Human & Ape Inquiry

inquiring mind · Oct 20, 2019

pitabread said:
If you want to reframe it as arguing about specific scientific interpretations or conclusions, then fine. Just stop being so mealy-mouthed and answer the question.

A mealy-mouthed question deserves a mealy-mouthed answer.

Speedwell · Oct 20, 2019

inquiring mind said:
Sorry, I'm not attacking a straw man.

Only the ones you build yourself. Good move.

pitabread · Oct 20, 2019

inquiring mind said:
Sorry, I'm not attacking a straw man.

This isn't a straw man at all. Do you know what a strawman even is? A strawman is a form of argument. I'm not making an argument; I'm asking a question.

At any rate, I'd spent long enough trying to extract an answer from and now that you've firmly entered avoidance mode, I'd say we're done here.

pitabread · Oct 20, 2019

inquiring mind said:
A mealy-mouthed question deserves a mealy-mouthed answer.

It's a clear question, but your complete avoidance of answering it speaks volumes in and of itself.

inquiring mind · Oct 20, 2019

pitabread said:
This isn't a straw man at all. It's a question which you have thus far been unable to answer and now you've entered "avoidance" mode.

pitabread said:
It's a pretty clear question, but your complete avoidance of answering it speaks volumes in and of itself.

Lets see, you're asking a question about something that doesn't exist, and you expect me to analyze it... and that's not building a straw man for me to attack??? :scratch:

Speedwell · Oct 20, 2019

inquiring mind said:
Lets see, you're asking a question about something that doesn't exist, and you expect me to analyze it... and that's not building a straw man for me to attack???

Maybe we misunderstood you. Do you think there are no evolved species? Or do you think that there are no extant created species?

pitabread · Oct 20, 2019

inquiring mind said:
Lets see, you're asking a question about something that doesn't exist, and you expect me to analyze it... and that's not building a straw man for me to attack???

There is no intention for you to "attack" anything; there are no actual arguments here.

I'm trying (painfully so) to get answers to questions. If you see questions as arguments, then perhaps that's part of the problem.

What I'm really trying to get at is to move into a discussion around basic epistemology and the philosophy of science as a means of knowledge acquisition.

inquiring mind · Oct 20, 2019

Speedwell said:
Maybe we misunderstood you. Do you think there are no evolved species? Or do you think that there are no extant created species?

In which way do you think you may have misunderstood me?

Speedwell · Oct 20, 2019

inquiring mind said:
In which way do you think you may have misunderstood me?

That I don't know what your answer would be to either of those questions. Something you said gave me the impression that you don't think there are any created species around any more, but I may be mistaken about that.

inquiring mind · Oct 20, 2019

Speedwell said:
That I don't know what your answer would be to either of those questions. Something you said gave me the impression that you don't think there are any created species around any more, but I may be mistaken about that.

I suppose most, if not all, created kinds have evolved (micro) in some way (variations)

pitabread said:
There is no intention for you to "attack" anything; there are no actual arguments here.

I'm trying (painfully so) to get answers to questions. If you see questions as arguments, then perhaps that's part of the problem.

What I'm really trying to get at is to move into a discussion around basic epistemology and the philosophy of science as a means of knowledge acquisition.

Speedwell said:
That I don't know what your answer would be to either of those questions. Something you said gave me the impression that you don't think there are any created species around any more, but I may be mistaken about that.

I can confidently answer 'yes' to the question of whether I can tell the difference in a new creation and microevolutionary variations due to natural reproduction processes because the question is a strawman. There won't be new creations. How do I know? Genesis 2:1 KJV

Astrophile · Oct 20, 2019

inquiring mind said:
To me, ‘facts’ are undisputed evidences, not evidence that is still open to interpretation, the latter being the case with macroevolution.

No. There are plenty of undisputed facts that are or were open to interpretation.

For example, it is an undisputed fact that the Moon's surface is covered with circular craters, but astronomers argued for more than a hundred years over whether these craters were volcanic or the products of impacts. The same argument raged over the origin of terrestrial craters such as Canon Diablo (Meteor Crater) and the so-called crypto-volcanic structures, although the existence of these structures is not in dispute.

It is an undisputed fact that that the Sun gives us light and heat, but the source of the Sun's energy (contraction or nuclear fusion) was disputed for a long time. The existence of dark spots on the Sun has been an undisputed fact since the time of Galileo and Scheiner, but their interpretation has been in dispute for the same length of time. Some observers thought that they were satellites orbiting the Sun; William Herschel thought that they were holes in the Sun's luminous outer atmosphere through which we could see into its darker cooler interior.

The existence of tektites is an undisputed fact, but as recently as 1973 G.J.H. McCall (in Meteorites and their Origins) listed about 17 different interpretations of their origins.

It is an undisputed fact that apples have been falling off of trees for thousands of years before either Isaac Newton or Aristotle was born, but the reasons for their falling to the ground have been open to interpretation at least since Aristotle's time.

I am tempted to go outside science and add that the historical existence of Jesus is very nearly an undisputed fact, but controversy over who he was and what he claimed to be has raged for nearly 2000 years.

inquiring mind said:
This evidence and resulting speculations need to be continually challenged including perspectives other than scientific testing.

I agree that evidence, including 'undisputed facts', needs to be continually challenged. Why, however, do you think that the challenges should include 'perspectives other than scientific testing'? What 'perspectives other than scientific testing' would you use to challenge hypotheses about the origin of lunar craters and terrestrial 'crypto-volcanic structures', or about the source of the Sun's energy and the nature of sunspots, about the nature and origin of tektites, or the reasons why apples fall off trees onto the ground?

Kylie · Oct 21, 2019

inquiring mind said:
If humans and apes are related, in the way evolution claims, why is our intelligence completely different instead of by simple gradation?

In what way do you claim they are different? How have you determined that human intelligence is of a fundamentally different type than, say, chimp intelligence?

inquiring mind · Oct 21, 2019

Astrophile said:
No. There are plenty of undisputed facts that are or were open to interpretation.

For example, it is an undisputed fact that the Moon's surface is covered with circular craters, but astronomers argued for more than a hundred years over whether these craters were volcanic or the products of impacts. The same argument raged over the origin of terrestrial craters such as Canon Diablo (Meteor Crater) and the so-called crypto-volcanic structures, although the existence of these structures is not in dispute.

It is an undisputed fact that that the Sun gives us light and heat, but the source of the Sun's energy (contraction or nuclear fusion) was disputed for a long time. The existence of dark spots on the Sun has been an undisputed fact since the time of Galileo and Scheiner, but their interpretation has been in dispute for the same length of time. Some observers thought that they were satellites orbiting the Sun; William Herschel thought that they were holes in the Sun's luminous outer atmosphere through which we could see into its darker cooler interior.

The existence of tektites is an undisputed fact, but as recently as 1973 G.J.H. McCall (in Meteorites and their Origins) listed about 17 different interpretations of their origins.

It is an undisputed fact that apples have been falling off of trees for thousands of years before either Isaac Newton or Aristotle was born, but the reasons for their falling to the ground have been open to interpretation at least since Aristotle's time.

I am tempted to go outside science and add that the historical existence of Jesus is very nearly an undisputed fact, but controversy over who he was and what he claimed to be has raged for nearly 2000 years.

You provide six examples of actual ‘facts,’ which have a primary undisputable component with disputable secondary components. The difference in them and macroevolution, the subject of your comment, is that macroevolution has no ‘observable & undisputed’ primary component, and is therefore on different ground (even by your analogies) when being considered ‘fact.’ In regard to your example of Jesus, He also had a primary undisputable component, in that there were eyewitnesses (He was observed)… macroevolution was not.

Astrophile said:
I agree that evidence, including 'undisputed facts', needs to be continually challenged.

I don’t know about challenging primary ‘undisputed facts.’ Why would you challenge that the sun is there, and giving off light and heat, or that the moon is there? Their primary components have been ‘observed’ (making them factual) and are considered undisputable by everyone. Now, their secondary components, like macroevolution as a whole, is another story as I have pointed out.

Astrophile said:
Why, however, do you think that the challenges should include 'perspectives other than scientific testing'? What 'perspectives other than scientific testing' would you use to challenge hypotheses about the origin of lunar craters and terrestrial 'crypto-volcanic structures', or about the source of the Sun's energy and the nature of sunspots, about the nature and origin of tektites, or the reasons why apples fall off trees onto the ground?

Not all challenges need to include different perspectives… matters of science are matters of science. But, when considering ‘Creation & Evolution’ as we are here… well, you see where I’m going without me having to spell it out, I hope.

inquiring mind · Oct 21, 2019

Kylie said:
In what way do you claim they are different? How have you determined that human intelligence is of a fundamentally different type than, say, chimp intelligence?

Primarily forethought and planning, communication on a whole different plane. At first I also included ‘empathy,’ but I have dropped that… short story, I think I was wrong.

VirOptimus · Oct 21, 2019

inquiring mind said:
Primarily forethought and planning, communication on a whole different plane. At first I also included ‘empathy,’ but I have dropped that… short story, I think I was wrong.

Very much of that is more extelligence then intelligence.

SLP · Oct 21, 2019

inquiring mind said:
I'll file this under the list of other false conclusions I've noted here.

So, snarky one-liner it is!
Human & Ape Inquiry

SLP · Oct 21, 2019

inquiring mind said:
To me, ‘facts’ are undisputed evidences, not evidence that is still open to interpretation, the latter being the case with macroevolution.

The latter is the case with all miracle claims in the bible, you agree, yes?

And what do you mean by "macroevolution" - surely you are not still using the disinformation-based creationist definition?

SLP · Oct 21, 2019

inquiring mind said:
I believe it was mainly because I said, "the promoted model of macroevolution is impossible to observe, impossible to re-create, incapable of being accurately measured, impossible to study without the fallibility of men in such an attempt, and on and on"... and you disagree of course.

Ah, so you said something false.

Seeing as how it has been made known to you that "macroevolution" is NOT an event as creationist propagandists have declared, one can only conclude that your continued implication that it is is an act of dishonesty/malice.

SLP · Oct 21, 2019

inquiring mind said:
Just because I question the interpretation of evidence in regard to macroevolution, does not mean I find the results of all scientific inquiry meaningless.

But you only question evolution due to your religious proclivities, and not for any scientific reason.

And by now you must realize that you and your creationist sources have been wrong about what macroevolution even IS, much less the evidence for it, I should hope that you might want to back off the condescending act a bit.

SLP · Oct 21, 2019

inquiring mind said:
The quoted verses tell exactly how man and every living creature were created

But you offer no actual evidence, so who cares?

, which eliminates macroevolution. It sounds pretty instantaneous to me. That leaves living organisms that are the result of natural reproduction from a prior generation of organisms, falling under the parameters of microevolution and variations.

Your strawmen are not impressive - except perhaps as cautionary tales.

I do suggest you educate yourself - then maybe contact CreationWiki and the other creationist lie factories and set them straight - you know, for your love of science and honesty and all.

You keep ignoring this for some creationist reason:

Many creationists (and sadly, some biologists) seem to believe that 'macroevolution' is substantively different from 'microevolution.'

Short answer - it isn't, it is just many rounds of microevolution resulting in speciation.

Creationist propaganda site "CreationWiki" states:

Macroevolution is a purely theoretical biological process thought to produce relatively large (macro) evolutionary change within biological organisms. The term is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

Not surprising that such people would lie to their target flock. Surprising that so many take it at face value.

From a reliable source, we see that 'macroevolution' is:

"One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species."
- "Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Ed." 1998, p. 477. D. Futuyma.

That is, macroevolution is produced via multiple rounds of speciation. Or put another way, macroevolution is a pattern created by multiple rounds of speciation.

Macroevolution is NOT 'an event' that needs to be 're-created.' It is an observed pattern.

Go ahead and keep denying the fact that your concept of macroevolution is bogus.

Human & Ape Inquiry

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Newbie

Defeater of Illogic

and a discerning heart

and a discerning heart

A nihilist who cares.

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads