Jump to content


Photo

On Evolution's Credibility


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
135 replies to this topic

#41 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 June 2012 - 06:28 PM

This argument is invalid. Its what you call a logical fallacy. As very aptly described by Plato in the Republic, a craftsman, in so much as he is a craftsman, seeks only to further his craft toward more perfection, more refinement and more excellence. Similarly, this analogy can be applied today to a modern biologist. A biologist in so much as he is a biologist, seeks only toward the refinement of his art, i.e biology. And in his professional capacity he will not let his personal biases rule over him, otherwise his craft(art) would suffer. The strides made by biology in the last 2-3 centuries are proof that the science of biology is progressing, so there is no basis for a claim that all biologists would be prejudiced about one specific theory.

Won't respond to your other points, they are just biased opinions, speculations and wishful thinking. Too much of it, i'm afraid. Its pretty self evident , for example why greater depth in the geological column means you are going further back in time.


What logical fallacy is it to point out prejudice?

You claim that a Biologist is free from all bias...... Are you serious? As I said, becoming a Biologist at university doesn't suddenly make the person blameless truth-sayers... I will be a scientist at the end of this year and will continue to do honours next year so what does this say about me? Will I undergo some kind of transformation so that everything I say and do is unbiased?

Honestly everything you wrote is simply a faith statement

Biology has made strides, however this has nothing to do with evoluton. As I pointed out to Ringo evolution can only impact on what it can influence, and the only things it can really influence is ecology and the classification of organisms.... How does the classification of organisms have any impact on Medicine?

#42 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 June 2012 - 06:43 PM

I didn't bring up Newton nor did I cite him as an authority nor did I suggest that he supported my claims in any way. I said that Newton's work can be repeated by people with different worldvews and therefore his worldview was not necessary to the results of his work. That's all. I thought it was a simple concept but apparently not.



If I've missed responding to something, feel free to point it out specifically.



Have you heard of Project Steve? It's a list of more than a thousand scientists, half of them biologists, who support evolution. All of them are named Steve or some variation of Steve. The implication is that there are many more scientists (and biologists) who are not named Steve who also support evolution. My point is that creationists are a tiny minority.

This is not an argument from authority. It's an argument from accepting what trained professionals say over what some guy on a website says.



No, it doesn't mean that at all. I told you what I didn't say; I didn't affirm the opposite. If I don't tell you my name is Steve, that doesn't mean it isn't.



If you give specific examples, I'll try to explain how they're scientific. In general, they're scientific because they can be verified by other scientists.



There's no reason why you can't assume that God exists, like Newton did. But as I've been saying, his results have been verified by others who don't make the same assumption. That particular assumption is not necessary to reach the conclusion. As long as scientists agree on the assumptions that are necessary, there's no problem verifying results. If there's disagreement about the underlying assumptions which prevents verification of results, it isn't science any more; it's just a collection of opinions.



For the moment, I'm going to stick with my policy of accepting the expertise of tens of thousands of trained, working scientists over the opinion of some guy on a website. If you want to go into more detail, by all means let's do that but this post is getting spread pretty thin as it is.



Well... I never thought you'd question that there was an explosion of scientific discovery after Darwin. If you want to get into the contributions of evolution to that explosion, that's a pretty big topic in itself and I'm no expert. I'm willing to drop that point if you like.



My point, yet again, is that the contributions made by creationists like Newton did not depend on their worldview.



Again, it isn't name dropping on my part. I didn't bring him up.

In Popper's own words:


Yes you claimed that Newton believed in your worldview / claims... I already quoted what you said before, go read your own words.

There were about 8 points in my first response on this thread, though admittedly it was addressed to another person. However I believe you have missed with the topic of the lack of empirical evidence for evolution and how this takes it outside the realm of science and into the realm of metaphysics / philosophy..

And? You're putting forward an argument from popularity. The truth is not a popularity vote.

Then what do you propose, does the lack of empirical evidence mean that evolution is not science... Considering this is the same point used to claim that God is not scientific then I hope there isn't a case of double standards going on.

Umm no, scientific verification isn't derived from scientists themselves it comes from the EVIDENCE... (Something evolution is lacking, and therefore isn't verified)... This is an argument from authority...
Me: Where is your verification that evolution is true
You: Well scientist X said it is so it is..


Verification comes from the evidence, it doesn't come from unanimous agreement... since people make their decisions based on what they believe, what if a crucial piece of evidence is missing? Then the decision is based on a flawed premise. Furthermore the method you are proposing is not scientific since it means that anything is subject to change depending on the whims of the people who agree about it, (ALL people are biased which will influence their decision). I suggest you read more from Karl Popper, verification comes from empirical evidence. If you have no empirical evidence then you aren't discussing empirical science, it is social science or its philosophy.

#43 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 24 June 2012 - 07:12 PM

Ok, first of all i respect everyone's opinion and i'm not trying to offend you but my response will be the following:

I do not 'believe' textbooks and their diagrams, i simply consider the evidence they present as logical and the most reasonable conclusion. I mean, i have'nt looked at the Earth myself nor have i ever witnessed it rotate around its axis from outer space. When textbooks explain first the gravitational laws, which i can observe and then the rotation of the Earth, it makes a logical pattern that would seem unreasonable not to believe.

As for the salt range findings, i'll overview it and get back to you, but meanwhile consider the following:

Hold on hold on. Now Jason is giving you a documented example that you need to explain, especially after you marginalize creationist challenges to evolutionary theory. You give us the fossil order, and Jason gives you one example (and there are more), and you don't acknowledge it. If indeed sedimentation occurred over millions or billions of years, and Cambrian fossils (many of which are extant) 'appeared' first, then to have them above flowers, requires you to give an ad hoc scenario. This scenario is based on circular reasoning, and it will go like this. Since the Cambrian biota are the first eucharyotes, the ones found above the flowers were not extant until after the flowers first appeared. All of these things will have textbook first appearances and extinction dates, and rest on foudational assumptions, rather than on foundational observation. Modern observation is then fitted to match the assumptions rather than fact. THerefore there is no way to prove or disprove your conclusions.

That your theory is unfalsifiable is manifest by the typical ignoring of counter facts, hypotheses, or conclusions, which challenge the ToE. Once a part of the theory is challenged, and it is seen certain predictions were wrong, new predictions are simply stated with the famous disclaimer that "That's the way science works."


While your example is constricted to one specific location, how do you explain the Edicara biota, pre cambrian fossils, the earliest known multi cellular organisms fossils of which which have been found worldwide?:
http://en.wikipedia..../Ediacara_biota

The edicara biota show catastrophic sedimentation, as they are soft bodied ichnofossils. The fact that there has been a debate as to whether they are related to sea pens and jellyfish, shows that their body type, though there are differences, also contain alot of similarities. It depends upon the desired 'fact' argued for, that determines whether homology is implemented. In this case, the conclusion argued for are the differences, so that evolutionary time may be injected between the Edicara biota and the Cambrian.

When you find a pattern of the 'older' biota directly under the Cambrian, then we'll talk. All you have in actuality is a different marine species in a different ecological locale than the Cambrian biota.


Natural selection helps individual groups to survive by responding to the challenges of the environment by the slow process of evolution spanning several millions of years. I'm no expert on this, but i believe we have compassion about nature due to the fact that it has been through our experience of interacting with this very nature that we managed to arrive at our present state. Its actually ironic that this process itself is miraculous if you think about it. It does'nt disprove God at all as i explain below.

I can select and evolve dogs from very small to very large in several generations. But you can't select what isn't there. How did the liver evolve unless there was a simultaneous endocrine, digestive, circulatory, and nervous systems. You say that God directed it, but yet he supposedly used natural selection. Are you then advocating a directed mutation as the source for selection? If so, did your TE god create apoptosis before Genesis 1, and was it a direct result of disobedience to your TE god?

As a religious person who has been fortunate enough to directly experience the presence of God, i don't understand why you think that the means that we arrived here affect the more fundamental question that we are here, there was a very miniscule probability for there to have been any life in the first place and that there might be a purpose to our being here. Science only concerns itself with the 'how', not the 'why'. Moreover, only God can solve the problem of infinite regress when we consider the origins of the universe itself.

The presence of God is the Spirit of truth, which doesn't contradict himself. The spirit that was in the apostles, says that sin entered the world through on man, and that death was a result. But TE errs by receiving the testimony of a different spirit, which says that death is a mere happenstance of life. But the God of the Bible says that death is the wages of sin, and that sin came through Adam.

#44 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 June 2012 - 10:41 PM

But it doesn't matter whether or not his worldview influenced his actions. People with different worldviews get the same result as he got. He didn't need to be a creationist to get there. Creationism was not a necessary factor in the result.


Yes it did. If the universe wasn't created ~6,000 years ago, then these planets weren't predicted to have magnetic fields.

#45 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:48 AM

Its also the underlying cause for scientific laws. Back then it was believed that if there are laws then there must be a law-giver, what does a naturalist have to proclaim the causality of natural law?

#46 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:18 AM

You're putting forward an argument from popularity.


It's not an argument from popularity; it's an argument from expertise. I'm saying that a thousand trained and experienced airline pilots probably know more about aviation than somebody whose qualification is the abiliy to register on an Internet forum.

Then what do you propose, does the lack of empirical evidence mean that evolution is not science.


I propose that you ask a thousand biologists whether or not there is empirical evidence for evolution.

Me: Where is your verification that evolution is true
You: Well scientist X said it is so it is.


It isn't just scientist X; it's scientist X1, X2, X3... Xn. It isn't their authority that I'm citing but their expertise, both individual and cummulative. If you have a medical problem, you consult a medical professional, don't you? That isn't an argument from authority; it's just good sense.
  • Truthseeker likes this

#47 Truthseeker

Truthseeker

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • home

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:00 PM

It's not an argument from popularity; it's an argument from expertise. I'm saying that a thousand trained and experienced airline pilots probably know more about aviation than somebody whose qualification is the abiliy to register on an Internet forum.



I propose that you ask a thousand biologists whether or not there is empirical evidence for evolution.



It isn't just scientist X; it's scientist X1, X2, X3... Xn. It isn't their authority that I'm citing but their expertise, both individual and cummulative. If you have a medical problem, you consult a medical professional, don't you? That isn't an argument from authority; it's just good sense.


I agree with this. Here's some more proof for evolution :
Don't have enough time to go into more detail/respond to everyone else atm.

#48 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:34 AM

I agree with this. Here's some more proof for evolution :
Don't have enough time to go into more detail/respond to everyone else atm.


Whoever used the circa 2006 'fused chromosome' for part of their main argument in the video... It has been talked about before, this brings up a point of why it saves time to debate someone's worldview and not just the evidence -- we both have the same evidence same earth.....

#49 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:31 PM

"I propose that you ask a thousand biologists whether or not there is empirical evidence for evolution."

That thousand will do the same thing you do: their interpretations are guided by prejudices that has been instilled in them by their education. They are not forced by the facts to come to those conclusions.

#50 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:01 PM

"I propose that you ask a thousand biologists whether or not there is empirical evidence for evolution."

That thousand will do the same thing you do: their interpretations are guided by prejudices that has been instilled in them by their education. They are not forced by the facts to come to those conclusions.


As I've suggested before in this thread, that thousand biologists have a thousand different sets of prejudices. George points out John's mistakes and John points out Paul's mistakes and Paul points out George's mistakes. They force each other to look only at the facts.

#51 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:39 PM

As I've suggested before in this thread, that thousand biologists have a thousand different sets of prejudices. George points out John's mistakes and John points out Paul's mistakes and Paul points out George's mistakes. They force each other to look only at the facts.


Yet they will only point out the mistakes that are percieved by them, and their perceptions pertain to their worldview hence (as I said before) a naturalist will not actively look for evidence against his / her own worldview, the same is said for scientists who believe in evolution.. None will be looking for evidence that doesn't fit, or see the evidence as if it doesn't fit, (they have ad hoc hypotheses to ensure everything fits lol), they will already assume that evolution is true and then base their claims on that foundation.

Now as I believe I also mentioned that the truth is not a popularity vote, it solely comes down to the evidence, and proper (normally empirical) interpretation of that evidence.

#52 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 June 2012 - 04:36 AM

As I've suggested before in this thread, that thousand biologists have a thousand different sets of prejudices. George points out John's mistakes and John points out Paul's mistakes and Paul points out George's mistakes. They force each other to look only at the facts.


It forces them to ignore the facts and make up new ideas until the facts can be shoe horned into a new hypothesis. Gregor Mendel was ignored because he falsified Darwin's pangenesis hypothesis. Thirty years later he was acknowledged only because they figured out how to fit his laws into a new synthesis. So, George is telling John that it's better to exclude certain facts than to entertain them in our journals at this time.

#53 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 June 2012 - 04:47 AM

Now as I believe I also mentioned that the truth is not a popularity vote, it solely comes down to the evidence, and proper (normally empirical) interpretation of that evidence.


Sort of like the fusion of chromosone 2, which is actually evidence of a flood bottleneck and contrary to the OE interpretation.

Again, it is entirely possible, quite likely in fact, that our human ancestors underwent a chromosomal fusion event during a population bottleneck in fairly recent history (i.e., within the past several thousand years at most), easily explaining the fusion of chromosome 2. This concept is supported by an article published in a 2003 issue of Nature by Rohde et. al. where the authors make the following argument:



"These analyses suggest that the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular, the MRCA [most recent common ancestor] of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago [~3,000] in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors." Link



#54 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 27 June 2012 - 08:49 AM

None will be looking for evidence that doesn't fit, or see the evidence as if it doesn't fit, (they have ad hoc hypotheses to ensure everything fits lol), they will already assume that evolution is true and then base their claims on that foundation.


If that was true, the Theory of Evolution would not have changed since Darwin but the theory has changed as new evidence was discovered. There is no "assumption" that evolution is true. It's a conclusion based on the evidence.

Now as I believe I also mentioned that the truth is not a popularity vote, it solely comes down to the evidence, and proper (normally empirical) interpretation of that evidence.


The "proper interpretation" of that evidence is done by the people who understand the evidence, the biologists wth the training and experience. It isn't a matter of popularity. A thousand airline pilots are likely to know more about aviation than a guy reading a website.

#55 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 27 June 2012 - 09:02 AM

It forces them to ignore the facts and make up new ideas until the facts can be shoe horned into a new hypothesis.


Sometimes, new evidence has to go into the "?" pile until it can be explained. That Indicates that scientists are not, in fact, rushing to jam new evidence into old theories. Those new explainations, as I've mentioned before, are where Nobel Prizes come from. Nobody ever won one for rehashing old ideas.

Gregor Mendel was ignored because he falsified Darwin's pangenesis hypothesis. Thirty years later he was acknowledged only because they figured out how to fit his laws into a new synthesis.


Yes, theories do change to fit the evidence. That's how science works.

#56 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 27 June 2012 - 06:21 PM

I agree with this. Here's some more proof for evolution

You have a story.

Don't have enough time to go into more detail/respond to everyone else atm.

This is a forum. It's for discussion. If you don't have time for it, perhaps you should not post.

#57 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 June 2012 - 07:08 PM

1. If that was true, the Theory of Evolution would not have changed since Darwin but the theory has changed as new evidence was discovered. There is no "assumption" that evolution is true. It's a conclusion based on the evidence.



2. The "proper interpretation" of that evidence is done by the people who understand the evidence, the biologists wth the training and experience. It isn't a matter of popularity. A thousand airline pilots are likely to know more about aviation than a guy reading a website.



1. The MODEL (technically evolution is a model since it cannot make predicitons since it is based on random change, randomness cannot be predicted), is altered after contradictions are found between evolution and reality. These changes are the ad hoc hypothesises evolutionists love so much, ad hoc hypothesies are the domain of pseudo-science..... hmmm..

However these changes haven't come about from an active look into the problems with evolution, its merely what has cropped up over time.



2. And you are talking to a guy with that training.... So under your definition that would make me and the evolutionists able to interpret the data correctly.. Can you see the contradiction here? The most important thing in interpreting evidence is an unbiased opinion. However I hate to burst your bubble but university education isn't the be-all-end-all of authority, it is merely 3 extra years of schooling of which only a 50% margin is required to pass. Take it from someone who is in his final year, yes I know more stuff however what we get taught is just scratching the surface. Someone who has rigorously studied a topic for 10+ years on the internet would probably know much more than most university graduates.

#58 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 June 2012 - 01:30 AM

Yes, theories do change to fit the evidence. That's how science works.


Honestly, sound scientific theories make predictions. The hallmark of a psuedoscience is "Ooops, maybe we should change the story."

As Russel Humpreys said in the link I posted earlier:

Evolutionists often say that creationist theories are not "real science" because, they claim, such theories make no predictions which can be tested. But in this theory we have a counterexample to their claim. Here are some specific predictions of the theory which could be tested by future data from space missions:

1. Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remanent magnetization, as the Moon's rocks do.

2. Mercury's decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect it fairly soon. In 1990 the planet's magnetic moment should be 1.8 percent smaller than its 1975 value.

3. The upcoming Voyager 2 encounters with Uranus and Neptune should show planetary magnetic moments less than the k = 1.0 limit: 8.2 x 1025 J/T for Uranus and 9.7 x 1025 J/T for Neptune.

#59 Truthseeker

Truthseeker

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • home

Posted 28 June 2012 - 04:31 AM

What logical fallacy is it to point out prejudice?

You claim that a Biologist is free from all bias...... Are you serious? As I said, becoming a Biologist at university doesn't suddenly make the person blameless truth-sayers... I will be a scientist at the end of this year and will continue to do honours next year so what does this say about me? Will I undergo some kind of transformation so that everything I say and do is unbiased?

Honestly everything you wrote is simply a faith statement

Biology has made strides, however this has nothing to do with evoluton. As I pointed out to Ringo evolution can only impact on what it can influence, and the only things it can really influence is ecology and the classification of organisms.... How does the classification of organisms have any impact on Medicine?





No, i said a biologist in so much as he is a biologist, will seek to improve or perfect his field of inquiry, i.e biology. If he were to let his personal bias rule over him in his impersonal pursuit of seeking truth through scientific investigation, his theories would be worthless. And if every biologist did this, so would biology as a whole . This is not the case.

Not only are biology papers, like the ones published on evolution, peer reviewed but they are subjected to rigorous scrutiny and it is only after they have passed such scrutiny that they are then accepted by the scientific community. The scientific method is unbiased because as ringo mentioned it negates the possibility of bias when biologists from a wide variety of worldviews all agree to the scientific accuracy of any given theory. Personal biases are cancelled out. Besides, for there to be a bias there has to be a motive. What motive could all biologists, paleontologists, geologists and physicists possibly have in common that they would all 'believe' in science which conforms with the findings made by the ToE? (i.e, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, it contains fossils of extinct species millions of years old etc). The only people who have a faith position here are your lot, who take Genesis as a literal and scientific truth, whereas it was never meant to be scientific, it was'nt written for that purpose(but that's another debate).

And as to its usefulness, bacteria and germs can and do 'adapt' to certain types of medication, and so this is very much a valid study in that respect as well. Here, read it for yourself :
http://en.wikipedia....ionary_medicine

#60 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 28 June 2012 - 08:10 AM

1. No, i said a biologist in so much as he is a biologist, will seek to improve or perfect his field of inquiry, i.e biology. If he were to let his personal bias rule over him in his impersonal pursuit of seeking truth through scientific investigation, his theories would be worthless. And if every biologist did this, so would biology as a whole . This is not the case.

2. Not only are biology papers, like the ones published on evolution, peer reviewed but they are subjected to rigorous scrutiny and it is only after they have passed such scrutiny that they are then accepted by the scientific community.

3. The scientific method is unbiased

4. because as ringo mentioned it negates the possibility of bias when biologists from a wide variety of worldviews all agree to the scientific accuracy of any given theory. Personal biases are cancelled out.

5. Besides, for there to be a bias there has to be a motive. What motive could all biologists, paleontologists, geologists and physicists possibly have in common that they would all 'believe' in science which conforms with the findings made by the ToE? (i.e, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, it contains fossils of extinct species millions of years old etc).

6. The only people who have a faith position here are your lot, who take Genesis as a literal and scientific truth, whereas it was never meant to be scientific, it was'nt written for that purpose(but that's another debate).

7. And as to its usefulness, bacteria and germs can and do 'adapt' to certain types of medication, and so this is very much a valid study in that respect as well. Here, read it for yourself :
http://en.wikipedia....ionary_medicine


1. Actually this IS the case in reference to evolution, (not Biology as a whole since nothing would really be lost if we take the assumption of evolution out of Biology). Whilst studying evolution at university most of the time I would hang around after class and would ask the lecturer questions, only one actually admitted to not knowing the answer, and another acknowledged the problem but didn't really care about it. The others instead gave run-around / deflective answers that didn't address the problem at hand.

Here are a selection from what I can remember

- Darwins finches are used as evidence of change. During a drought it was observed that the % of beak sizes within the population changed dramatically due to the changed environmental conditions. Whist this is change, another study was undertaken after the drought which had shown that after the environmental conditions returned to "normal" then the beak size % also reverted back to its previous %. This infers that whilst change does occur the oscillations in environmental conditions would produce oscillations in variance in traits, thus leading to nothing ever "evolving": since it merely changes and reverts, changes and reverts...

- Darwins finches are also known to interbreed doesn't this infer that they are the same species, (just with different beak sizes, much like the differences in dogs).

- Colour changes in moths is not a trait that is indicative of a species becoming a new organism. It is a benign trait, as if you can change it to all colours under the sun, the organism will still have the same basic body plan aka phenotype, therefore there is no generation of new structures for the organism to become a new phenotype.

- Comparing DNA sequences allows gaps (alignment) on the basis that evolution is assumed to have occurred, therefore using the DNA similarity % based on these comparisons as "evidence" of evolution is circular reasoning because it is based on the assumption that evolution occurred in the first place.

Feel free to try and answer these, however I will state that if established lecturers cannot answer these then I won't be holding my breath. However what this means is that when it comes to the problems of evolution claims like mine fall on deaf ears. Not really sure how much more evidence you want.

as I stated before ALL people are biased, it is a fact of life which you cannot deny. So really all I have said previously has been overkill.


2. Scrutinized by who... other evolutionists! Do you see the problem here... An analogy would be for me to declare that Australia is the best country in the world and then to have that claim "peer reviewed" only by Australians. Honestly peer review is a joke concerning topics where people's worldviews are concerned.

Perhaps consider if I was reviewing the papers as an agnostic scientist who believes in creation, (and considering the previous citation of evolutionary assumptions / errors), it would be a different story.


3. I never said it was. Here is a hint though.... Evolution isn't based on the scientific method. The scientific method demands EMPIRICAL (observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable) data with which to support a hypothesis, evolution has no evidence of this nature. Every single one is based on a pre-existing assumptions of evolution, or merely claiming "evolution did it" ad hoc. Furthermore upon finding contradictions the scientific method would demand an annulment of the hypothesis, this doesn't occur with evolution, rather an ad hoc hypothesis is created to "smooth other" the problem... This is how pseudo-science works.


4. As I have mentioned many times, TRUTH is not a popularity vote. That is an argumentum ad populous

III. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
"Vox populi, vox dei." Latin proverb (the voice of the people is the voice of
God).

"Let us not dream that reason can be popular. Passions and feelings may
become popular; but reason always remains the sole property of a few
eminent individuals." —Goethe.

"Seek not the favor of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful
means. But seek the testimony of the few and number not voices, but
weigh them." —Immanuel Kant.


"Counting noses may be a great method of running a government, but it is
no necessary criterion for truth." —C. S. Lewis

A. Definition
This is the fallacy of deciding truth by opinion polls. "Accept this
because it has popular appeal." It is based on psychological
insecurity, and the need to be loved and accepted by others. You
co
mmit this fallacy when you debate an issue not on the basis of
facts, but rather on the basis of popularity
or a popular slogan. This
is grand-standing, playing to the galleries, people-pleasing,
trendiness, snob appeal, jumping on the bandwagon, be apart of
the in-crowd, everybody's doing it, etc. It is a maneuver that

by passes reason and manipulates the passions, prejudices, and
identity of an audience, a tactic often used by advertisers: "One
million people a day can't be wrong! (or can they?). It could be laid
out like this:

1. If most people believe, like, or want something, then that
something must be true, good, valuable, etc.

2. Most people believe, like, or want, XYZ.

3. Therefore, XYZ must be true, good, valuable, etc.

Of course, right is right, and true is true, no matter how few people
may believe or do it. And wrong is wrong, and false is false, no
matter how many people may believe or do it. Truth and value is
not settled by majority opinion; reality is not settled by
democratically!


B. Examples:

This fallacy can have several nuances:

1. Bandwagon argument:
"Of course you want to use Zest toothpaste. 90% of the
American population uses Zest!"

2. Appeal to vanity:

"Only the ultimate in fashion could complement the face of
Bianca Jagger. Spectrum sunglasses--for the beautiful
people."

3. Appeal to snobbery:

"A Rolls Royce is not for everyone. If you qualify as one of
the select few, this distinguished classic may be seen and
driven at British Motor Cars, Ltd. (By appointment only,
please!).

4. Consensus Gentium: requires a majority opinion, deciding truth
by a majority vote.

"But, Colombus, no one believes the world is round!"
"The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution."
"But dad, everybody's doing it."



http://www3.dbu.edu/...s_relevance.pdf


6. You do realise that atheism, (the belief in unbelief) is also a faith based position. The ONLY true unbiased position is agnosticism, however many people here will point out that it is also a self-conflicting one, (that is why I am a theistic agnostic which makes more sense).

5. And there is the motive for people to live the lie of evolution... It is a security blanket for their belief in atheism.

Additionally I am sure there are some creationists who get swept up with the media storm and believe it due to the mass popularity, (see the definition of argumentum ad populum). Or there are those who go along with it since they will lose their jobs... (see the movie Expelled- No Intelligence Allowed)

7. I never said I doubted that things adapt. What I do doubt is the assumption that those minor adaptions within the species / kind will ever amount to anything than a mere variation.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users