Time to clear the decks...

[Swa]

Why should there be a defense for my "admission" if you don't think it is bad?? I sense a contradiction here.

It's blind faith that's the problem. If all the priests and preachers came and said that God doesn't exist I would not just believe them because I did my homework myself. But you say if biologists concur that life was designed you'll accept it in a second. That's indefensible for a belief that's continually held up as logical, rational, evidence supported, etc. Now that may not be your view and if it isn't then as I said I don't have a problem with it. Saying however that you would change it in a second if they change their opinion is very telling that you haven't critically examined the evidence for yourself and go only on their opinion.

I have "faith" in experts in various fields knowing what they are on about. I have this "faith" because they produce results and they check up on each other rigorously and jealously. With cross checks from other fields. A whole network of balances and counter balances. I fail to see why this "admission" is such a shock to you.

Again the shock is because of the way evolution is held up on a pedestal. I don't find fault with your faith in experts because we know experts usually know what they are talking about and indeed having faith in evolution is almost always having faith that those experts are right. But then the position portrayed here by everybody is that it's the only possible conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. That's why such an admission is a shock.

I think you have put the wrong response with the wrong quote here. Perhaps reread what I have said (that mere mutations leading to small changes over time are not the only observable evidence present) and then come back and answer again yea?

Here's the quote: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ar-the-decks?p=8321567&viewfull=1#post8321567
I'm sorry I don't know what you mean. Can you please explain?

 

[alloytoo]

So something is obvious but not a fact? That generally doesn't make sense.

You generally don't make sense.

You denied that there's equivocation.

Oh well done for spotting that.

Let's not beat around the bush. Evolutionists continually harp on evangelically waving hands in the air that evolution is proven fact whenever the theory is disputed.

No, they refer to the observed reality whenever the "Just a theory" yarn is spun. Let's not beat around the bush, the "Just a theory" line is wheeled out by folks intent on denying reality.

That's nothing but a cheap strawman that doesn't disprove the original position and by invoking equivocation. If you don't do that then it's fine and if you were attempting to clarify this purposefully conducted confusion then I apologise but your denial that there's equivocation is contrary to the facts and tells me that wasn't what you were trying to do.

I denied your assertion as it pertains to me (and lets not beat around the bush, it certainly seemed to be addressed to me specifically) , by specifically clarifying my position.

Your assertion in my specific case is just plain wrong, your retconned more general assertion is IMHO just so much baseless malarkey.

It's not me that raises the issue. It's also not me that introduced religion. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Actually yes you did.

There is no equivocation, the distinction is very clear.

Indeed the distinction is very clear so confusing the two is equivocation. Actually read what people like me and Techne provide instead of just dismissing it like you people continually claim creationists do.

It references a misquote as if it were verbatim.

Ah no. The edited part was in bold.

That's fraud and defamation.

No, he clearly bolded the edited portion, differentiating his post from the original. He also retained the original link, making no attempt to obfuscate it.

So you agree then it was edited and not my original words.

That was obvious from the outset.

That's not making a point it's dishonest so he lied.

No, a point was made, which you went on to emphasis.

And fair use refers to copyright. Find out your legal facts first before commenting on them.

Fair use also relates to satire & commentary. This was both.

 

[porchrat]

Here's the quote: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ar-the-decks?p=8321567&viewfull=1#post8321567
I'm sorry I don't know what you mean. Can you please explain?

Merely that if you think that the only observable evidence available is the myriad of observed small mutations that have led to observed changes then you are very much mistaken. We have ERVs, piles of geological evidence, fossils of course, protein comparisons etc.

Observed mutations are important for sure but they are just one piece of the puzzle and not the only observation the theory of evolution addresses.

If indeed you think that the mutations we have observed are the only evidence we have then you are ignorant.

To this you responded with some garbage about how I can't say what I disagree with confused. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was disagreeing with your statement about observed mutations being the basis for saying man comes from apes. Frankly I thought I had made that abundantly clear when I said: "If this is what you think is the extent of the observable evidence behind these theories"

 

[cyghost]

But you say if biologists concur that life was designed you'll accept it in a second.

It is a frickin figure of speech mate. Jeeeeeeeezus Christ.

Again the shock is because of the way evolution is held up on a pedestal.

It isn't held on a pedestal by any one. It is subject to rigorous scrutiny based on the scientific method. It takes faith (the blind kind) to reject it.

