|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
My point, I guess, is that I see the same evidences that Zen rebel does but don't interpret them the same way ... Ah, yes, the old "different interpretation dodge - another way to avoid the issue rather than get uncomfortable confronting it, because those "other interpretations" are never revealed nor is the way they explain the evidence ever discussed. In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on there being a single objective reality. The alternative is an interpretation based on no single objective reality, but one for everyone, just subjective reality, where we all can just make up our mind/s -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class? (what would you teach?) alternative? The old false dilemma fallacy. But which evointerpretation is RAZD's "basic" one? There is more than one sect even among evolutionists. In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on the objective evidence we observe\experience\witness truly representing that reality. The alternative interpretation is to suppose that evidence is false, and full of lies -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class? So much ambiguity packed into so few words. I suppose this is a talent or art of some form. Does 'science' here mean empirical science, or evolutionism, or still something else? Whence comes this term "basic interpretation"? We know there are several interpretations of things, yet one is to be designated "basic"? One wonders if there's a formula, or perhaps a panel of authorities has been appointed... ? And the fallacy gets repeated. Again, and again, and again. Can't say that takes too much talent. In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on the need to test our concepts against the evidence of reality to weed out falsehood and fantasy. The alternative is to suppose that we don't need to test concepts to weed out falsehood and fantasy, and a lie is as good as the truth -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school?
In science, the basic "interpretation" is based on all invalidated concepts being false and no longer relevant to understanding reality. The alternative is to suppose that we need to consider every theory that has ever been proposed as still possibly as true as any other regardless of the evidence -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school? Care to enlighten us as to which artist drew the "basic interpretation" of Pithecanthropus, and which ones drew the alternative? If you don't interpret the evidence as truth what are you left with? Why do you even suggest one shouldn't interpret evidence as truth? OH! I forgot... you're the one who links to conclusions & claims they are evidence. Yes, in that case your sentence would make a good deal of sense. Few, if any, of the conclusions you submitted were truth. Truth has all the answers. Truth is reality. Truth starts with faith - even the size of a mustard seed. Ah. No proof necessary, no validity required, subjective it is. Doesn't matter if it is a false concept, for all you need is faith. Yes "Vir-jeanie-a," the world is flat and Santa Clause is real, you can fly to never-never land, and all you need to do to return to kansas is click your heels. ...and man evolved from minerals. And Darwin did say this very thing should happen in the vast majority of cases. He claimed the new species, being more fit, would outcompete the ones they replaced resulting in extinction almost all the time. Rather than claiming "straw man", you need to emPHAsize that 'almost'. I watched 9th graders squirm who were black because the theories implied THEY are less evolved and more closely related to apes. The theories imply no such thing, for the same reason that the previous PRATT is wrong. Some evolutionists claim not to be racist; it is supposed this is all the evidence one needs that evolutionism isn't racist. Before the flood the earth would mist from what I understand and the first rain as we know it happened with the flood. Before that it could be that animals got really really big (as well as men) because things were super nutritious before being diluted so to speak. And elephants could fly. Now, instead of playing make-beleive, with spurious ad hoc off the cuff wishful thinking fantasy, how about dealing with reality first. Looks like it was no coincidence when RAZD omitted history. I don't know enough about these fossils to know whether they really were what is thought. ... but even the evidence we have shows they were not related. In other words, you don't know squat about hominid evolution, but you aren't afraid of pretending that you do. How about in other words, Jeanie agrees with the scientists and/or evolutionists who study these things. Is this not a possibility? Have you bothered to read what they say, or do you go by talkdeceptions & outdated (often retracted) newspaper stories say? Lucy does not convince me. Her complete pelvic girdle wasn't even found. They reconstructed her. Not really. The complete find can be seen here: Scientists can also do this between fossils to build up an overall composite concept, but nobody (except some creationists) call these composites and mirrored parts "lucy" nor do they confuse them with the actual fossil AL 288-1 Wouldn't bet on it. Shoot, that ain't even worth wastin' time on.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
