Circular Reasoning

[Subduction Zone]

i understand that.
okay, how's this:
it's a FACT that interpreting the fossil record in terms of evolution, then using that interpretation as proof, is circular reasoning.
it's a simple factual statement.

But that is not how it is done. Evidence is gathered and various explanations are tested. That is hypotheses are formed and they are tested to see if they can explain the evidence. They then see if new evidence or evidence not yet considered supports the hypothesis. Again, this is not circular reasoning. You are using a strawman argument in your description of what scientists do.

the fossil record does not prove evolution.
there is no empirical evidence that accumulating genetic mutations result in increased complexity, nor is there a theory that describes how it could happen.
that is also a fact.

Once again you are using an undefined term. We can show how genetic mutations can lead to new traits. And you are also incorrectly using the word "prove" again. The fossil record is explained by the theory of evolution. Creationists have no scientific explanation for the fossil record. Every new fossil found to date fits without serious conflict into the theory of evolution. Certain finds have led to minor corrections of the theory of evolution. Theories are changed as new information is found that paints a more precise picture of our world. There is nothing wrong with that. But there has not been found any evidence that supports creationism. At least not to my knowledge. I am open to scientific evidence that supports creationism. But it seems like creationists are too afraid to even create a testable hypothesis that explains their beliefs.

 

[whois]

But that is not how it is done. Evidence is gathered and various explanations are tested. That is hypotheses are formed and they are tested to see if they can explain the evidence. They then see if new evidence or evidence not yet considered supports the hypothesis. Again, this is not circular reasoning. You are using a strawman argument in your description of what scientists do.

what i said about the record is a fact. and it applies to anything where you interpret B in terms of A and then use B as proof of A.
circular reasoning.

We can show how genetic mutations can lead to new traits. And you are also incorrectly using the word "prove" again. The fossil record is explained by the theory of evolution. Creationists have no scientific explanation for the fossil record. Every new fossil found to date fits without serious conflict into the theory of evolution. Certain finds have led to minor corrections of the theory of evolution. Theories are changed as new information is found that paints a more precise picture of our world. There is nothing wrong with that. But there has not been found any evidence that supports creationism. At least not to my knowledge. I am open to scientific evidence that supports creationism. But it seems like creationists are too afraid to even create a testable hypothesis that explains their beliefs.

chew those words, it might get you somewhere, someday, maybe.
the simple truth of the matter is science has no empirical proof that accumulating genetic mutations result in a one celled organism becoming a plant or an animal, nor is there any theoretical reason for believing that is the case.

if there is such a theoretical reason for believing such a thing, then please post it.

 

[RickG]

Let me get some of that.

Also, welcome back, Rick!

Thanks lasthero. I needed some time away from the CF to take care of a few projects I've been working on that needed full attention, one dealing with abrupt sea level rise events, the other music arranging and composition. Working in two different disciplines helps to keep the interest in each fresh.

 

[RickG]

Yep, I noticed that and chuckled the first time I followed the link. I pointed out an obvious error, though whois did not like my answer.

It looks like the guy sourced a dating methods textbook and extracted all the sections that discuss specific problems that can be encountered with each method. What he conveniently left out were the sections on how all those problems are avoided and/or solved.

 

[whois]

It looks like the guy sourced a dating methods textbook and extracted all the sections that discuss specific problems that can be encountered with each method. What he conveniently left out were the sections on how all those problems are avoided and/or solved.

i see.
can you point to the specific part where my source is wrong, then post a source where it says it's wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

what i said about the record is a fact. and it applies to anything where you interpret B in terms of A and then use B as proof of A.
circular reasoning.

Nope, you don't seem to know what a "fact" is either. And you still don't understand how science works. It is not circular reasoning. Your strawman version of how science is done is not correct.

chew those words, it might get you somewhere, someday, maybe.
the simple truth of the matter is science has no empirical proof that accumulating genetic mutations result in a one celled organism becoming a plant or an animal, nor is there any theoretical reason for believing that is the case.

if there is such a theoretical reason for believing such a thing, then please post it.

When you learn how to properly phrase your statements I will. Science does not use "proof". Science is evidence based. There is no point in posting the evidence when you don't understand how evidence works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i see.
can you point to the specific part where my source is wrong, then post a source where it says it's wrong?

This is a ridiculous request. No one source is going to bother stating where your specific source is wrong. I already explained one way that they are wrong. Didn't you understand the explanation? If you don't understand my simplified explanation how do you expect to understand a more rigorous one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks lasthero. I needed some time away from the CF to take care of a few projects I've been working on that needed full attention, one dealing with abrupt sea level rise events, the other music arranging and composition. Working in two different disciplines helps to keep the interest in each fresh.

Hmm, that sounds suspiciously like Global Warming. Ask any creationist, they will explain how it is all a hoax to you, so it looks like you were wasting your time

Oh if only that one claim of theirs was true.

 

[whois]

wow, talk about a double standard.
you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong.
we can't show how you are wrong, but you're still wrong.
BRILLIANT !

we don't want to let go of darwin !
you can't make us !
well chew on this:
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.
Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection . And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit.
-creationist, or is it?

 

[whois]

This is a ridiculous request.

yes, i suppose asking you to support your assertions would be ridiculous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

wow, talk about a double standard.
you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong.
we can't show how you are wrong, but you're still wrong.
BRILLIANT !

How was I ever wrong in the first place? I tried to explain to you how science is done. Evolution is not the only one done this way. It seems that you are misunderstanding on purpose.

we don't want to let go of darwin !
you can't make us !
well chew on this:
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.
Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection . And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit.
-creationist, or is it?

How has the "tree of life" even been destroyed? You are making claims that you can't back up. And "optimal design" was never claimed. You say that you are not a creationist but all of your arguments reek of creationism. Instead of flooding the forum with nonsense why don't you try to discuss one point at a time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes, i suppose asking you to support your assertions would be ridiculous.

Now now, you are being dishonest. I never said or implied such a thing. I explained why your request was ridiculous. Making a dishonest answer to a post that tries to explain your flawed reasoning does not help your side at all.

 

[whois]

You are making claims that you can't back up.

oh but i can my dear sir.
does NCBI ring a bell?

 

[whois]

Now now, you are being dishonest.

i am not the one saying you are wrong without showing you how you are wrong.
you said my source is wrong without any source for your statement, except some anonymous person (you) saying it.

point out specifically what is wrong with my source, then present a valid source that says it's wrong.
i've asked, what, 3 times already?
your response?
wwweeeellll that's ridiculous.
LOL!

 

[Subduction Zone]

oh but i can my dear sir.
does NCBI ring a bell?

No, but go ahead.

 

[crjmurray]

No, but go ahead.

Here comes Koonin.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

i am not the one saying you are wrong without showing you how you are wrong.
you said my source is wrong without any source for your statement, except some anonymous person (you) saying it.

point out specifically what is wrong with my source, then present a valid source that says it's wrong.
i've asked, what, 3 times already?
your response?
wwweeeellll that's ridiculous.
LOL!

I showed how you were wrong. You did not understand. An honest person would have pointed to what they did not understand.

I told you how your source was wrong. Again, you did not understand and you gave a rude response. I am hardly "anonymous". I also said that if you asked nicely I would give you links. Though it looks like it might be a waste of time. Did you understand my explanation? It seems that you didn't so sources would not be of much use.

You are extraordinarily wrong and rude. That is a very bad combination.

 

[whois]

No, but go ahead.

LOL!
yes, i can actually believe you haven't heard of NCBI.
oh my.
stop it, your killing me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here comes Koonin.....

Oh noes!! Not the nonsense that she did not understand and posted on another thread. I was hoping for something original.

 

[whois]

I showed how you were wrong. You did not understand. An honest person would have pointed to what they did not understand.

I told you how your source was wrong. Again, you did not understand and you gave a rude response. I am hardly "anonymous". I also said that if you asked nicely I would give you links. Though it looks like it might be a waste of time. Did you understand my explanation? It seems that you didn't so sources would not be of much use.

You are extraordinarily wrong and rude. That is a very bad combination.

an honest person would post the link that proves their point.
go away, join your brothers.