 

[Swa]

You generally don't make sense.

So we have an ad hominem instead of a clarification. Well done.

No, they refer to the observed reality whenever the "Just a theory" yarn is spun. Let's not beat around the bush, the "Just a theory" line is wheeled out by folks intent on denying reality.

Who's reality? You still haven't proven your fantasy so fact is it still remains just a theory.

I denied your assertion as it pertains to me (and lets not beat around the bush, it certainly seemed to be addressed to me specifically) , by specifically clarifying my position.

Your assertion in my specific case is just plain wrong, your retconned more general assertion is IMHO just so much baseless malarkey.

You stuck your head in to a conversation and then denied that there is any equivocation after I pointed out that there is. Of course it will then seem like it's addressed to you personally. But then this all happened because you saw "evolution denier" and thought here's another guy who in your mind knows nothing. I don't feel guilty about it as this is what usually happens when someone doesn't know what the conversation is actually about. But no hard feeling mate.

Actually yes you did.

Nope.

Ah no. The edited part was in bold.

So bolding something says it's not a quote? :wtf: Bolded text is for emphasis so it makes it even worse.

No, he clearly bolded the edited portion, differentiating his post from the original. He also retained the original link, making no attempt to obfuscate it.

Yeah whatever.

That was obvious from the outset.

As I said not obvious.

No, a point was made, which you went on to emphasis.

The point I emphasised was that he's an idiot liar.

Fair use also relates to satire & commentary. This was both.

For copyrighted work to be used in satire & commentary. Like I said go and learn your legal terms first before using them in stupid ways. :erm:

Merely that if you think that the only observable evidence available is the myriad of observed small mutations that have led to observed changes then you are very much mistaken. We have ERVs, piles of geological evidence, fossils of course, protein comparisons etc.

Observed mutations are important for sure but they are just one piece of the puzzle and not the only observation the theory of evolution addresses.

If indeed you think that the mutations we have observed are the only evidence we have then you are ignorant.

To this you responded with some garbage about how I can't say what I disagree with confused. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was disagreeing with your statement about observed mutations being the basis for saying man comes from apes. Frankly I thought I had made that abundantly clear when I said: "If this is what you think is the extent of the observable evidence behind these theories"

Err... you take a statement on what is proclaimed the fact of evolution and refer to evidence. No wonder it is confusing. It's the definition of a term and evidence has nothing to do with it but some use it as a fallacy to "prove" the theory. Sheesh, I don't know why it's apparently so hard for everyone to read a discussion and take things in the context they are used.

Did I deny that any of those you mention exist? No, but let's get real here. It's not proof and is even contradictory. You have also already made up your mind so you interpret the evidence in your context and refuse to see the evidence against it.

 

[Swa]

It is a frickin figure of speech mate.

Sheesh, no reason to get upset. Figure of speech or not you didn't say that you'll reject it if the evidence proves otherwise but instead that you'll reject it if others do. You still haven't denied that. So the point still stands that it's a faith based belief rather than the evidence based claim we continually have to hear.

It isn't held on a pedestal by any one. It is subject to rigorous scrutiny based on the scientific method. It takes faith (the blind kind) to reject it.

It takes a rational mind. That is all.

Here's the scientific method. Start off with the premiss of a natural explanation for life. Gather the evidence that supports that view. Use it to say that life evolved naturally. Nowhere along the line did anybody stop and think "but let's find out if the original premiss is true." It's bad scientific method that leads to circular reasoning and bad science.

Now before you go off dismissing this just stop and think. This is the same science that "proved" the geocentric model. It is the same science that "proved" the phlogiston theory. With both those theories the evidence and objections against them were there but was explained away instead of addressed. The majority consensus having arrived at their ideas through "rigorous scrutiny" were ALL wrong. Both times it took a few individuals to say it is wrong. What do these theories and evolution have in common? They all start with a premiss and gather "mountains of evidence" to support it. Funny how history repeats itself. Now if you have an evolutionist mindset you'll probably just get stuck at the "mountains" again but if you have an open mind you'll start digging through.

 

[Geriatrix]

Here's the scientific method. Start off with the premiss of a natural explanation for life. Gather the evidence that supports that view. Use it to say that life evolved naturally. Nowhere along the line did anybody stop and think "but let's find out if the original premiss is true." It's bad scientific method that leads to circular reasoning and bad science.

Now before you go off dismissing this just stop and think. This is the same science that "proved" the geocentric model. It is the same science that "proved" the phlogiston theory. With both those theories the evidence and objections against them were there but was explained away instead of addressed. The majority consensus having arrived at their ideas through "rigorous scrutiny" were ALL wrong. Both times it took a few individuals to say it is wrong. What do these theories and evolution have in common? They all start with a premiss and gather "mountains of evidence" to support it. Funny how history repeats itself. Now if you have an evolutionist mindset you'll probably just get stuck at the "mountains" again but if you have an open mind you'll start digging through.

Swa, here's a suggestion.
Provide evidence for why you think the premise is wrong. Ignore any attacks that get thrown at you and don't respond with tit-for-tat insults. That way we will get to discussing why you think the way you do instead of just attacking each other.

 

[Techne]

Swa, here's a suggestion.
Provide evidence for why you think the premise is wrong. Ignore any attacks that get thrown at you and don't respond with tit-for-tat insults. That way we will get to discussing why you think the way you do instead of just attacking each other.

Agreed, just ignore the people that are insulting and unpleasant, it's not worth it and they will eventually but out. Stick to the important points you feel worth discussing.

 

[cyghost]

Sheesh, no reason to get upset.

Who the **** is upset about what? Will you for the love of god remain calm and don't get so worked up about an Interweb conversation?

Figure of speech or not you didn't say that you'll reject it if the evidence proves otherwise but instead that you'll reject it if others do. You still haven't denied that. So the point still stands that it's a faith based belief rather than the evidence based claim we continually have to hear.

Why the **** is this a problem for you if you do not think faith is bad??

It takes a rational mind. That is all.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha **** me that is gorgeously funny stuff for a Friday mate

Here's the scientific method. Start off with the premiss of a natural explanation for life.

So chalk that up to another thing you don't quite understand eh? Here, I'll make it easy on you. Scientific method and as a freebie because it is Friday, the null hypothesis. See if you can work that back into your "premiss" (sic)

hint: the premiss (sic) isn't "a natural explanation for life", we start with an observation, the diversity in life and we say, how do we explain that...

Gather the evidence that supports that view. Use it to say that life evolved naturally. Nowhere along the line did anybody stop and think "but let's find out if the original premiss is true." It's bad scientific method that leads to circular reasoning and bad science.

Well isn't it lucky that people who actually understand the scientific method has taken up the task of applying it and not some random "interweb specialist"

 

[cyghost]

Agreed, just ignore the people that are insulting and unpleasant, it's not worth it and they will eventually but out. Stick to the important points you feel worth discussing.

That would be nice.... wouldn't it?

 

[porchrat]

Err... you take a statement on what is proclaimed the fact of evolution and refer to evidence. No wonder it is confusing. It's the definition of a term and evidence has nothing to do with it but some use it as a fallacy to "prove" the theory. Sheesh, I don't know why it's apparently so hard for everyone to read a discussion and take things in the context they are used.

Ah yes looking back I see the context.

You have also already made up your mind so you interpret the evidence in your context and refuse to see the evidence against it.

I'm just going to call you John Edward from now on because boy you are now dictating to me what I think without even knowing me. What else is in your repertoire, spoon bending, making old broken watches start working again? also do you do children's parties?

How about this for a more rational approach: Actually get to know someone instead of just assuming you know what they are thinking. How rude.

 

[alloytoo]

So we have an ad hominem instead of a clarification. Well done.

No, merely an observation.

Who's reality? You still haven't proven your fantasy so fact is it still remains just a theory.

Another similar observation.

You stuck your head in to a conversation and then denied that there is any equivocation after I pointed out that there is.

Because there wasn't.

I even clarified it for you free of charge.

Of course it will then seem like it's addressed to you personally.

Replies containing quotes usually are.

But then this all happened because you saw "evolution denier" and thought here's another guy who in your mind knows nothing.

No, I saw someone who's position appeared contradictory.

You do a marvelous job of explaining Gravity as a fact which theories seek to explain.

Less marvelous job in explaining why that is any different from the fact of evolution which the theory of evolution seeks to explain.

I don't feel guilty about it as this is what usually happens when someone doesn't know what the conversation is actually about.

I don't think you feel guilty about about any thing.

But no hard feeling mate.

I'm not your mate.

Nope.

On the contrary:

There is no equivocation, the distinction is very clear.

Indeed the distinction is very clear so confusing the two is equivocation. Actually read what people like me and Techne provide instead of just dismissing it like you people continually claim creationists do.

So bolding something says it's not a quote?

No, bolding something draws attention to it.

:wtf: Bolded text is for emphasis so it makes it even worse.

One does not invite scrutiny to something which one wishes to obfuscate.

As I said not obvious.

So you didn't notice then?

The point I emphasised was that he's an idiot liar.

Trust me. you've assisted him in making his point.

For copyrighted work to be used in satire & commentary. Like I said go and learn your legal terms first before using them in stupid ways. :erm:

I stand corrected, I meant "Fair Comment"

His edit was deliberate and obvious, furthermore no one would have reasonably expected you to make such a comment.

 

[Swa]

Why the **** is this a problem for you if you do not think faith is bad??

I don't know how many times I have to say this it is not a problem for me. But it's contradictory if your position is supposed to be evidence based which you reaffirm when claiming it takes blind faith to reject it.

So chalk that up to another thing you don't quite understand eh? Here, I'll make it easy on you. Scientific method and as a freebie because it is Friday, the null hypothesis. See if you can work that back into your "premiss" (sic)

There seems to be a lot of confusion over what the correct null hypothesis is supposed to be.

hint: the premiss (sic) isn't "a natural explanation for life", we start with an observation, the diversity in life and we say, how do we explain that...

But it indeed is. The theory itself may not say that but even some textbooks describe it as such and we have the quotes from some that admit only a natural explanation must be allowed in science. That's itself unscientific. It's like telling a coroner to conclude a natural cause of death as opposed to drawing a conclusion from the evidence alone.

See confirmation bias and appeal to novelty. If you read Darwin's own work you'll see his main motivation is to confirm a natural explanation of life because he was looking for a reason not to believe in God. And for the other one just read some of the harsh posts here criticising other ideas as "outdated fairy tales" despite none of them being disproven.

I'm just going to call you John Edward from now on because boy you are now dictating to me what I think without even knowing me. What else is in your repertoire, spoon bending, making old broken watches start working again? also do you do children's parties?

How about this for a more rational approach: Actually get to know someone instead of just assuming you know what they are thinking. How rude.

Well isn't that something. Sounds just like when other people tell us why it is we believe what we believe.

 

[Swa]

Swa, here's a suggestion.
Provide evidence for why you think the premise is wrong. Ignore any attacks that get thrown at you and don't respond with tit-for-tat insults. That way we will get to discussing why you think the way you do instead of just attacking each other.

As I said it's not that the premise is wrong as it can't be proven right or wrong. It's used as a framework to then collect and interpret the evidence. This leads to emphasis of supporting evidence and ignoring inconsistent and even contradictory evidence. This is not the place to discuss the evidence.

To get back on track with the OP it's the method employed that's wrong which leads to unreliable results and incorrect conclusions. Just a few areas:

New research: If something contradicts established "fact" it gets overly scrutinised and rejected by the scientific community while research that's supportive of current views easily gets accepted. Ties in with peer-review. There are various reasons like job security, research grants, personal beliefs...

Peer-review: Contrary to what some here think it does not mean that something which has passed peer-review is systematically correct and draws the correct conclusions. To protect the integrity of the process many journals actually have a policy that acceptance for review cannot be receded except under special conditions like e.g. fraud. As I pointed out new ideas get overly criticised while existing ones get less harsher treatment. What's more telling is what happens after the process where unbiased critique sometimes show supportive research to be more flawed than new and contradictory research. This has lead to many calling the process a necessary evil but an insufficient condition in science.

Editor bias and independence: As humans editors are just as biased as scientists in general and can choose a larger percentage of articles from mainstream science. The argument that a particular field of science has not produced a significant number of peer-reviewed articles is therefor not valid if the particular field is harshly criticised leading to bias and peer pressure not to publish those articles in the first place. As we have seen in the past editors often get severely critised for publishing them and recently one receded acceptance contrary to his journal's standards after caving to pressure.

To put this bluntly, the whole process is flawed.

Now for those "pesky" academic freedom bills. Darwinists are first in line when it comes to unfounded criticisms that it will introduce religion into classrooms and even use stupid rhetoric like it will introduce "skinhead" theory. The opposite is true. Religion has actually already been introduced with evolution but we see students becoming free from indoctrinated principles. Louisiana is the one state that has passed such a law and since its introduction has done better than most of the U.S. and even won an award for innovation: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/science_law_and_economics_come046871.html

 

[alloytoo]

As I said FUD

And that explains it not.

 

[Geriatrix]

As I said it's not that the premise is wrong as it can't be proven right or wrong. It's used as a framework to then collect and interpret the evidence. This leads to emphasis of supporting evidence and ignoring inconsistent and even contradictory evidence. This is not the place to discuss the evidence.

Okay, so then maybe provide some research or evidence that contradict the framework then.

To get back on track with the OP it's the method employed that's wrong which leads to unreliable results and incorrect conclusions. Just a few areas:

...

To put this bluntly, the whole process is flawed.

Isn't it frustrating living as a human being in a human social construct? It's all so messy.

Now for those "pesky" academic freedom bills. Darwinists are first in line when it comes to unfounded criticisms that it will introduce religion into classrooms and even use stupid rhetoric like it will introduce "skinhead" theory. The opposite is true. Religion has actually already been introduced with evolution but we see students becoming free from indoctrinated principles. Louisiana is the one state that has passed such a law and since its introduction has done better than most of the U.S. and even won an award for innovation: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/science_law_and_economics_come046871.html

So let them teach Hinduism, Islam, Scientology, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Pastafarianism, Atheism, Catholicism, Evangelism, Snake-handeling-ism, Mormonism and evolution in biology classes because you think there's one or two bits of information that does not fit in with the overwhelmingly supportive ' framework' of scientific data that supports evolution? Why? Why not just show the scientific findings that you think shows exceptions and study them? Why bring in belief systems at all?

 

[alloytoo]

So let them teach Hinduism, Islam, Scientology, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Pastafarianism, Atheism, Catholicism, Evangelism, Snake-handeling-ism, Mormonism and evolution in biology classes because you think there's one or two bits of information that does not fit in with the overwhelmingly supportive ' framework' of scientific data that supports evolution? Why? Why not just show the scientific findings that you think shows exceptions and study them? Why bring in belief systems at all?

Because in his world cigarette butts in the nature reserve constitutes evidence of Unicorns smoking.

 

[porchrat]

Well isn't that something. Sounds just like when other people tell us why it is we believe what we believe.

I don't do that.

Nice try on attempting to justify your moronic action by saying "but, but, but THEY do it too!!!!!" instead of just apologising though. Real classy.

 

[Swa]

Okay, so then maybe provide some research or evidence that contradict the framework then.

You mean situations where it has been shown a failure? There are many e.g.

Halton Arp has for decades contended that the Hubble expansion is a figment of the imagination citing as evidence ample examples of high redshift quasars that are physically connected to low redshift galaxies. He got in return an unsigned letter judging his research as "without value" and refusing further allocation time. A number of well-known astronomers spoke up on his behalf to no avail.
H. Arp, D. Russell, A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies, Astrophysical Journal 549, p. 802-819 (March 10 2001}
H. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies, Cambridge University Press, 1989
H. Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science , Apeiron, 1998

Thomas Van Flandern's paper The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang, Apeiron 9,2 (april 2002) concludes:

The Big Bang (..) no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries.

Does this sound familiar? He continues...

Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget, or were never taught, that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered.

Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with, at most, an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory.

How many times we hear the excuse that this is how science works. Not everybody thinks so because it's not how science works. If a theory can't predict something before it happens it's essentially worthless.

So let them teach Hinduism, Islam, Scientology, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Pastafarianism, Atheism, Catholicism, Evangelism, Snake-handeling-ism, Mormonism and evolution in biology classes because you think there's one or two bits of information that does not fit in with the overwhelmingly supportive ' framework' of scientific data that supports evolution? Why? Why not just show the scientific findings that you think shows exceptions and study them? Why bring in belief systems at all?

Not what I am saying. Religion IS being taught in classrooms. For example chemical evolution (abiogenesis, etc.) and that evolution is a blind purposeless process. The objections are therefor either on the grounds of teaching competing theories or because it could prevent teaching religion.

I have no problem if religion isn't taught but either teach no religion or all religions. A claim about the origin of life is not only something that no valid scientific theory deals with and so is nonscientific but is also irresponsible.

 

[Swa]

I don't do that.

:wtf:
Didn't have to search far to find this little gem