The alternative? The old false dilemma fallacy.
Well, I'll take "an alternative" if you can show that there really is more than one. Ball in your court.
The alternative is to admit that there's more than one way to interpret evidence. Guess there is actually some demand for explanations of the obvious.
Whence comes this term "basic interpretation"? We know there are several interpretations of things, yet one is to be designated "basic"?
What is basic to all science. The foundational assumptions that are used to logically evaluate evidence. Can I assume that you are familiar with
Popper and the principle of falsification?
I didn't ask about falsification or assumptions. Is this Popper's term, this "basic interpretation"?
Don't see it in the wiki, but I did see this:
wiki writes:
In essence, Popper addressed justification for belief ("why do you believe") that the sun will rise tomorrow, not justification for the fact ("how do you know") that it will, which is the crux of the philosophical problem. Said another way, Popper addressed the psychological causes of our belief in the validity of induction without trying to provide logical reasons for it. In this way, he provided a psychological account of the use of induction, but left the philosophical ground of induction as a valid mode of knowledge unaccounted for.
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.
Sorry, but this is false. I have not said conclusions are evidence, what I have said is that they are testable by the evidence.
You included links in a post & said they were links to evidence. Yet the links led to conclusions. 'Member? I pointed this out at the time, but it didn't seem as if you cared.
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'.
And your point is? That either an "argument from authority" is a logical falsehood, for the authority can be wrong, or that he was right to use almost? If speciation occurs in isolation and the two daughter populations never come into contact then how does your extinction occur?
My point is that it's bogus to belittle people who raise a simple, fundamental objection to evolutionism which was acknowledged privately by the principal prophet of the religion.
Your "isolation" excuse doesn't seem to apply to well either, given that chimps inhabit the very same parts of the world where your religion says humans evolved.
Looks like it was no coincidence when RAZD omitted history.
Last time I looked, "
Dumbo" was not listed as an historical document.
And that has what to do with history? Talk about a silly distraction technique... Just up & mention Dumbo to change the subject? Wow! Is this your own invention, or is this a new trend we can expect to see employed by other evolutionists?
Or perhaps you have some historical reference that supports Jeanie's fantasy that "[color:"red"] 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. [/color] " ...
Jeanie's "fantasy" was a plausible proposal based upon history & science. You cut the history out of the quote in your effort to misportray the conversation, but you got sloppy: you didn't cut out the "it could be".
To save folks from having to scroll up (and because more than one participant will neglect to do so anyhow) here's a fuller version of the quote
Jeanie wrote:
There is no way I believe we randomly came from bacteria, though, or that the creation needed to happen that way. Believing otherwise is not a comfort zone thing for me. And I do believe the earth has been here for who knows how long. It does not change my belief in the LITERAL creation, though. Not sure how old young earth creationists think the earth is??? (I've heard of them before but can't remember). I don't know if dinosaurs co-existed with man at any one time but they were obviously here and serve a purpose for us now! 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. The Bible itself mentions that men were giants at one time. They lived for near millenia at first. (Methusela was over 900 years old).
So where's the fantasy now? And where's Dumbo? And where is there any room to doubt that there's history which supports what Jeanie said happened and
might have happened?
What say, folks? Should I play RAZD-for-a-day & get silly taking things out of context & distorting posts? I bet I could do it better & funnier!
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?
scientists disagree on how various hominids are related
Case closed. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
This is kinda fun. Let's try some more!
I understand a lot of evolutionists don't believe in God. We see evidence of well-planned design all around, but they won't allow for the possibility of any designer whatsoever.
None of these is correct, as DNA evidence shows. It reminds me of a comedy routine I heard in childhood, where a guy claimed he didn't "believe in Ohio" as it is just as problematical.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
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... ?
The formula is testing the interpretations against the reality of evidence,
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blah.gif" alt="" />
Testing interpretations of evidence vs. the reality of evidence? Is that supposed to sound impressive, or deep? What is the purpose of typing something so utterly void of meaning?
and the panel of authorities is the reproduction of experimental results and the discarding of falsified concepts.
This half of the sentence is little better. RAZD either refutes his own argument, or talks utter nonsense. This is a mixed metaphor because hypotheses are what we discard - not evidence. To say that an interpretation is an hypothesis is to acknowledge the likelihood that other valid hypotheses exist (interpretations) and there is no "basic interpretation".
Back to the game:
Is it scientific to allow for any possibility that both religion and evolution are valid?
Notice that one of the basics of the scientific method is the principle that for tests to be valid they must be reproducible by others, and that intrinsic to this, foundational, is the basic interpretation that there is one reality for everyone.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/felix.gif" alt="" />
Couldn't find a way to make that one very funny. Guess it depends on the raw materials sometimes.
