Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

i only know the last article, and Mike, you got to read it

even you will have to admit it is quoted totally out of context. the author goes on to state:

the evolutionary outcome of major environmental change may be viewed as identical in principle to the outcome of minor environmental fluctuations over the short-term.

(i.e. both micro and macro work the same way; there's no difference; btw, that's the majority position in science).

basically all those quotes are short snippets taken out of context, again, from the edges of research, and represented as the majority opinion

I found the second at Sciencedirect but all I could get without buying it is the abstract which reads...

Abstract
New concepts and information from molecular developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth’s history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life.

The part I bolded is the "snippet" quoted on the other site. This paper seems to be referenced in all kinds of board of education procedings concerning curriculum/text books and it looks like even in some court cases.

 

[H2Andy]

well, yeah, climate and terrain, and volcanoes and meteorites and whatever need to be taken into account too, over the long haul

he's not saying "micro" evolution doesn't lead to "macro" evolution. he's saying other things play a role too

again, it's being taken out of context to try and get it to say that there is no such thing as macro evolution.

the guy is not saying MACRO evolution doesn't exist. he's just saying factors OTHER than "micro" evolution are at work (such as climate or geological events). evolution is evolution. "macro" and "micro" are just two sides of the same coin, but climate and geological events will play a role over a long time on the evolution of living beings

 

[Potapko]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp

This one guy actually has some credentials to speak of. I'd be interested in reading his work outside of a creationist website, since they did not publish his work, but only interviewed him.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter8.asp

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati,
B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.

Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist

He's a chemist...not really qualified to make claims about fossils.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/522.asp
Same guy


http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Written by Henry M. Morris, a civil and hydraulics engineer



Sorry, you failed. Except for *maybe* the museum curator, the others are unqualified. You need to actually check the credentials of those authoring the works before you accept their conclusions....

This is so typical of the evolutionist response and we have seen it time and again in this thread. Nothing is said to refute the conclusions nor the evidence put forth. Simply discredit the source's "credentials" and the problem is solved. Seems to work for the self titled intellectuals. Funny but sad.

 

[Bryan]

Simply discredit the source's "credentials" and the problem is solved. Seems to work for the self titled intellectuals. Funny but sad.

♪ Ad Hominemmmmm! ♪

[nabbed from wikipedia]

Ad hominem as logical fallacy
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim X.
2. There is something objectionable about A.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.
Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its inherent incorrectness.
In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the positive aspects of the person arguing the case is known as appeal to authority.

 

[H2Andy]

♪ Ad Hominemmmmm! ♪

well.. while logically speaking the fact that someone is a math professor is irrelevant as to whether his or her argument about evolution is correct ... (that of course depends on an accurate major premise, an accurate minor premise, and a valid conclusion drawn from them)

nevertheless, we do acknowledge in our society that there are certain people called "experts" whose "expertise" in a particular field allows them to render "expert" opinions on that field ... and i don't mean the usual idiots trotted out by the networks when they need to fill airtime. if that's what you think an expert is, you need to stop watching t.v.

so ... say, if i am going to hold myself as an expert on astrophysics (for example, by arguing that the Hubble constant is a load of crap), the fact that i have an English degree and a law degree don't exactly speak highly of my expertise, does it?

honestly now, if i (lawyer with English degree) am arguing about astrophysics with a proferssor who has a PhD in astrophysics, who do you think you should listen to?

probably the PhD, because he will have a better understanding of whether the major and minor premises are correct, and his training probably allows him a better chance at drawing a solid logical conclusion from the elements of his argument.

 

[Thalassamania]

This is so typical of the evolutionist response and we have seen it time and again in this thread. Nothing is said to refute the conclusions nor the evidence put forth. Simply discredit the source's "credentials" and the problem is solved. Seems to work for the self titled intellectuals. Funny but sad.

I just wasted another hour checking the "conclusions" that TDP is so hot after. Not to my surprise, every one of the four claims made in his post (no fruit fly speciation, ) was previously refuted, by multiple posts and multiple authorities earlier in the thread.

A summary:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp


This is a rather bizarre misinterpretation of a respected, committed and evolutionist (past and currently), who in correspondence is a careful scientist and wrote: ’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.’ This was intended to be, and clearly is, nothing more that carefully understating the case, hardly support of a creationist ideology.

Etc., etc., etc., Different website, same old crap.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...2/chapter8.asp

This is horse-pucky that we’ve gone over before.

