Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Begging The Question- Why Do Evolutionists Think Its Ok?

Recommended Posts

Any mention on what I posted about peer review? Do you still claim it as a source of authority on authenticity? Or is that going to be skipped over?

 

The history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. I agree and understand what you and Adam

are saying and I acknowledge that scientists are not immune to getting sidetracked by their preconceptions, but they ultimately

go where the evidence leads.

 

Actually the history of science is filled with examples of current viewpoint being challenged by new evidence which gets ignored. Perhaps consider Mendel, he was ignored for 40 years because what he demonstrated chained Darwinism to organisms giving birth to the same organism.

 

They follow where they think the evidence leads, that is the problem

 

Scientists make deliberate efforts to remove subjective influences from their evaluation of conclusions; they do a good job, on the whole, of reducing bias. They do such a good job, in fact, that what creationists really object to is the fact that scientists do not interpret evidence according to certain religious preconceptions.

 

Actually they do... The mere act of interpretation incorporates a subjective determination by the scientist, and as such involves the person to make a choice regarding the context of his or her worldview... There is no way you can escape this, its human nature.

 

 

Consider part of Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record" (AIG n.d.). The Institute for Creation Research has a similar statement of faith (ICR 2000). Creationists admit up front that their preconceptions, in the form of religious convictions, determine their conclusions.

 

At least they are upfront with their preconceptions and thus can take them into account when it comes to interpreting the data. Evolutionists on the other-hand do the exact same, (to deem evolution is a fact is tantamount to this), yet are foolishly deceiving themselves as if they are neutral and unbiased.

 

Its the same with peer review as posted earlier.

 

People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maxten

I could not
agreed more with Tee Jay, Adam and Gilbo if the words came out of my home mouth. But then, I am biased and I freely admit it. Funny that.

Evolutionary scientists are creative. That's the commonality we all have in our philosophical endeavors. Evolution was an idea conceptually conceived by a creative human being. All efforts to animate the puppet evolution are done by creative beings and are therefore ask of creativity.
Furthermore there is no evidence needed for a creative act anymore than there is evidence of something existing before it was created.

Unless you, Macten, can give us a pound of your thoughts, a cubic inch, or cause us somehow detect your thoughts without you verbalize them or a specific pattern of energy (matter), we seem forced to conclude that matter, thought, or information are not congruent and therefore not the same things.

Often the term nonphysical is used to describe information--appropriately so. It seems we need some sort of designating terminology to help us separate information from its dissimilar characteristics of matter.

Personification is more appropriately part of poetry. Unfortunately we cannot ask a fossil (evidence) how it came to exist? So, you inadvertently mixed poetry with your scientific reasoning. To wit a fossil is not alive nor does it have characteristics of things that are alive. Therefore, we cannot follow it anywhere. Nor does it control us.

I hope you won't think I am being crass? Maybe I am being irrationally rational to make a point? We do not follow evidence where it leads. We decide where to go and then follow our own thoughts and draw conclusions based on our own reasoning ability.

It seems "unreasonable" not to be aware of our philosophical choices. We can think about our thinking--that we can do in the privacy of our own mind.

I believe in the process of continuous improvement. Though I may be a fallible human like all of us, I try to catch my own "nonsense." And when someone else shows me I am wrong, I hope I graciously accept their correction.

It says in the Bible that Job maintained his self-righteousness. My mom used to say that people will lie when the truth would do better. I think there is a certain amount of truth to what she said.

The nature of conflict internal and external is trying to believe yes and no at the same time. Adam pointed out in one of his posts that we all do circular reasoning to some extent.

We can also believe yes and no to varying degrees. Our mind allows us to mediate to what extent pr percent of credibility percentages we give a particular belief. Thus we can go back-and-forth between any of our beliefs--"yes"--"no."

In the Bible, God is quoted as saying, "How long halt you between two opinions?" God does not particularly seem to like us sitting on the fence. "Because you are neither hot nor cold I will spit you out of you out of my mouth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. I agree and understand what you and Adam

are saying and I acknowledge that scientists are not immune to getting sidetracked by their preconceptions, but they ultimately

go where the evidence leads.

 

Scientists make deliberate efforts to remove subjective influences from their evaluation of conclusions; they do a good job, on the whole, of reducing bias. They do such a good job, in fact, that what creationists really object to is the fact that scientists do not interpret evidence according to certain religious preconceptions.

 

The hypocrisy of this charge cannot be overstressed. Creationists state outright that they accept only what they already assume.

Consider part of Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record" (AIG n.d.). The Institute for Creation Research has a similar statement of faith (ICR 2000). Creationists admit up front that their preconceptions, in the form of religious convictions, determine their conclusions.

 

 

 

Mac,

 

Please pause and do some self-examination. You do not have the same high-regard for scientists that disagree with your evolution worldview. For example: I gave you theorems of information written by information scientists (see my past posts). You immediately dismissed them because these theorems clearly show that information is not physical, not part of matter, can only come from an intelligent Mind. Information is not part of the ink or paper, not part of a computer, or chemicals and molecules. Now information scientists admit that matter can be used to transmit and store information, but lifeless, mindless matter can never, never, never give you what it does not have to give. The odds of matter writing intelligent information is the same as me getting a date with a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader. It just can't happen.

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mac,

 

Please pause and do some self-examination. You do not have the same high-regard for scientists that disagree with your evolution worldview. For example: I gave you theorems of information written by information scientists (see my past posts). You immediately dismissed them because these theorems clearly show that information is not physical, not part of matter, can only come from an intelligent Mind. Information is not part of the ink or paper, not part of a computer, or chemicals and molecules. Now information scientists admit that matter can be used to transmit and store information, but lifeless, mindless matter can never, never, never give you what it does not have to give. The odds of matter writing intelligent information is the same as me getting a date with a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader. It just can't happen.

 

TeeJay

 

Teejay - Information science and theorems of information is all very good and I don't dismiss it and hold them in high regard.

 

Great for mobile phones, CDs, internet etc... not so great at disproving TOE as it is irrelevant to the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great for mobile phones, CDs, internet etc... not so great at disproving TOE as it is irrelevant to the field.

Is it just me or are materialistic minded individuals good at deeming anything inconvenient to their narrative as 'irrelevant'? I guess it's easy to protect an ideology as long as you put up a mental barbed-wire fence around it. Mind-forged manacles anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or are materialistic minded individuals good at deeming anything inconvenient to their narrative as 'irrelevant'? I guess it's easy to protect an ideology as long as you put up a mental barbed-wire fence around it. Mind-forged manacles anyone?

 

I don't know Adam; you'd need to provide some proper examples of things that ARE relevant and inconvenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolutionists refuse to admit "up front" that their preconceptions, in the form of blind faith in natural causes, determine their conclusions.

 

In a way, it basically is this simple. Creationists are not ashamed to admit their preconceptions. Evolutionists have to hide their own preconceptions because they must constantly paint themselves as the epitome of objectivity. They can not afford to level the playing field. This makes up the very basis of the cultural mythology of "science vs. religion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Failure to decay in 10KY is no less remarkable in my book than 100KY, etc...

a matter of remarkable conditions preventing chemical reactions and decay.

 

How would assuming a 6-10k year old Earth on supposed contrary evidence that can be explained to be non contrary using a variety of

scientific techniques advance science?

If a young Earth were proposed as reality the amount of contrary evidence makes it impossible and therefore falsified.

Hand waving and logical fallacies...You do understand that soft tissue in supposedly 65+ mya bones falsifies deep time evolution, correct? Instead "scientists" are working feverishly to find another ad hoc hypothesis to prop up a long failed hypothesis masquerading as a theory. There is no mechanism that can keep proteins from decaying over millions of years. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hand waving and logical fallacies...You do understand that soft tissue in supposedly 65+ mya bones falsifies deep time evolution, correct? Instead "scientists" are working feverishly to find another ad hoc hypothesis to prop up a long failed hypothesis masquerading as a theory. There is no mechanism that can keep proteins from decaying over millions of years. Period.

 

Apparently putting bones in a bucket of blood for two years shows they can last millions of years... Now all they need to do is find a hypothesis for how buckets formed millions of years ago ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hand waving and logical fallacies...You do understand that soft tissue in supposedly 65+ mya bones falsifies deep time evolution, correct? Instead "scientists" are working feverishly to find another ad hoc hypothesis to prop up a long failed hypothesis masquerading as a theory. There is no mechanism that can keep proteins from decaying over millions of years. Period.

 

Nonsense.

You merely ASSERT that this would have been impossible. We have prior evidence that this is possible, and Schweitzer cited the relevant scientific papers in her own paper.

The dating of the specimen still places it as being over 65 million years old. Therefore what we have is a new discovery with respect to the extent to which material other than bone can be preserved for such long periods of time, though as Schwietzer says in her actual paper, there exists prior documentation of soft tissue preservation in fossil material including Mesozoic fossils:

Mesozoic fossils, particularly dinosaur fossils, are known to be extremely well preserved histologically and occasionally retain molecular information (6, 17, 18), the presence of which is closely linked to morphological preservation (19). Vascular microstructures that may be derived from original blood materials of Cretaceous organisms have also been reported (14–16).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense.

You merely ASSERT that this would have been impossible. We have prior evidence that this is possible, and Schweitzer cited the relevant scientific papers in her own paper.

Macten, have you ever heard the phrase "You're kicking against the goad."?

 

Evolutionists ASSERT that it would be possible. You can't set up a 65 million year long experiment and expect to be around to demonstrate your claim. It's no different than a frequent assertion like "We know evolution happens and of course we don't observe large scale change. It takes millions of years."

