A debate about debates
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 22:13
VIEWED: 12983
PAGE 6 of 17
citizen wrote:
Quote:
It's strange how there's fossil records showing a clear progression from Apes to modern Humans, but because one link in the chain is missing people who have a vested interest in attacking science for personal gain say Evolution has been disproved. We've got 1-2-3- -6-7-8-9-10, but because 4 and 5 are currently missing you say that proves 1,2,3,6,7,8 and 9 don't exist and 10 has always been here.
That's not even the worst of it, I'm afraid. Creationists and ID'ers are constantly moving the goalposts in that argument. You say, we have 1-2-3-4- -6-7-8-9-10, and they say, well, where is 5? A few years go by, a landslide or earthquake happens and new fossils are found that fill in 5.
They then proceed (instead of coming to grips with reality) to ask where 4.5 and 5.5 are then? Because those are really the missing links, so the theory should have them, right? You find 4.5 and 5.5 and they ask for 4.6 and 5.4. Because they'd be there, right? You can't win with these people; I don't see why you're still making the case.
Recently a fossil was found that bridged the gap between fins and legs (I want to say it involved a primitive crocodillian, but I'd have to look it up to be sure). The fundies critical of the find argued that it wasn't a real enough "bridge."
Meh, I'll look it up anyway, for those interested:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1748005,00.html
You know the saying "you can lead a horse to water?" There should be one for Creationists.
You can lead a fundie to a library, but beating them over the head with books doesn't make them absorb the knowledge (but wouldn't it be fun if it did?).
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
You know the saying "you can lead a horse to water?" There should be one for Creationists.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So. uh, speaking of missing links... if the phenotypes have always been here, where are their fossils?
Are the fruit flies that have been experimented on to show the effects of mutations after thousands of generations still, well,...fruit flies? All phenotypes of cows, humans, cats, and dogs have always been here.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While science is not competing with religion it can in fact destroy it. The two can only exist together insofar as the human mind can believe two contradictory thoughts at the same time... which is a well-known human phenomenon. The basis for religion is "belief" in something that is not proven by... and in some cases is contradicted by... observable evidence. Many religions can be described as delusional because RELIGION IS NOT SELF CORRECTING. The touchstone for science is observation of the material world. THe method of science fosters self-correction.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citz wrote,
"Species adaption through survival of the fittest is a form of evolution, and has been soundly proven."
"Micro-Evolution is a fact. The sticking point is Macro-Evolution, and whether it takes place and/or the mechanisms behind it."
"Macro-Evolution being impossible? What they disproved one mechanism?"
Once again, Natural selection is not a form of evolution. When you understand that I will allow you to have an opinion on the matter.
How do you go from the whole "sticky" thingy to scientific fact, in regards to macro-evolution, in a week? Wash would be proud, Citz, you are like a leaf on the wind.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So BTW- where ARE those cat/ dog/ human fossils?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
So. uh, speaking of missing links... if the phenotypes have always been here, where are their fossils?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
Everywhere. You can see them at your local farm. That's if they display their fossils.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Natural Selection was proposed by Darwin as the mechanism for species adaption ala-Micro-Evolution. There was no concept of Natural Selection via Survival of the Fittest until Darwin proposed it as part of his theory of Evolution. When you understand this very simple concept, stop lying and stop being a Troll, I'll allow you to have an opinion on the matter.
Originally posted by kaneman:
Citz wrote,
"Species adaption through survival of the fittest is a form of evolution, and has been soundly proven."
"Micro-Evolution is a fact. The sticking point is Macro-Evolution, and whether it takes place and/or the mechanisms behind it."
"Macro-Evolution being impossible? What they disproved one mechanism?"
Once again, Natural selection is not a form of evolution. When you understand that I will allow you to have an opinion on the matter.
How do you go from the whole "sticky" thingy to scientific fact, in regards to macro-evolution, in a week? Wash would be proud, Citz, you are like a leaf on the wind.
Now dear, Macro Evolution is a sticking point because unlike Micro Evolution it's mechanisms are not understood. But saying Macro-Evolution hasn't been shown to happen is like saying Gravity doesn't exist because we don't know how it works, i.e. idiotic. Maybe its actually intelligent falling:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Species changing, becoming different species over time, proven scientific fact. How it works, like Gravity, is not known.
The whether it takes place part is more specific to the scientific theories, I wasn't commentating on whether more complex species have appeared from less complex ones over millenia. Besides me saying one thing last week and a different thing this week doesn't mean science has changed over the week, merely that I've done more research, read up on the subject and come to a different understanding.
You know, understanding, that thing you can't do
.What's next on your bullshit triad? Continental Drift doesn't occur because you can't see it perhaps?
Oh and I notice that you're better Scientific theory to better fit the available evidence than evolution is not forth coming. You just spouted more bullshit instead, now do we remember what I said that meant?
Yes it means you're full of shit and don't know what you are talking about
.More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Casual,
Not lumping anyone in. Just saying, this debate serves nefarious ends. I don't object to holocaust questioning, the official story is full of unquestioned bogosity, but holocaust denial is stupid. My ancestors, and a lot of other people's, were killed in the holocaust, it's hard to deny a historical event. But there's a lot of quibbling to be done. I'm in favor of a debate *on* evolution. But not a debate on the *existance* of evolution. That's either a really dumb idea, or it's totally malicious. My strong suspicious is that it's totally malicious. We should not be drawn into a debate that was essentially created for radical revisionist purposes.
Back to the holocaust. If someone opens a debate to argue the pro-nazi version vs. the jew version, they might be maliciously trying to rewrite history to say "nazis were good decent caring people who never harmed anyone" which is nonsense, holocaust aside, they depopulated whole towns in europe during their military campaigns. But if someone raises a question of "the nazis didn't kill *these particular people*, but that was the soviets" then that's a different story, which turned out to be the case in th first polish camp.
So sure, an *unquestioning* evolution would be like a new religious dogma, but evolution does not need to question its own existance, only what evolved from what where and why, or how.
Evolution is history and statistics, it's not a strong parallel to cosmology. There's a hell of a lot of speculation left in cosmology. There's not a lot of wiggle room in the fossil record.
I think you may be missing the part where efforts to turn evolution into a debate are malicious.
Let me explain:
I read this piece a while back on Henry Regnery of Regnery Publishing, a right wing small press. The article was by a guy who had worked for him, and with him. He said Regnery had one secret which was his ability to create argument out of air. The strategy was to take a known fact, and create its antithesis as a position, and then set the two in opposition, creating a controversial debate. Then he would hope for one of two things: 1) a generally accepted compromise which was somewhere closer to his invented position than the accepted fact was, or 2) to force a wide popular schism and siphon off a small portion of the population into his extremist position.
This sort of this isn't honest and open debate, and it's a waste of everyone's time. It's also a malicious rhetorical trick which makes debate out of knowns, and falsehood out of fact, and does so intentionally. I am very sure this is what is going on in this case.
This is not even in the same galaxy as Einstein. If there were a mountain of evidence threatening the supremacy of biological evolution as accepted science, then we would have a debate. This is what happened in every case of those old science theories. Intelligent design isn't a new theory of science with evidence. It's the old religious doctrine with a new set of shoes. ID'ers are the Einsteins, evolutionists are still the Einsteins. The truth is, that sadly, though most people now accept evolution on the face of it, because of the overwhelming evidence, their thinking is still pre-evolution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
You might win *this* debate that way, but you lose the concept of *debate*. There is a reason for the title of this thread, I think that the evolution so called debate and several like it are attempting to assault the concept of debate in much the way that Bush and Blair have assaulted the concept of process.
Cartoon isn't the problem, I think he's reasonably reasonable, he's just sounding off as what he perceives as my Kim Jong Il stance on debates. But I think he's missing the point. It's not about silencing debate, it's about stopping corruption before it's out of control.
Free speech is not about one person gets to say anything, and no one can countermand it. If it were, Pfizer would say "Vioxx cures AIDS, Acne and old age" and they would make a lot of money. If the creationists say "now we'll discuss these two competing sciences" I get to throw my surgeon generals warning in that says "these are not competing sciences, and there is no debate between them" If they want to go on and say "Now I will spout my religious dogma" there is nothing I can, or should, do to stop them. But when *all* parties are allowed to speak, not just the purveyors of the new information, everything gets properly identified as what it actually is, and the people are not mislead. Which is what this so-called debate about evolution is trying to do, to mislead the public.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME