el zone said:
frankly you fit the mold of a lot of people I've known who read some books and think they are qualified to quantify the history of genetics and heritability across apes/man.
Just to be clear, I'm not some guy who's read books and thinks he's qualified. My official position in the company I work for is "staff paleontologist". I just got back from eight days where I was paid to examine the rock for evidence of fossils (and am celebrating the traditional geologist way--cheap beer and arguing with people). I've given presentations to other paleontologists at professional conferences, once at an international conference, and published peer-reviewed papers on paleontology. I make decisions that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars based on my knowledge of paleontology as a matter of routine. When I say "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt" I frequently am WEARING said t-shirt (I mean this literally--I did this recently, and got a few laughs for it). I am actually qualified, by any definition of the term, and by the testimony of others, not just myself, to discuss paleontology and evolution.
I hope that suffices in establishing my bone fides (that statement sounds better spoken than written....). Now then, what are yours?
I love how in your mind you are certain of things that happened x years before humanity as we know it.
Well, considering I've actually seen the evidence, I AM certain. And--which is more important--I can prove it.
The fact you can't be humble and live without a full explanation of science is interesting to me.
What the devil do you mean by that?! I most certainly CAN live without a full explanation of many things. I'm married to a physicist and don't know the first thing about electricity. If you want to know how much I don't know about the subject, ask my wife. However, I refuse to bow to willful ignorance when I can demonstrate the statements to be in error. It's not humble to submit to stupidity, and it's not arrogance to state what you can prove.
The difference between a Creationist and a scientist is that scientists say "I don't know, but I'll find out", while Creationists say "I don't know, therefore God did it". One has led to a dramatic increase in quality of life by any measure, while the other has led to one of the most enlightened and advanced societies descending into barbarism and brutality. Take a guess as to which did what.
You are certain about evolution because someone told you to be and that's conformable for you, no prob.
Hardly. I'm certain about evolution because I'VE STUDIED IT. I've actually found transitional forms. I know other people who have as well--including my brother-in-law. I've seen the evidence with my own eyes. Sure, someone told me about these theories--but I've also done the leg work to fact-check those statements.
Also, please don't presume to know what I've done or haven't done. I seriously doubt you have any actual information about my life, my experiences, or my capabilities. That's why I provided that list of things I've done--so that you can actually discuss some REAL data, not just things you assume are true. This entire line of argument is nothing more than poisoning the straw well.
After my study and interpretation of heritability I choose to think we know very little, like when we were always told up until the early 2000's all earthen Dna had common subunits and was phosphorous and nitrogen based, always.
Then they find the microbes with arsenic subunit inclusions and happily restate the rules to fit the new interpretations.
This is an example of willful ignorance. Science found a minor exception--something that fits quite readily into the framework of evolution, but which defies our expectations--and people expect us to abandon the entire concept of evolution because of it. This isn't just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it's nuking the planet to kill a fly. We know how that particular adaptation occurred, and again, it fits perfectly well with evolution. Not necessarily what we expected evolution to be, but only a fool would demand that reality conform to a theory. And the argument "This one area isn't perfect, therefore we must discard the entire theory" is the definition of the Nirvana Fallacy.
What you consistently accept on first offer I'm expecting to be backtracked soon
I'd love to know what it is I'm accepting at first offer. After eight years of studying paleontology (four as an undergrad, two as a grad student, a two year gap when I worked as an environmental consultant to pay the bills [got a pretty good crash course on soil stratigraphy there, so it still probably counts], then two years as a professional paleontologist) I'd say I've given the matter a fair bit of thought.
no apologies for it, but you lump Christians into a group even though some are very open minded.
I wondered what the funny taste was. It's those words you crammed into my mouth.
I NEVER said ANYTHING about Christians. I said a lot about Creationists, and the two I mentioned by name happened to be nominally Christian, but what I said holds true for Creationists of all religious affiliations.
Please show me the respect of sticking to what I actually said, rather than arguing against things I've never even hinted at. It'll go a long way towards making you look more respectable, and your arguments look more reasonable.
it angers you that I believe yet your views are neutral to me.
What you believe means nothing to me. I've seen several talks at GSA given by Creationists--I mean dyed-in-the-wool Young Earth Creationists. Their science was good (their presentations were horrible, but that's not uncommon at GSA). They were dealing with modern depositional environments, and their research and conclusions were solid (at least, where they didn't obviously over-extend their findings, and by "obviously" I mean that you can't move from ripple marks in a river to Heinrick Events, that sort of thing). I have relatives and inlaws that are Creationists, including some of the people I respect most in the world. All that said, I DO have knowledge about this subject, and I CAN prove what I say. What I don't do is bow to ANYONE'S opinion in this matter--I can't, as a matter of professional ethics. I actually do the research. And the facts don't support Creationism.
No matter how my semantics come off, you are primed in your response because my statements share some key words with people/philosophies that pissed you off and will always do so.
Nah. Creationists annoy me because they're wrong, and are arrogant in theirfolly. And it IS folly. Sitting in on any introductory level university course on geology, paleontology, or biology is sufficient to show that Creationists are wrong, and anyone who enters into this debate without doing that amount of research is a fool.
As soon as you hear Christian, your limits are set.
This is what we call "projection". You hear "Evolution" and you already have your arguments. Many of us, on the other hand, are only interested in the DATA. Creationists can't provide it. At best, they offer a mildly interesting insight into the formation of bedding plains. That's the BEST argument thus far offered by any Creationist on this website--and it doesn't matter what religious affiliation they are, that statement holds true. The best argument offered by scientists? I'd have to say it's ANTPogo's rather epic smackdown of randman's continued insistence that scientists use falsified documents, because it highlights the flagrant lies told by Creationists to support their ideas.
This YouTube video shows why I don't care if someone's a Christian or not. Simply put, it doesn't MATTER. And frankly Christians who declare that evolution is contradictory to their faith are, according to numerous theologians (the video lists many), simply wrong--and many are wrong because they're ignorant not only of evolution, but of what their own religion states! How can anyone respect someone like that?
It is perfectly fine if I want to keep my proofs to myself
No, it's really not. In science, being open about one's evidence isn't just a nice bit of etiquette, it's actually a requirement. In fact, it's rather foundational to the entire enterprise. If you withhold proofs, I can simply say "I don't believe you have them" and it's a sufficient dismantling of your entire argument. "Put up or shut up" isn't an insult in science, it's a way of life. And if you WON'T put up or shut up, it's perfectly fair for the rest of us to call you a liar. Honesty consists, in science, of being able to provide evidence to support your statements. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, you're dishonest, period.
Not following spoonfed rules is really offensive to some.
I'd love to see what spoon-fed rules I'm following. I'm going to require specifics, mind you--you seem to want to tell me what I'm thinking (even to the point of discussing things I haven't said), so I'm expecting a rather high degree of accuracy here. In fact, I'd say that if you aren't $1 million richer by the end of this, you may owe me an apology.
As a self described philosopher it should provide you additional fodder I won't even adhere to the common teachings of our faith and recite that for your dissection predictably.
This doesn't even make sense. Science is, in essence, institutionalized heresy. EVERY scientific theory started out as heresy, bar none, and every scientist is looking for a way to prove the major theories wrong. I'm currently looking at postcranial osteology in mammals, and I'd be lying if I didn't say that a small part of my hopes to find major flaws in our understanding of mammalian evolution (or at least that I'll be a contributor for such a discovery). The notion that scientists blindly accept anything is absurd. I've tested evolution. I've tested deep time. I've put every theory about paleontology and geology that I've encountered to the test. The ones that work I keep. The ones that don't I discard. How is that faith in any rational sense?
All of this is in response, I assume, to my translation of what you said. I think you greatly misunderstood my intent there. What I meant was to show how others see what you're saying, so that you could better understand how to express your ideas. You say you're a philosopher; if that's true, you can't have gotten far without coming across various theories about how ideas are expressed and interpreted. If your ideas aren't being interpreted the way you intend them, you need to adjust your expression of said ideas so that they ARE interpreted as you intend them. To do otherwise is to fail at communication. And if you react with hostility to any minor criticism, I have serious doubts as to how far you've gotten in philosophy.
Anyone impacted should make their own reactions and form their own unique logic, this happens to be mine.
I'm addressing this last because, frankly, it's the most important issue here. You obviously aren't aware of the seriousness of this issue. Evolution impacts ALL OF US. The only industrialized nation to abandon evolution wholesale, to my knowledge, is the USSR. That abandonment caused them to go from exporting food to starvation in less than a generation. People DIED because they abandoned the theory of evolution. And it's worse now, since evolution is key to our ability to predict things like cold and flu viruses--which means it's key to our ability to vaccinate high-risk populations. Again, this is life-and-death stuff.
There's also an article in the most recent copy of PE (Professional Engineering, a professional publication for engineers) discussing the impacts of not understanding the evolutionary implications of various things humans are doing. I strongly suggest you read that before you start saying that if something doesn't directly impact you you can ignore it.
Finally, you said you're a philosopher. Have you completely ignored the field of ethics? You're saying that if I say "All darkies must be put to death", as long as you're not black you're okay with it. If I say "It's perfectly fine for husbands to beat their wives with anything smaller than the diameter of their thumb" and you're a man (or unmarried) you'd be perfectly happy. If there's a law specifically forbidding atheists from holding public office, that's great! You're not an atheist! Never mind that little thing called the First Amendment.
"When they came for the Jews I said nothing, because I was not a Jew." How, exactly, does that poem end? Add to that the fact that our entire agricultural industry demonstrably relies on the theory of evolution, and we ALL rely on our argro industry, and things get extremely nasty extremely fast when people start messing with evolution--even for those who reject it.
halfcentaur