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nonsense.

You merely ASSERT that this would have been impossible. We have prior evidence that this is possible, and Schweitzer cited the relevant scientific papers in her own paper.

The dating of the specimen still places it as being over 65 million years old. Therefore what we have is a new discovery with respect to the extent to which material other than bone can be preserved for such long periods of time, though as Schwietzer says in her actual paper, there exists prior documentation of soft tissue preservation in fossil material including Mesozoic fossils:

Mesozoic fossils, particularly dinosaur fossils, are known to be extremely well preserved histologically and occasionally retain molecular information (6, 17, 18), the presence of which is closely linked to morphological preservation (19). Vascular microstructures that may be derived from original blood materials of Cretaceous organisms have also been reported (1416).

Speaking of nonsense. You've made an assertion that PROTEINS, can last millions of years. THEY CANNOT! There is no known mechanism that can preserve proteins that long. Your above point, needs an ad hoc hypothesis attached to it (which doesn't exist yet) to save it, yet common sense (and Occum's Razor) states that it's not possible. If so, then explain how they survived in a triceratops horn in the Montana badlands. An area known to have wildly different temperatures, and some of the worst conditions for preserving such thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nonsense.

You merely ASSERT that this would have been impossible. We have prior evidence that this is possible, and Schweitzer cited the relevant scientific papers in her own paper.

The dating of the specimen still places it as being over 65 million years old. Therefore what we have is a new discovery with respect to the extent to which material other than bone can be preserved for such long periods of time, though as Schwietzer says in her actual paper, there exists prior documentation of soft tissue preservation in fossil material including Mesozoic fossils:

Mesozoic fossils, particularly dinosaur fossils, are known to be extremely well preserved histologically and occasionally retain molecular information (6, 17, 18), the presence of which is closely linked to morphological preservation (19). Vascular microstructures that may be derived from original blood materials of Cretaceous organisms have also been reported (14–16).

Mac,

 

I understand. Your atheist worldview will not allow you to accept undeniable evidence. Which is more difficult to believe: Soft dinosaur tissue can be kept fresh over 65 millions years. or that dinosaurs died rather recently? Mac, I don't have enough faith to believe the impossible as you are doing here. Actually, I heard a joke recently that is similar to your argument here:

 

A man showed up at the emergency room of a hospital and claimed to the doctor that he was dead. No amount of evidence the doctor gave him would dissuade him from believing he was dead. Finally, the doctor asked him if dead men bleed. The man answered no, dead men do not bleed. So the doctor took a pin and pricked the man quickly on his finger. The man's finger started bleeding. The man looked down at his finger and proclaimed: "How about that. Dead men do bleed!"

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Now most commonly evolutionists will assume that similarities = ancestry, or assume evolution as the cause of similarities thus allowing them to use similarities as evidence of evolution.

 

I have yet to still grasp why in this situation. My biology teacher in my Sophomore year in high school would use the 4 finches on the Galapagos Islands as an example. But then again what evolve at all. The finches could have been just always been that way or just all have one of beaks, and eat the same thing. If they ran out of food they would just decrease in numbers like any other animal which can and is proven today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of nonsense. You've made an assertion that PROTEINS, can last millions of years.

I haven't made any assertion

 

THEY CANNOT! There is no known mechanism that can preserve proteins that long.

Don't discover the mechanism science!!! Earth must be really young even though the fossil is really old hmmmmm

 

Your above point, needs an ad hoc hypothesis attached to it (which doesn't exist yet) to save it, yet common sense (and Occum's Razor) states that it's not possible. If so, then explain how they survived in a triceratops horn in the Montana badlands. An area known to have wildly different temperatures, and some of the worst conditions for preserving such thing?

Something to do with Iron most probably but who knows, it's great that science can investigate it

What's occum's razor got to do with this?

Common sense matters little. Common sense suggests micro changes would lead to macro changes given no known barrier and enough time but that kind of reasoning is not allowed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I haven't made any assertion

 

Common sense matters little. Common sense suggests micro changes would lead to macro changes given no known barrier and enough time but that kind of reasoning is not allowed here.

 

I suggest you go read your posts again.....

 

Nonsense.

You merely ASSERT that this would have been impossible. We have prior evidence that this is possible, and Schweitzer cited the relevant scientific papers in her own paper.

 

 

 

 

Common sense matters very much... Did you know that the barriers to change is ALREADY KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED.... Perhaps realize that when a trait is pushed to the extreme it leads to negative effects in other areas, we have observed examples in Persian cats (with the squished noses). Additionally I have witnessed the effects of trade offs when I worked on a farm for 3 years which was involved in breeding breeding stock for other farms.

 

Tradeoffs have played a prominent role in evolutionary thinking for many
reasons, most of which are directly tied to the factors that limit the adaptive
potential of organisms. Why is it that few plants are free from herbivory
and that most animals cannot tolerate polar and equatorial climates? The
answer accepted by most biologists is that tradeoffs present limits to ad-

aptation (Futuyma and Moreno 1988).

 

http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/documents/AgrawaletalinDarwin_150.pdf

 

 

Sadly you are not the first evolutionist to portray this silly notion of "no barrier limits to change"... May I ask where did you get this information from? A blog or youtube atheist?... Perhaps you should consult better sources, or perhaps demonstrate some acumen to your research... I really would like to know where you got this from, each time I shut this argument down I ask the person where they get it from and I never get an answer...

 

 

Additionally just because there is no evidence against a position that doesn't mean your are allowed to assume that the position is true... Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... Even though I have demonstrated that there is documented evidence that trade-offs exist and they do limit the adaptive potential of organisms, hence are a barrier for change.... One which popularizer evolutionists don't seem to have either accepted, admitted or even researched yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense matters very much... Did you know that the barriers to change is ALREADY KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED.... Perhaps realize that when a trait is pushed to the extreme it leads to negative effects in other areas, we have observed examples in Persian cats (with the squished noses). Additionally I have witnessed the effects of trade offs when I worked on a farm for 3 years which was involved in breeding breeding stock for other farms.

 

Tradeoffs have played a prominent role in evolutionary thinking for many

reasons, most of which are directly tied to the factors that limit the adaptive

potential of organisms. Why is it that few plants are free from herbivory

and that most animals cannot tolerate polar and equatorial climates? The

answer accepted by most biologists is that tradeoffs present limits to ad-

aptation (Futuyma and Moreno 1988).

 

http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/agrawal/documents/AgrawaletalinDarwin_150.pdf

I would think they'd mention that tradeoffs are a barrier to macro change under the "Macroevolutionary Approaches to Studying Tradeoffs and Correlations" section, since that fact seems like it would make those approaches impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think they'd mention that tradeoffs are a barrier to macro change under the "Macroevolutionary Approaches to Studying Tradeoffs and Correlations" section, since that fact seems like it would make those approaches impossible.

 

I believe the section from the quote I gave is titled

 

 

Chapter
10
Tradeoffs and Negative Correlations in Evolutionary Ecology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the section from the quote I gave is titled

 

 

Chapter

10

Tradeoffs and Negative Correlations in Evolutionary Ecology

If you continue reading the paper beyond the opening paragraph, you'll find the section I'm talking about on page 257.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you continue reading the paper beyond the opening paragraph, you'll find the section I'm talking about on page 257.

 

Ok, so what was your point?

 

To claim that macro-evolutionary change is impossible? We already knew that thanks anyway :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so what was your point?

The paper you posted does not support the claim you made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The paper you posted does not support the claim you made.

 

Can you please demonstrate this, or are evolutionists eternally enslaved to make comments without evidence or rationale to back it up...

 

 

I suggest you read the red part ;)

 

Tradeoffs have played a prominent role in evolutionary thinking for many

reasons, most of which are directly tied to the factors that limit the adaptive

potential of organisms. Why is it that few plants are freearrow-10x10.png from herbivory

and that most animals cannot tolerate polar and equatorial climates? The

answerarrow-10x10.png accepted by most biologists is that tradeoffs present limits to ad-

aptation (Futuyma and Moreno 1988).

 

http://www.eeb.corne...nDarwin_150.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo the only barrier that exists is time.

So only a problem for YECers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo the only barrier that exists is time.

So only a problem for YECers.

 

I asked Popoi to demonstrate how the quote doesn't demonstrate that the quote I gave stating that trade-offs hinders adaptation is not a barrier to change.....

 

Instead I have you once again stating faith statement with no evidence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first of I'll I'd note that the OP has it backwards. It's not "similarities = common ancestry", it's "common ancestry results in similarities". IOW, it's very logical to figure that if two species share a recent common ancestry, they will share many similarities (e.g., anatomical and genetic).

 

 

Sigh... You are begging the question!

 

 

How do you KNOW that the similarities we observe are due to common ancestry? Otherwise you are simply assuming the conclusion you want to claim, hence assuming your hypothesis ("evolution did it") is correct... Therefore you are not being scientific :)

 

 

And this is confirmed by field studies of speciation events, speciation lab experiments, and well....common sense. The alternative would be "common ancestry results in no similarities", which doesn't make any sense at all.

 

What data confirms that the similarities we observe are due to common ancestry? (and just so you know assuming it is not data / evidence)... The only way to know is to create a time-machine!

 

The alternative is that there is no common ancestry.... I find it funny that your only options both assume common ancestry is correct... Not surprising (due to the tunnel-vision of the evolutionist), but it is interesting :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms