all the evidence available to make that claim. I would admittedly be making an argument from incredulity.
Now let's see you admit that you were wrong... :lol: