 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | So why do you sometimes use it in the 'evolution is only a theory' sense? |
to be truthful, I use it thusly:
Macro-evolutionary change is a theory. and I use it in opposition to your repeated incorrect assertions that it is a fact.
| Quote: | NO! You've failed to capture what a fact is in at least two ways:
1. People have 'actual experiences' and observations (as far as they can tell) all the time which are not factual. We call them hallucinations, and humans are absolutely prone to them, so first-hand experience is not a sufficient condition for establishing fact. |
of course you ignore that I also stated: repeated and demonstrable. 
You also seemed to have dismissed 'actual': existing in act or fact; real
| Quote: | | 2. (And this is the important one) You don't have to have a first-hand observation of something to know it to be a fact. Logical implication can certainly be used to establish fact. For example, if you happen on a murder scene where the victim was stabbed 38 times in the chest, you can conclude with absolute certainty that he was murdered even if nobody witnessed the crime. |
considering the possibility that the body wasn't found in a threshing machine next to a pool of oil, you have a point. The thing you missed is contravening evidence. At this point there is not sufficient evidence for macro-evolutionary change to confirm the logical implication that you erroneously assert as fact.
| Quote: |
Yes, it certainly is. By your definition of fact, I agree that you're right. But scientists don't use your definition; they use mine (not that I invented it). |
What scientist use is their choice to believe something as fact when their own disciplines posit it as a theory. Much like you consistently do.
| Quote: | | You have been misled by the news media. I agree that the nightly news makes it SOUND like there's a strong debate going on. In fact, there is not, at least not in the scientific community, which is the only debate that matters. You can't see this, because you're not on the 'inside'. I am on the inside. I basically live on campus at a major research university. I talk to real climate scientists on a semi-regular basis. I promise you that things are much different than the reporters would have you believe. |
and you assume things based on your choice of what to believe or not. I can most certainly assure you that I'm not led or influenced by any media. Heck, if my entire world was based only on what I read in these forums then my point is made irrefutably. I can read pages and pages of posts here where the science is debated continually, the only difference is that the conclusions are different.
| Quote: | | No, almost ALL of the relevant scientists agree that humans are the primary cause for global warming. There really is consensus in the area. The few scientists who dissent tend to have a disturbing record of having been funded by oil companies. |
Ah! The old fall back position when presented with contravening evidence - dismiss the presenter rather than consider the evidence...
| Quote: |
Yes, we do, and in fact I have some of the papers. If I send them to you, will you have a look at them? |
thank you, however, I have access to the information. You are not the only one who has access to University resources you know.
| Quote: | This is not a logically sound argument. It is absolutely true that there were many past changes in climate which had NOTHING to do with humans. All this shows is that it is POSSIBLE for climate changes to happen without humans being involved. Or put another way: Humans are not a NECESSARY cause in climate change.
This is NOT the same as saying that humans cannot be a SUFFICIENT cause of climate change, and in fact the current global warming era which we are in has definitely been caused by humans. The Earth is a lot warmer now than it would be if there were no humans on the planet. That is an absolute fact. Just look at the CO2 levels. We increased the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere by 50%!!! And it's a greenhouse gas. |
This is where your logic falls apart based on your choice to believe what you want rather than be objective.
I assert that humans are not necessarily the cause of climate change. I say nothing about them being a sufficient cause, and I assert that the science only establishes that they can be a sufficient cause. You, on the other hand, assert that they are the cause and you erroneously assert that science proves this. It does not. You choose to assert something as fact when the science does not. At best it establishes humanity as a probable cause (one step up from a possible cause).
| Quote: | | No, I basically say, "An overwhelming majority if the experts think this, and here are their reasons WHY they think this, and those reasons are compelling." You seriously think I don't give explanations and justify my position? Read my debate about global warming with Pondering. Just look at how many arguments I give! I cite papers; I cut and paste charts; I explain the science! That's NOT fallacious reasoning! |
My point here is, and remains, that while you cite papers and provide evidence, you consistently ignore, or dismiss, contravening evidence, just as you did in the quote I addressed earlier in this post.
| Quote: | | And who decides when something becomes a 'law'? The experts, maybe? Did you know that almost all expert biologists consider the 'theory of evolution' to be a 'law' rather than a 'theory'? |
Show me the peer reviewed, scientifically accepted reports that establish this change. One's personal opinion does not change the science, or the established standards that science embraces.
| Quote: | | Same with evolution, only it is a biological law. You don't seem to appreciate how mature the entire area of evolutionary biology is. It isn't speculative at all, but rather is extremely well-established and justified. |
Once again you dismiss an opposing argument simply because it doesn't agree with your view.
| Quote: | | Yes, it really does. We have multiple lines of orthogonal evidence: The fossil record, DNA evidence, and atavisms, to name a few. |
This is evidence that suggests something is possible, it is not irrefutable proof that something has occurred.
| Quote: | | It gives us a WHOLE lot more than that! Apparently you are not aware of all of the experiments they've done with fruit flies. Through selection they've been able to take one species of fruit flies and turn it into two. They don't even reproduce with each other anymore. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. |
The flies again? Human manipulation of genes to induce speciation... Simply not proof that an ape can become a man.
| Quote: | | Except today there are thousands of Galileos. They're the experts I keep referring to, and they're all on my side of this argument. The people who prosecuted Galileo are on yours. |
Please. My side is the side of honesty. Science is what it is. It is the scientists and the psuedo-scientists which are the problem. You consistently demonstrate your own penchant for being the 'catholic church' in opposition to Galileo by demeaning and dismissing any opposing viewpoint, regardless of the evidence provided. If it doesn't agree with your chosen worldview, you dismiss it out of hand.
| Quote: |
Or it means that people's religious biases and poor science educations are getting in the way. |
Thank you for clearly demonstrating my prior point.
| Quote: | | All of my arguments are standard scientific arguments. I don't think I've EVER given a radical scientific explanation for anything on this board. If you don't find the arguments I give to be convincing, then you don't find science to be convincing, and that means you're making a mistake somewhere in your reasoning. |
Thank you again for demonstrating my point. I wonder what would happen if all 'scientists' when this route?
| Quote: | | No, we 'hate' them equally because ID and creation are the same thing |
Wow, a quote from the 'rcc' in regards to Galileo's science... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | So why do you sometimes use it in the 'evolution is only a theory' sense? |
to be truthful, I use it thusly:
Macro-evolutionary change is a theory. and I use it in opposition to your repeated incorrect assertions that it is a fact.
|
Macroevolution IS a fact! Go ask any biologist. Oh, that's right... What do they know! Anyone who thinks a biologist's opinion on this matter is worth anything is fallaciously appealing to authority!
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | NO! You've failed to capture what a fact is in at least two ways:
1. People have 'actual experiences' and observations (as far as they can tell) all the time which are not factual. We call them hallucinations, and humans are absolutely prone to them, so first-hand experience is not a sufficient condition for establishing fact. |
of course you ignore that I also stated: repeated and demonstrable. |
Now you're just making things up. Here is YOUR definition of 'Fact':
| RevJP wrote: |
FACT: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. |
Where exactly does this definition include the words 'repeated' and 'demonstrable'???
| RevJP wrote: |
You also seemed to have dismissed 'actual': existing in act or fact; real
|
I have an interesting question for you: By your definition of 'fact', is God's existence a fact?
You're going to say yes, because so many Christians (yourself included, as far as I know) have had 'actual' experiences involving God.
Hopefully now you understand my problem with the word 'actual'.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | 2. (And this is the important one) You don't have to have a first-hand observation of something to know it to be a fact. Logical implication can certainly be used to establish fact. For example, if you happen on a murder scene where the victim was stabbed 38 times in the chest, you can conclude with absolute certainty that he was murdered even if nobody witnessed the crime. |
considering the possibility that the body wasn't found in a threshing machine next to a pool of oil, you have a point. The thing you missed is contravening evidence. At this point there is not sufficient evidence for macro-evolutionary change to confirm the logical implication that you erroneously assert as fact.
|
Yes, there is more than sufficient evidence to support macroevolution being a fact. We've got the fossil record. We've got DNA evidence. We've even got speciation happening in the laboratory, plus a whole lot more.
I think you just aren't aware of the evidence because you've never seriously studied biology.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: |
Yes, it certainly is. By your definition of fact, I agree that you're right. But scientists don't use your definition; they use mine (not that I invented it). |
What scientist use is their choice to believe something as fact when their own disciplines posit it as a theory. Much like you consistently do. |
Every single area of biology views macroevolution as being a fact. There is no doubt in the biological community as to whether macroevolution really happens. None. The debates about this were over long ago, and it has been completely accepted for a long time.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | You have been misled by the news media. I agree that the nightly news makes it SOUND like there's a strong debate going on. In fact, there is not, at least not in the scientific community, which is the only debate that matters. You can't see this, because you're not on the 'inside'. I am on the inside. I basically live on campus at a major research university. I talk to real climate scientists on a semi-regular basis. I promise you that things are much different than the reporters would have you believe. |
and you assume things based on your choice of what to believe or not.
|
No, I don't. I read the scientific literature as well as the scientific arguments, and then I rely on my (considerable) background in logic to determine if the arguments are compelling, and they are; humans really are the main cause of the current round of climate change.
| RevJP wrote: |
I can most certainly assure you that I'm not led or influenced by any media. Heck, if my entire world was based only on what I read in these forums then my point is made irrefutably. I can read pages and pages of posts here where the science is debated continually, the only difference is that the conclusions are different. |
I don't think you get it. Me debating on-line with people who have virtually no science education is NOT the kind of debate I'm talking about. Exxon's media relations department giving press conferences and talking about how global warming isn't happening is NOT the kind of debate I'm talking about.
When it comes to debate on scientific topics, there's only one arena which matters: the scientific one. And in the scientific mainstream, there is zero debate about macroevolution; everyone accepts it as fact. There is virtually zero debate about humanity's role in global warming; almost everyone accepts it as fact.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | No, almost ALL of the relevant scientists agree that humans are the primary cause for global warming. There really is consensus in the area. The few scientists who dissent tend to have a disturbing record of having been funded by oil companies. |
Ah! The old fall back position when presented with contravening evidence - dismiss the presenter rather than consider the evidence... |
Except that if you bothered to read this thread, you would see that this is NOT what I do. I address their ARGUMENTS directly, and in fact all of their arguments have been rebutted CONCLUSIVELY. We can go over them, if you'd like.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: |
Yes, we do, and in fact I have some of the papers. If I send them to you, will you have a look at them? |
thank you, however, I have access to the information. You are not the only one who has access to University resources you know. |
Out of the thousands of papers in the area, you can read my mind and tell which ones I was going to ask you to look at?
It sounds to me like you're not interested in hearing what the real scientists have to say. (Hint: it will sound remarkably similar to what I say.)
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | This is not a logically sound argument. It is absolutely true that there were many past changes in climate which had NOTHING to do with humans. All this shows is that it is POSSIBLE for climate changes to happen without humans being involved. Or put another way: Humans are not a NECESSARY cause in climate change.
This is NOT the same as saying that humans cannot be a SUFFICIENT cause of climate change, and in fact the current global warming era which we are in has definitely been caused by humans. The Earth is a lot warmer now than it would be if there were no humans on the planet. That is an absolute fact. Just look at the CO2 levels. We increased the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere by 50%!!! And it's a greenhouse gas. |
This is where your logic falls apart based on your choice to believe what you want rather than be objective. |
What are you talking about? ALL of my arguments are based on objective science!
| RevJP wrote: |
I assert that humans are not necessarily the cause of climate change. |
You're wrong. We are certainly the cause of the current round of climate change that we are in. Almost all of the relevant experts agree, and their arguments are compelling. We can go over these arguments, if you are interested.
| RevJP wrote: |
I say nothing about them being a sufficient cause, and I assert that the science only establishes that they can be a sufficient cause. |
No, the science has shown that we HAVE caused the current round of warming, and there is no scientific doubt about this.
| RevJP wrote: |
You, on the other hand, assert that they are the cause and you erroneously assert that science proves this. It does not. You choose to assert something as fact when the science does not. |
Science does prove that we are the cause. The scientific arguments are compelling, and ALL of the counterarguments have massive holes in them.
| RevJP wrote: |
At best it establishes humanity as a probable cause (one step up from a possible cause).
|
You are wrong, and I don't think you know what you're talking about. I'll bet that you've never even read a relevant scientific paper in this area. Have you?
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | No, I basically say, "An overwhelming majority if the experts think this, and here are their reasons WHY they think this, and those reasons are compelling." You seriously think I don't give explanations and justify my position? Read my debate about global warming with Pondering. Just look at how many arguments I give! I cite papers; I cut and paste charts; I explain the science! That's NOT fallacious reasoning! |
My point here is, and remains, that while you cite papers and provide evidence, you consistently ignore, or dismiss, contravening evidence, |
No I don't! I give the scientifically-accepted counterarguments against the 'contravening evidence'. In fact, there is no credible 'contravening evidence' anymore. It's all been debunked. Out of curiosity, what do you think is an example of contravening evidence???
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | And who decides when something becomes a 'law'? The experts, maybe? Did you know that almost all expert biologists consider the 'theory of evolution' to be a 'law' rather than a 'theory'? |
Show me the peer reviewed, scientifically accepted reports that establish this change. |
Scientists don't suddenly write a paper saying, "We hereby announce the macroevolution is a law rather than a theory." That's not how it works. The way it works is that the mainstream accepts it, and you can tell by the strength of the acceptance, and the language in the body of research published every year if a scientific theory is considered to be a 'law'. With macroevolution, this happened a LONG time ago. It is an extremely mature area of study devoid of any scientific controversy whatsoever. The only controversy is that found OUTSIDE of the scientific community.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | Same with evolution, only it is a biological law. You don't seem to appreciate how mature the entire area of evolutionary biology is. It isn't speculative at all, but rather is extremely well-established and justified. |
Once again you dismiss an opposing argument simply because it doesn't agree with your view.
|
There are no opposing scientific arguments against macroevolution. Give me just one if you disagree.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | It gives us a WHOLE lot more than that! Apparently you are not aware of all of the experiments they've done with fruit flies. Through selection they've been able to take one species of fruit flies and turn it into two. They don't even reproduce with each other anymore. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. |
The flies again? Human manipulation of genes to induce speciation... Simply not proof that an ape can become a man. |
Firstly, it wasn't apes that evolved into us, and nobody says that they did. We have a common ancestor with them, which means that they weren't even around yet.
But secondly, I wasn't citing the fruit flies as the evidence which shows that humans evolved from lower primates. We have much better evidence than that:
1. The fossil record, which shows a gradual transition from stooped, small-brained primates to us. We have fossils from several different snapshots during the evolution, and as time goes forward, we find species which are standing progressively more upright, and have progressively larger brains. That's compelling evidence.
2. Our DNA is virtually identical to that of the primates which evolutionary theory says evolved from the ancestor which we all share in common. This is exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory, and again it is compelling evidence.
3. Then there's all of the other stuff which glues these arguments together. This is where the demonstrated examples of macroevolution and several other details come in.
There's plenty more evidence, but these pieces of evidence alone are absolutely compelling, and anyone who disagrees is outrageously biased.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | Except today there are thousands of Galileos. They're the experts I keep referring to, and they're all on my side of this argument. The people who prosecuted Galileo are on yours. |
Please. My side is the side of honesty. Science is what it is. It is the scientists and the psuedo-scientists which are the problem.
|
Now you're starting to show your true colors. You have a strong distrust of science and scientists.
| RevJP wrote: |
You consistently demonstrate your own penchant for being the 'catholic church' in opposition to Galileo by demeaning and dismissing any opposing viewpoint, regardless of the evidence provided. If it doesn't agree with your chosen worldview, you dismiss it out of hand. |
I don't do that. I address the ARGUMENTS. Do you have any idea how much time I spend on this board giving facts, citing papers, and addressing what people write IN DETAIL? It sounds like you don't even read my posts!
As for the Catholic church vs. Galileo thing, the scientists are Galileo, and the anti-science side is the Catholic church. The anti-science side consists of those who doubt evolution, those who doubt humanity's role in causing global warming, those who doubt that the Earth is billions of years old, etc.
Galileo vs. the Catholic church is all about science vs. religious dogma. I assert that I am on the side of science and that you are on the side of religious dogma.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | All of my arguments are standard scientific arguments. I don't think I've EVER given a radical scientific explanation for anything on this board. If you don't find the arguments I give to be convincing, then you don't find science to be convincing, and that means you're making a mistake somewhere in your reasoning. |
Thank you again for demonstrating my point. I wonder what would happen if all 'scientists' when this route?
| Quote: | | No, we 'hate' them equally because ID and creation are the same thing |
Wow, a quote from the 'rcc' in regards to Galileo's science... |
What are you going on about? Creationism and ID ARE the same thing! ID is just all of the old creationist arguments rehashed with a new label on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Such a long post and it began with the usual misrepresentation of what I've stated in this thread and others, and/or simply ignoring what I said to make a fallacious assertion.
| Quote: | | Macroevolution IS a fact! |
Why do we keep having this discussion? Can you not understand the written word?
| Quote: | | Go ask any biologist. Oh, that's right... What do they know! Anyone who thinks a biologist's opinion on this matter is worth anything is fallaciously appealing to authority! |
Nice red herring. Colored with allusions to a misrepresentation of anything I've every posted on the subject...
| Quote: | Now you're just making things up. Here is YOUR definition of 'Fact':
RevJP wrote:
| Quote: | | FACT: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. |
|
You are really demonstrating your inability, or intentional desire, to ignore the truth. The definition above is straight from the dictionary my friend. I didn't define it, the accepted English lexicon did.
| Quote: | | Where exactly does this definition include the words 'repeated' and 'demonstrable'??? |
Hmmm... seems to me that you are showing a definitive lack of integrity in your arguments. Did I not say in my post this:
| Quote: | | When the evidence is so apparent, or observation is supplied which is repeatable and demonstrable, the theory then becomes a law or rule dependent upon the field of study. |
Of course, if you wanted to be honest about your debate with me you wouldn't be quote mining so much and ignoring related portions, and the conceptual whole of my arguments.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject:
RevJP wrote:
Quote:
So why do you sometimes use it in the 'evolution is only a theory' sense?
to be truthful, I use it thusly:
Macro-evolutionary change is a theory. and I use it in opposition to your repeated incorrect assertions that it is a fact.
Macroevolution IS a fact! Go ask any biologist. Oh, that's right... What do they know! Anyone who thinks a biologist's opinion on this matter is worth anything is fallaciously appealing to authority!
RevJP wrote:
Quote:
NO! You've failed to capture what a fact is in at least two ways:
1. People have 'actual experiences' and observations (as far as they can tell) all the time which are not factual. We call them hallucinations, and humans are absolutely prone to them, so first-hand experience is not a sufficient condition for establishing fact.
of course you ignore that I also stated: repeated and demonstrable. Rolling Eyes
Now you're just making things up. Here is YOUR definition of 'Fact':
RevJP wrote:
FACT: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
Where exactly does this definition include the words 'repeated' and 'demonstrable'???
RevJP wrote:
You also seemed to have dismissed 'actual': existing in act or fact; real
| Quote: | I have an interesting question for you: By your definition of 'fact', is God's existence a fact?
You're going to say yes, because so many Christians (yourself included, as far as I know) have had 'actual' experiences involving God.
Hopefully now you understand my problem with the word 'actual'. |
thanks for answering for me, although your preemptive dig was incorrect. My answer to that question would be: No, it is not a fact, but I accept His existence through faith as a matter of truth. Neither have I ever stated I have had 'actual' experiences involving God. I have had experiences which I accept faithfully were of God, but I expect no one else to accept them as I do.
Here's the difference between you and I: I understand faith and that I live a life by faith in God. You deny your faith and reject the notion either through blind ignorance or hypocrisy.
| Quote: | Yes, there is more than sufficient evidence to support macroevolution being a fact. We've got the fossil record. We've got DNA evidence. We've even got speciation happening in the laboratory, plus a whole lot more.
I think you just aren't aware of the evidence because you've never seriously studied biology. |
I think you accept conclusions as fact, rather than take an honest look at the evidence. Fossil records are inconclusive in proving that one species developed from another. DNA evidence demonstrates that there is relational similarities in species - you faithfully accept the conclusion that it is because of common ancestry when the evidence does not conclusively show that. It shows equally as valid that DNA is a masterfully designed blueprint for life and that alterations of one blueprint can produce numerous forms of life. You accept one conclusion, I accept another and the evidence leans no stronger to one conclusion than to the other.
As for speciation in the laboratories: Plastic is formed in laboratories, but it doesn't happen in nature, no matter how many millions of years you wait. Speciation is simply a human manipulation of the master blueprint - it is NOT macro-evolutionary change.
| Quote: | | Every single area of biology views macroevolution as being a fact. There is no doubt in the biological community as to whether macroevolution really happens. None. The debates about this were over long ago, and it has been completely accepted for a long time. |
Kinda like that whole 'sun revolving around the earth' thing before some guy came in and said the established conclusions were incorrect and demonstrated them to be so. Kinda like that whole 'slavery is moral' thing that happened throughout the world for centuries before someone came along and demonstrated that said conclusion was also wrong.
The thing about bandwagons is that no matter how many people are on the wagon, if the song they are playing is poorly written, then it still sounds like crap.
| Quote: | | No, I don't. I read the scientific literature as well as the scientific arguments, and then I rely on my (considerable) background in logic to determine if the arguments are compelling, and they are; humans really are the main cause of the current round of climate change. |
I fully accept that you believe this, I just wish you wouldn't tout your self-aggrandized prowess in logic when the majority of your assertions and arguments are devoid of any sense of logic whatsoever.
| Quote: | | Except that if you bothered to read this thread, you would see that this is NOT what I do. I address their ARGUMENTS directly, and in fact all of their arguments have been rebutted CONCLUSIVELY. |
Serously? Do you have any true idea of how much evidence, how many 'experts', how many opposing arguments you've dismissed out of hand without considering what they have actually offered? Over the past few years the number of times you've rejected evidence because it wasn't in what you consider to be a reputable scientific journal, or a degreed individual because of what you considered not to be a reputable school, etc, etc. etc....
Seriously, do you even know what you say when you post?
| Quote: | Out of the thousands of papers in the area, you can read my mind and tell which ones I was going to ask you to look at?
It sounds to me like you're not interested in hearing what the real scientists have to say. (Hint: it will sound remarkably similar to what I say.) |
So, what you are saying is that I am not intelligent enough to go into my library and read the materials there and understand what they say? Or perhaps I should only read the papers that you feel are 'qualifying' scientifically?
Maybe my degrees aren't quite as good as yours for some reason or another (although I would be willing to place a wager that my degrees cover a wider range of academics than yours does...)
| Quote: | | You're wrong. We are certainly the cause of the current round of climate change that we are in. Almost all of the relevant experts agree, and their arguments are compelling. We can go over these arguments, if you are interested. |
Here's the thing you are missing, or ignoring: while we may currently be the cause of increased CO2 emissions, science cannot answer whether or not the climate change is a result of those increased emissions or a cyclical change in the climate. Neither can they answer whether or not the increased CO2 emission would or would not have occurred naturally.
What is even worse is that while some very educated and reputable climatologists try to suggest that the current climate change is indicative of past changes, their evidence is ignored and their arguments are shouted down.
What is even worse than that is that all those decrying the destruction of the environment by humanity seems intent on doing nothing to effect plausible changes. It is easy to say "we are destroying the planet", but it is much more difficult to implement policies and processes that will not destroy the planet faster and more catastrophically through economic, political, and social implosion.
For me personally, I have little patience for someone who wants to shout about a problem but cannot or will not present a plausible solution. It is a waste of my time.
| Quote: | | Scientists don't suddenly write a paper saying, "We hereby announce the macroevolution is a law rather than a theory." That's not how it works. The way it works is that the mainstream accepts it, and you can tell by the strength of the acceptance, and the language in the body of research published every year if a scientific theory is considered to be a 'law'. With macroevolution, this happened a LONG time ago. It is an extremely mature area of study devoid of any scientific controversy whatsoever. The only controversy is that found OUTSIDE of the scientific community. |
Too bad all the current scientific references to the subject still refer to it as a 'theory'.
| Quote: | | There are no opposing scientific arguments against macroevolution. Give me just one if you disagree. |
Did you want to debate what I actually said, or create an argument on your own and attribute it to me? I said this:
| Quote: | | Once again you dismiss an opposing argument simply because it doesn't agree with your view. |
| Quote: | | Now you're starting to show your true colors. You have a strong distrust of science and scientists. |
You show your lack of integrity as you continue your fallacious and malicious accusations.
| Quote: | As for the Catholic church vs. Galileo thing, the scientists are Galileo, and the anti-science side is the Catholic church. The anti-science side consists of those who doubt evolution, those who doubt humanity's role in causing global warming, those who doubt that the Earth is billions of years old, etc.
Galileo vs. the Catholic church is all about science vs. religious dogma. I assert that I am on the side of science and that you are on the side of religious dogma. |
I was afraid my reference would be too sagacious for you:
The rcc was the establishment - the embodiment of knowledge and academics, for that time. Galileo was the outsider, the fringe element, the wildcat. He opposed the established, accepted, mainstream acceptance of what was 'fact' and what wasn't, and he was murdered because of it. Too bad he turned out to be right.
You were partially right though; Galileo vs. the rcc was all about independent intelligence vs. DOGMA. Unfortunately you are faithfully accepting dogma and crucifying any and all who may go against it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1273
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
John Maynard Keynes was twitted with changing his mind. He replied, "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"
source
| Quote: |
It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. |
please read the whole arcticle....
as I said before..to quote those great sages "Asia"....Only time will tell.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | Such a long post and it began with the usual misrepresentation of what I've stated in this thread and others, and/or simply ignoring what I said to make a fallacious assertion.
|
Yeah, it's just amazing how many people on this message board CONSTANTLY misinterpret and misrepresent your statements. You're the only honest person here capable of making clear, unambiguous statements, and everyone else is both functionally illiterate, AND incapable of making an honest argument.
I don't think I've ever had a debate with you in which you DIDN'T accuse me of ignoring and misinterpreting your statements. It's getting kind of old. You don't think I can see through this rhetorical act?
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | Macroevolution IS a fact! |
Why do we keep having this discussion? Can you not understand the written word? |
It is a scientific fact. I'm sorry if you don't speak the language of science.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | Go ask any biologist. Oh, that's right... What do they know! Anyone who thinks a biologist's opinion on this matter is worth anything is fallaciously appealing to authority! |
Nice red herring. Colored with allusions to a misrepresentation of anything I've every posted on the subject... |
Yes, yes, whenever anyone comes up with a point you can't rebut, you just accuse them of misrepresentation. That's your M.O.. We're all used to it by now.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | Now you're just making things up. Here is YOUR definition of 'Fact':
RevJP wrote:
| Quote: | | FACT: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. |
|
You are really demonstrating your inability, or intentional desire, to ignore the truth. |
The TRUTH is that you came up with an insufficient definition of 'fact'. I pointed out that it was wrong. Then you said that your definition included the phrase "repeated and demonstrable", when in fact it did not. I pointed this out as well, and now you're accusing me of an inability or intentional desire to ignore the truth. This is an accurate description of our exchanges.
YOU'RE the one with problem with truth on this matter, not me!
| RevJP wrote: |
The definition above is straight from the dictionary my friend. I didn't define it, the accepted English lexicon did. |
Then maybe you should find a better dictionary, because as I pointed out, your definition of 'fact' was insufficient.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | Where exactly does this definition include the words 'repeated' and 'demonstrable'??? |
Hmmm... seems to me that you are showing a definitive lack of integrity in your arguments. Did I not say in my post this:
| Quote: | | When the evidence is so apparent, or observation is supplied which is repeatable and demonstrable, the theory then becomes a law or rule dependent upon the field of study. |
Of course, if you wanted to be honest about your debate with me you wouldn't be quote mining so much and ignoring related portions, and the conceptual whole of my arguments. |
You gave a definition of the word 'fact'. If you'd wanted the words 'repeatable' and 'demonstrable' to be included in that definition, all you would have had to do is type them. If you want to make a second attempt at defining the word 'fact', then by all means go ahead. As it stands now, your definition is inadequate. Hint: it will still be inadequate even if you include the requirement of repeatability, because it is possible to FACTUALLY determine if a person was murdered even if you can't 'repeat the experiment'.
| RevJP wrote: |
My answer to that question would be: No, it is not a fact,
|
Awesome! I just got you to admit that God's existence is not a fact!
| RevJP wrote: |
but I accept His existence through faith as a matter of truth. |
So God's existence is not a fact, but the statement that He exists is the truth?!? How can something be true but not a fact? I'm looking forward to seeing you get out your Ginsu knife to try to cleave these two concepts apart semantically.
| RevJP wrote: |
Here's the difference between you and I: I understand faith and that I live a life by faith in God. You deny your faith and reject the notion either through blind ignorance or hypocrisy. |
Wake up man! The whole point of science is so that you don't NEED faith! My support of evolutionary theory has nothing to do with faith! It is based on SCIENTIFIC arguments, evidence, and logical inference! If you've got sound reasoning, then you don't need faith!
| RevJP wrote: |
I think you accept conclusions as fact, rather than take an honest look at the evidence. |
Scientists DO take an honest look at the evidence. That's what we do. YOU are the one whose religious biases are keeping you from taking an objective look at the evidence. YOU are the one not being honest here!
| RevJP wrote: |
Fossil records are inconclusive in proving that one species developed from another. |
No, they really aren't. When we have many different skeletons from many different intermediate species of homonids which over time walk progressively more upright and have progressively larger cranial capacities, then that is POWERFUL and COMPELLING evidence. The fact that you disagree shows exactly how biased your religious beliefs have made you.
| RevJP wrote: |
DNA evidence demonstrates that there is relational similarities in species - you faithfully accept the conclusion that it is because of common ancestry when the evidence does not conclusively show that. |
Yes, it really does. Atavisms alone show that we evolved from completely different creatures.
| RevJP wrote: |
It shows equally as valid that DNA is a masterfully designed blueprint for life and that alterations of one blueprint can produce numerous forms of life. You accept one conclusion, I accept another and the evidence leans no stronger to one conclusion than to the other. |
It sure does! The whole idea of DNA being a masterfully-designed blueprint for life has been completely refuted. DNA is a mess. There's no design apparent in it at all. Why does the amoeba have a genome more than half a trillion base pairs long? The vast majority of its genome codes for nothing which is expressed at all. Do you call that efficient? Why do chickens have DNA for teeth in their genomes? Why do we have DNA for tails? Why do whales have DNA for hind legs? Why do horses have DNA for tails?
And most importantly, EVERY single atavism ever found in any creature x is a trait which a creature y had, where y is a creature that evolutionists claimed beforehand is an ancestor of x. Why is that?
Why have we NEVER found, say, atavistic wings in a dolphin, or something like that? Why is it ALWAYS traits from ancestors???
You must have an extremely low opinion of God as the creator of blueprints if his blueprints are so outrageously sloppy.
| RevJP wrote: |
As for speciation in the laboratories: Plastic is formed in laboratories, but it doesn't happen in nature, no matter how many millions of years you wait. Speciation is simply a human manipulation of the master blueprint - it is NOT macro-evolutionary change. |
I don't think you get it. The fruit flies weren't genetically engineered in order to induce speciation. They were simply subjected to selection pressures, as is the case out there in nature.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | Every single area of biology views macroevolution as being a fact. There is no doubt in the biological community as to whether macroevolution really happens. None. The debates about this were over long ago, and it has been completely accepted for a long time. |
Kinda like that whole 'sun revolving around the earth' thing before some guy came in and said the established conclusions were incorrect and demonstrated them to be so. |
You're the one saying that the sun orbits the Earth in this analogy. Science said that the Earth orbits the Sun, science says that we evolved from lower primates, and science says that humans are the cause of global warming. You're on the anti-scientific side in this debate. Had you been around back in Galileo's day, you would have been against him just like you're against evolution. I find it supremely ironic that you identify yourself with Galileo and me with the Catholic church...
| RevJP wrote: |
Kinda like that whole 'slavery is moral' thing that happened throughout the world for centuries before someone came along and demonstrated that said conclusion was also wrong. |
Funny, the Bible condones slavery. I really don't understand how you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept and which parts to throw out.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | No, I don't. I read the scientific literature as well as the scientific arguments, and then I rely on my (considerable) background in logic to determine if the arguments are compelling, and they are; humans really are the main cause of the current round of climate change. |
I fully accept that you believe this, I just wish you wouldn't tout your self-aggrandized prowess in logic when the majority of your assertions and arguments are devoid of any sense of logic whatsoever.
|
How would you know? You've never studied formal logic. You think that you have an intuitive understanding of logic, but if you've never studied it, then how could you possibly know enough to make this claim? The fact is that EVERYONE believes themselves to be outrageously logical, but when it comes to actually doing it in a formal setting, almost everyone does extremely poorly in it.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | Out of the thousands of papers in the area, you can read my mind and tell which ones I was going to ask you to look at?
It sounds to me like you're not interested in hearing what the real scientists have to say. (Hint: it will sound remarkably similar to what I say.) |
So, what you are saying is that I am not intelligent enough to go into my library and read the materials there and understand what they say? |
Nope, I'm saying that you're not PSYCHIC enough to know which papers I want to suggest that you look at, and that you're not long-lived enough to read them all.
| RevJP wrote: |
Or perhaps I should only read the papers that you feel are 'qualifying' scientifically? |
You can read what you want, but I have a few papers which I'd like you to look at. Is that unreasonable?
| RevJP wrote: |
Maybe my degrees aren't quite as good as yours for some reason or another (although I would be willing to place a wager that my degrees cover a wider range of academics than yours does...) |
I'm sure your degrees are fine (what are they in, by the way?), but I'll bet my life that I have a *MUCH* more comprehensive science education than you. I'm not saying this to try to belittle you, but rather to point out that a science education is relevant in this case because we're talking about scientific topics (evolution and global warming). You should try giving me the benefit of the doubt some time that I actually understand what I'm talking about because I spent a long time learning it all.
| RevJP wrote: | | Here's the thing you are missing, or ignoring: while we may currently be the cause of increased CO2 emissions, science cannot answer whether or not the climate change is a result of those increased emissions or a cyclical change in the climate. |
I'm NOT missing this. Science has conclusively established that our current round of global warming is a result of those increased emissions, and is NOT the result of a cyclical change in the climate. I don't know why you and Pondering think that the world's climate scientists are all stupid or lying. They're not. They know what they're talking about, and I'd be happy to share their evidence and arguments with you if you're interested.
| RevJP wrote: |
Neither can they answer whether or not the increased CO2 emission would or would not have occurred naturally. |
We absolutely know for a fact that the CO2 emissions would not have occurred if humans weren't around, because we created them. Or do you think that ducks, bears, and fish would have been able to set up thousands of oil wells, hundreds of refineries, and driven enough cars to burn the resulting billions of barrels of oil? Do you think that squirrels and lizards would have mined and burned all of the coal that we did?
Where do you think the CO2 came from? Science knows *exactly* where it came from: us.
| RevJP wrote: |
What is even worse is that while some very educated and reputable climatologists try to suggest that the current climate change is indicative of past changes, their evidence is ignored and their arguments are shouted down. |
They had an argument 20 years ago, but the science has progressed considerably past this now.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | Scientists don't suddenly write a paper saying, "We hereby announce the macroevolution is a law rather than a theory." That's not how it works. The way it works is that the mainstream accepts it, and you can tell by the strength of the acceptance, and the language in the body of research published every year if a scientific theory is considered to be a 'law'. With macroevolution, this happened a LONG time ago. It is an extremely mature area of study devoid of any scientific controversy whatsoever. The only controversy is that found OUTSIDE of the scientific community. |
Too bad all the current scientific references to the subject still refer to it as a 'theory'. |
That's just a linguistic vestige. People say 'theory', but if you actually look at how the term macroevolution is used, it is ubiquitous in the literature and in textbooks and treated as fact. It is treated like a law, and a very strong and mature one at that.
[quote="RevJP"]
| Quote: | | There are no opposing scientific arguments against macroevolution. Give me just one if you disagree. |
Did you want to debate what I actually said, or create an argument on your own and attribute it to me? I said this:
| Quote: | | Once again you dismiss an opposing argument simply because it doesn't agree with your view. |
And do you have an opposing scientific argument against evolution?
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: |
Galileo vs. the Catholic church is all about science vs. religious dogma. I assert that I am on the side of science and that you are on the side of religious dogma. |
I was afraid my reference would be too sagacious for you:
The rcc was the establishment - the embodiment of knowledge and academics, for that time. |
Not scientific knowledge.
| RevJP wrote: |
Galileo was the outsider, the fringe element, the wildcat. He opposed the established, accepted, mainstream acceptance of what was 'fact' and what wasn't, |
Sort of how Darwin, the outsider, the fringe element, the wildcat opposed the established, accepted, mainstream acceptance of special creation, which was considered 'fact'. Galileo and Darwin were exactly the same creature, and both were opposed by the religious, dogmatic authorities.
| RevJP wrote: |
and he was murdered because of it. Too bad he turned out to be right. |
No he wasn't. Galileo was put under house arrest, but not murdered by the church.
| RevJP wrote: |
You were partially right though; Galileo vs. the rcc was all about independent intelligence vs. DOGMA. Unfortunately you are faithfully accepting dogma and crucifying any and all who may go against it. |
The fact that you describe science as dogma shows how much you disrespect it. It isn't dogma. Science is the most effective method known to man for figuring out facts and truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is becoming a waste of energy, but:
| Quote: | | It is a scientific fact. I'm sorry if you don't speak the language of science. |
So science defines and uses the word 'fact' differently from the rest of the world? Would you mind giving me a reference to a 'science' dictionary that shows this?
I wonder; does science define 'fact' differently that the law does? If so, then how can forensics be a reliable admission in a court of law? Just thinking out loud....
| Quote: | | Awesome! I just got you to admit that God's existence is not a fact! |
I'm glad you are pleased, I would want you to understand though that you couldn't 'get' me to do anything. And I did not admit anything. I've never stated anything different regarding the existence of God than I did here. So, all you 'got' me to do was to state what I believe for the hundredth time.
| Quote: | | So God's existence is not a fact, but the statement that He exists is the truth?!? How can something be true but not a fact? I'm looking forward to seeing you get out your Ginsu knife to try to cleave these two concepts apart semantically. |
It won't take a lot of work if you actually quoted what I said:
| Quote: | | My answer to that question would be: No, it is not a fact, but I accept His existence through faith as a matter of truth. Neither have I ever stated I have had 'actual' experiences involving God. I have had experiences which I accept faithfully were of God, but I expect no one else to accept them as I do. |
Amazing that you cry that I state the truth that you misrepresent what I post when you make your arguments and then you dismantle what I posted, leave out relevant parts of the statement I made and try to argue the twisted version....
You sir have got to stop and take a serious look at your integrity and intellectual honesty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
I wonder; does science define 'fact' differently that the law does? If so, then how can forensics be a reliable admission in a court of law? Just thinking out loud.... |
Is it opposite day? Under your definition of 'fact' which disallows logical implication to be give us facts, forensics should not be allowed in court because it does not produce facts. By the scientific definition, forensics is perfectly fine and gives us facts.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | So God's existence is not a fact, but the statement that He exists is the truth?!? How can something be true but not a fact? I'm looking forward to seeing you get out your Ginsu knife to try to cleave these two concepts apart semantically. |
It won't take a lot of work if you actually quoted what I said:
| Quote: | | My answer to that question would be: No, it is not a fact, but I accept His existence through faith as a matter of truth. Neither have I ever stated I have had 'actual' experiences involving God. I have had experiences which I accept faithfully were of God, but I expect no one else to accept them as I do. |
Amazing that you cry that I state the truth that you misrepresent what I post when you make your arguments and then you dismantle what I posted, leave out relevant parts of the statement I made and try to argue the twisted version....
You sir have got to stop and take a serious look at your integrity and intellectual honesty. |
Take a look in the mirror! You said this:
| RevJP wrote: |
No, it is not a fact, but I accept His existence through faith as a matter of truth. |
In other words, you claim that God's existence is not a fact but that the statment, "God exists." is true.
So I'll ask you again: God's existence is not a fact, but the statement that He exists is the truth?!? How can something be true but not a fact?
Does He exist or doesn't He? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
did I say God's existence is a truth?
Let us review (I will refrain from making any judgements as to your intention to misrepresent what I posted, but leave the written words to speak for themselves)
| P123... wrote: | | In other words, you claim that God's existence is not a fact but that the statment, "God exists." is true. |
What I actually stated was:
| Quote: | | but I accept His existence through faith as a matter of truth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
What I actually stated was:
| Quote: | | but I accept His existence through faith as a matter of truth. |
|
So if you're not saying his existence is truth, then how exactly do you think you are using the phrase 'as a matter of truth'? What exactly are you saying is true here? Grammatically, it's his existence; what is it in RevJPese? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1273
</ | |
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