1. Scientific American misspoke and said: “But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).” It caught its error and fixed it. But this is evidence against evolution.
2. The same old crap about transitional fossils that we’ve gone over time and time again.
3. Makes hay out of technical disagreements between evolutionists, none of which dispute evolution or support creation.
4. Suggests those evolutionists are hypocrites when they speak out against wiping out other species because: “Why should we aid our competitors for survival, when other species act in self-interest? The only reason might be a practical one, that we might lose some species that are beneficial to us. But this is very different from a moral obligation to care for them. If we are all rearranged pond scum, then talk of moral obligation is meaningless. Under a consistent evolutionary worldview, our moral sentiments are merely chemical motions in the brain that happened to confer a survival advantage in our alleged ape-like ancestors.

Etc., etc., etc., Different website, same old crap.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/522.asp

1. The watchmaker claptrap.
2. The Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed lie.
3. The Suggestion that creationist arguments are inadequate, because, “Yes, the level of ignorance of the creationist arguments, thanks to the atheistic censorship of ideas in biology education, means that people aren’t used to them.” So, now it’s our fault that they can’t get it right.
4. Makes the Pascal argument of, “sure it’s stupid, but let’s hedge our bets.”
5. Claims that there are many well qualified scientists that do not support evolution. I guess that there’s just a shortage of ones named Steve.
6. Tries to make the case that Anglicans are not real Christians because they embrace evolution.
7. Takes a poke at the Catholics because they embrace evolution.
8. Takes a poke at Protestants who read the bible as metaphor.
9. Raises the thermodynamic objections to evolutionary origin-of-life theories that we already dealt with.
10. Goes on about evolution is “just a theory.”

Etc., etc., etc., Different website, same old crap.

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/re...instevolution/

1. There is no evidence of evolution being actually observed.
2. Evolution did not happen in the past because there is no proof of abiogenesis, complete with out of context quotes.
3. Similar DNA does not have anything to do with evolutionary relationships.
4. Again the thermodynamic augment.

Etc., etc., etc., Different website, same old crap.

Do we start to see a pattern?

♪ Ad Hominemmmmm! ♪

[nabbed from wikipedia]

Ad hominem as logical fallacy
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim X.
2. There is something objectionable about A.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.
Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its inherent incorrectness.
In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the positive aspects of the person arguing the case is known as appeal to authority.

Not really. If I were to say that so-and-so beats his mother up so we should ignore his opinions on creationism, well ... that would be Ad hominem as logical fallacy. But I were to say that so-and-so has no expertise in the field of evolution, that would not be a logical fallacy, if indeed the person had no expertise in the field of evolution.

The “logical fallacy appeal to authority” is what the creationists use most often. This is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who shares that view, but who is not an authority in that area. Wiki’s example is: "Arthur C. Clarke recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not a known expert on dental hygiene. Much advertising relies on this logical fallacy in the form of endorsements and sponsorships.

Simply exposing the logical fallacy implicit on the appeal to authority is not a fallacious ad hominem, it is simply telling the truth.

 

[agilis]

'ad hominem' is Latin for 'against the man', and is an unacceptable strategy in formal argument. It consists of a deviation from the topic being debated and discussed, and the substitution of personal attack against someone holding an opposing view.

Example: 'A' says: " New York and New Jersey are adjoining states."
'B' answers: " 'A' is a college drop out and has been fired from three jobs in the past year. We hear he even downloads pornography and is an unapologetic member of the Scubaboard."

'Appeal to authority' is contrary to the rules of formal debate when the unsupported opinion of someone outside the debate is introduced into the discussion: "George Bush agrees with me" or "That's what's written in the Koran/Bible/Book of Mormon." These are invalid arguments. It is sometimes ok to introduce the substance of an outside person's material arguments, or to refer to them. It must be clear, though, that it's the song, not the singer, that's relevant.

These are only rules of debate. They do not, for example, apply to legal arguments, which are sometimes crafted almost entirely of ad hominem argument.
Citing the work of competent and appropriate scholars is indispensable in the sciences, and is a requisite element in any discussion or publication. This is not an 'appeal to authority', which is essentially rhetorical slight-of-hand, an attempt to avoid confronting opposing views. Scientific citation has clear and rigorous requirements regarding thoroughness and the presentation of all opinions and research relevant to an issue.

 

[Thalassamania]

I stand corrected by someone who is clearly an authority.<G>

 

[Bryan]

...These are only rules of debate...

Precisely, and the purpose of a forum entitled "Creation vs. Evolution" is clearly debate.

(Now, if someone were writing a thesis or a paper, that would be something else entirely.)

 

[Bryan]

Thas, I'm enjoying Flatland... I've downloaded it as an ebook and am giving it a nice slow read.