Re: Op-Ed: Science's fast pace undercuts allure of intelligent design


"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mgiSe.422$6e1.169@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:RqYRe.285$pt.78@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> [snip]
>
> >>>How do you know that giant sloths went extinct 13,000 years ago in North
> >
> > America?
> >
> >>>Theory attempts to explain why, and assumes it is true. You call yourself a
> >>>scientist. Show your work.
> >>
> >>That would be the age of the strata in which their last known fossils
> >>were found. It's always possible that there are newer fossils we haven't
> >>found yet, but that's the way to bet right now. Certainly there was a
> >>dramatic decrease in population size around that time. As for the dating
> >>of sediments, there are many methods. I have no idea which methods were
> >>used for which fossils, but I bet that carbon dating of associated plant
> >>material was used a lot. Tell me again what this has to do with whale
> >>evolution.
> >>
> >
> > It has to do with logic, reasoning; these nasty words like inference, data,
fact
> > always getting in the way of a good theory.
> > The particular subject doesn't really matter to me, what does is how you
think.
> > And this is a good, clear, simple example.
>
> I'm afraid that all it's an example of is your failure to understand
> science. I have no interest in arguing about facts, inference, whatever
> with you. We have no common ground on this. Nor do you have common
> ground with any scientists.

Draining the ad hominem swamp, all that is left is your refusal to discuss very
basic concepts. If that is truly not in your interest, then I can only guess as to
your current particular motive for wanting to "talk about" whale evolution and
"real data" and your reluctance to support *your claims* about this extinction
theory.
>
> > This theory attempts to explain why the sloths dissapeared. Theory is supposed
to
> > explain facts. So the sloths dissapeared. And the explanation is that it
happened
> > at the same time human's supposedly began to hunt them in masse.
> > Besides all the other serious problems with this "theory", you claim, or imply
by
> > your claim, that new finds could change the date of extinction. I don't think
this
> > inference rises to the level of "data", or "fact". Scientific theories aren't
> > "bets", John. You don't know there was a decrease in population size around
that
> > time *either*; at best you can suspect that sloths did not inhabit and take
craps
> > in the same caves they had previously occupied.
> >
> > Answer the question. How do you know that giant sloths went extinct 13,000
years
> > ago? I do hope that showing your work will not result in "I don't know".
>
> I know that they went extinct, etc. because the people who ought to know
> say so. I have never studied the subject in detail, but I'm willing to
> believe that those who have know what they're talking about, absent any
> good evidence to the contrary. I don't much care, either. And it would
> be hard to show my work because I don't have any work to show.

Why do you assume that people that "ought to know" actually know? And why do you
assume there is someone who "ought to know"? You're trying to get out of an
uncomfortable position, John, but you put yourself there, I didn't. Is it
"reasonable" to assume that an animal went extinct by use of the youngest fossil
find date? Would you use words such as "more parsimonious", or "unlikely" to
refute the idea that the population of animals could have existed way after the
last known by fossil date? Occhams razor? What scientific principle or explanation
would you give in order to claim an assumption of an extinction date be valid, in
order to use it as a "data point", or "observation" explained.
>
> Now are you willing to talk about whale evolution and real data?

The invariable topic of choice for the evolutionist, one that assumes other
evolutionary principles, allowing the debate to stretch into all aspects of
evolution. You like that, don't you. Just not simple subjects.
>
> I also have a procedural suggestion. This would all work better if, for
> the sake of argument, you assumed that I was neither an idiot nor a
> liar. In return, I'm willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that
> you are neither an idiot nor a nutcase. Does that work for you?
>
Why, for the sake of argument?

Answer the question. You don't *know* because of what other people have said.
Other people have said many things.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Chez Watt Vote 03APR06
    ... Creationists Maths Catagory: ... Equal Opportunity Nomination: ... Every single quote that speaks against evolution is ... ... Fossils, no-God, and umm, the genetics stuff. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Tweedys Turkana Boy
    ... I thought you were a Gestaltist who knew everything about evolution. ... Dana NEVER posted an argument about Turkana. ... claim or argument EXCEPT to say that it represented evidence of human ... Neither of those assumptions are required to see that many fossils ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scientific Americans Faulty Criticism of Expelled
    ... Wallace, co-founder of Darwin's Theory, wanted Darwin to drop his ... first biologist to notice the appearance of variation within species. ... for fossils this is demonstrably false. ... the fossil record is zero evolution over time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Answering Friar Broccoli
    ... Why, if you think this way, are you forced to reject evolution? ... care for simple statements with no evidence to back it up. ... small-brained as ancestral to modern humans. ... fossils rather than the relatively few I have seen. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking
    ... The conclusions are that life could ... The evidence for evolution is broken down into three broad ... The first is direct evidence of small-scale changes in controlled ... there are Precambrian multicellular fossils, ...
    (talk.origins)