1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Is the vestigial organ argument a vestige of poor science

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by whirlingmerc, Jul 7, 2018.

  1. Astrophile

    Astrophile Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    102
    Ratings:
    +84
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Darwin had no interest in astronomy. When he received Wallace's letter about natural selection in June 1858, he said that he 'never saw a more striking coincidence' than this independent discovery. However, any astronomer would have remembered the equally striking coincidence of the independent predictions of the position of Neptune by J.C. Adams and Urbain Leverrier only twelve years previously.

    If you think that Darwin wasn't a biologist, you should read his books, for example The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. They are full of detailed biological descriptions, so that I, as a non-biologist, find them heavy going.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,505
    Ratings:
    +2,837
    Ah, I see. Please proceed.
     
    #182 Jose Fly, Jul 8, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2018
  3. Astrophile

    Astrophile Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    102
    Ratings:
    +84
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Acoustic evolution? Sounds interesting.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Not banned yet.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    144,428
    Ratings:
    +39,651
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    I don't know how much of that is accurate, but I never expected
    Darwin to be a saint, by standards of today or his day.
    As for faux gill slits, I never considered such things to be relevant
    to abortion discussions.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,759
    Ratings:
    +12,525
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I found the article that @whirlingmerc was ranting about. Gill slits were barely mentioned:

    http://churchandstate.org.uk/2017/09/carl-sagans-thoughts-on-abortion/

    But when one illogical belief is piled on another it is no wonder that a person's brain can fall out.
     
  6. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Not banned yet.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    144,428
    Ratings:
    +39,651
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    Sound arguments are not built upon miniscule factoids like "gill slits" in a fetus.
    There are larger issues, eg, right to control one's own body, limiting government's
    authority over us. And such things are value driven...hardly amenable to debate.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,759
    Ratings:
    +12,525
    Religion:
    Atheist
    As I said, the gill slits play an extremely minor part of the article. It was a throw away line. It is worth a read. There is a fair amount of history of abortion, both U.S. and elsewhere.
     
  8. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,717
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Okay.
    So from this post, Note the red. I hope you can see my problem.
    I don't have a problem with inference. We do that all the time. It's part of life, since we need to reason. I use it, and I am sure you do too.
    Don't tell me though, it's okay for someone to use it, as long as they have the title "scientist", but otherwise it's a no no.

    I posted this before, but I can't remember where, so I'll put it here again.
    Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

    Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

    On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.
    Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.


    Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.
    When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.

    inferred evidence
    to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.

    How Scientists Make Inferences
    Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly. For example, scientists cannot see dinosaurs, the bottom of the ocean, or atoms and molecules. Still, scientists want to know more about these things, so they gather evidence about them in other ways. For example, they make observations of fossil dinosaur droppings or measure the amount of time it takes sound to travel to the bottom of the ocean.
    Although atoms and molecules are too small to see, scientists use very powerful microscopes to gather evidence about them. Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating. For example, when scientists figure out what is in a fossil dinosaur dropping, they can then make inferences about what the dinosaur ate when it was alive. They are not observing the dinosaur eating—they are using evidence to make an inference.

    Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable. For example, scientists cannot directly observe an extinct organism or the surface of a faraway planet. In these instances, scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking emerge.

    So this is probably the reason you thought I had a problem with inference, because I said
    However, note - I added this
    In other words, why are "knowledgeable people" making so much fuss over a theory that requires inference from bottom to top, or top to bottom - whichever way you look at it, when others have enough evidence to infer a supernatural intelligent being - a creator.

    Of course, it's not a debatable issue for naturalist to consider, since they depend solely on what they consider to be natural - Interesting (see my last post) - not supernatural.

    One thing though, and I want to include @QuestioningMind in this, since I was to get back to him.
    I see mechanisms for testing implemented for Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and observations being considered, but for whale evolution, they are simply using fossils of different animals to conclude that one evolved to the other.

    That's all.
    Hope it's clear. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,759
    Ratings:
    +12,525
    Religion:
    Atheist
    One question, and since you hate interference so much I hope you can answer it without any:

    What is the evidence for a creator?
     
  10. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,717
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    First, show me where in my post you see that I hate inference. If you point it out I will consider your question.
     
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,759
    Ratings:
    +12,525
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Your entire post that starts out with your problem with inference.

    Of course you forgot a huge part of the scientific method. One tests one's ideas using tests that would show it was wrong if it failed. This is something that I have never seen creationists do. So your claim that the theory of evolution is merely inference is already busted.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,717
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    You haven't read it.... p r o p e r l y.
     
  13. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,759
    Ratings:
    +12,525
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Sure I did. You wrote a bad post on why you don't like evidence that you consider inference. Now how about you quit dodging.
     
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,717
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Quote me. I'm not the one dodging here.
    Why do you refer to an entire post, and can't select the words in a paragraph or sentence? That's not hard to do is it?
    Is your computer giving trouble again? I hope not.
    Is your monitor crisp and clear?
    I can wait.
     
  15. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,759
    Ratings:
    +12,525
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Right here you tipped our hand. That is more than good enough.

    But you were caught making a statement you know that you can't support. Though you could surprise me. I seriously doubt if you will.

    Meanwhile you did not respond to how you ignored that your post was refuted by the fact that scientists do not rely solely upon inference.
     
  16. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,717
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Ah. Is that an admittance that you really didn't take time to carefully read my post?
     
  17. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,759
    Ratings:
    +12,525
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Of course I read it. It was verbose garbage. You are still ignoring your error. And still dodging.
     
  18. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,505
    Ratings:
    +2,837
    Maybe.

    Nope, I've never said that.

    The middle of your post is just fine, so I'll just go to the end and main point.

    First, the reason there's a "fuss" is because some of the conclusions of evolutionary biology contradict some folks' religious beliefs. If it weren't for that, boards like this wouldn't even exist.

    Second, much of evolutionary theory involves direct observation, such as lab experiments that show how different mechanisms operate or studies of wild populations that show how new species evolve. So while inference does indeed play a role in the science, it's not all there is to it.


    I really don't have a problem with that, as long as we understand the difference between testable scientific inferences and untestable theological ones.

    Agreed.

    Then you're not seeing the whole picture. Fossils do tend to grab the headlines, but don't let that fool you into thinking that's all there is.


    I think so.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,759
    Ratings:
    +12,525
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You had far more patience than I had.
     
  20. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,546
    Ratings:
    +8,530
    Religion:
    None
    Thank you good sir for your honesty, you surprise me.

    I'll wait for your evidence of a creator, should be interesting and extremely lucrative for you. In thousands of years of god worship literally billions of people have tried and failed to provide such evidence of the creator of the universe. If you can provide evidence just think... You would have church and government leaders on your speed dial, universities and religious organizations will offer riches beyond avarice just for you to speak for them. Sponsorship deals would clog up your letter box. And the real biggy, atheism will essentially become history. And we humble RFites will be among the first to hear your hallowed words.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...