[Cold Iron]

Illuyankas, on Jan 5 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

OK, I'll go back and see what objections you had to this then, er, then.

If you come up with anything, let us know. I was about to go back and find this as well.

It's proof, gem. No matter how often you say there is no proof for evolution, there is. And this is not the only proof. Natural selection has been observed not only in bacteria, but also plants, invertibrates, and vertibrates.

If direct observation is not proof, then there's no proof for you either.

ETA:

The 20th, on Jan 5 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

That.... was a great post, CI.

Hugs and imaginary rep from Shin!

Aw shucks. Thanks, friend.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 05 January 2009 - 09:30 AM

[Gem Windcaster]

The problem is, CI, we define evidence and proof differently. I don't deny that a sort of evolution happens today, but there's quite a jump from that kind of data to the theory of evolution, me thinks. Evolution might have happened all throughout history, but without the effect on the species the theory says - in the long run. It's the long run perspective that is the important issue - we don't have the perspective over millions of years, so the big scale evolution we couldn't possible have any indication of.

I'm will be playing mafia now, so I won't be very active in this forum for some time. Ta ta.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 5 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

The problem is, CI, we define evidence and proof differently. I don't deny that a sort of evolution happens today, but there's quite a jump from that kind of data to the theory of evolution, me thinks. Evolution might have happened all throughout history, but without the effect on the species the theory says - in the long run. It's the long run perspective that is the important issue - we don't have the perspective over millions of years, so the big scale evolution we couldn't possible have any indication of.

I'm will be playing mafia now, so I won't be very active in this forum for some time. Ta ta.

Hi Gem - I'm now convinced you are a dishonest debater of the highest order. You have proven there is no statement (your own or another's) that you will not twist, refine or ignore in order to make it serve your own opinion. That you would casually abandon the argument when it was truly turning against you should have been expected, but is still disappointing.

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 12:31 AM, said:

Evolution might have happened all throughout history, but without the effect on the species the theory says - in the long run.

This, again, is a misconception. Evolution makes no conclusions about any individual species, we make the conclusions, based on the fact that we know species evolve, coupled with whatever evidence we have.

What "long run perspective" specifically do you have a problem with? Humans evolving from apes?

Dolorous Menhir, on Jan 6 2009, 05:24 AM, said:

Hi Gem - I'm now convinced you are a dishonest debater of the highest order. You have proven there is no statement (your own or another's) that you will not twist, refine or ignore in order to make it serve your own opinion. That you would casually abandon the argument when it was truly turning against you should have been expected, but is still disappointing.

You've made that conclusion about me in the past, dm A proud person may not admit when they're wrong, but they first have to be convinced of it.

[Terez]

Good luck trying, CI. I think most of the rest of us are over it.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 6 2009, 08:24 AM, said:

Good luck trying, CI. I think most of the rest of us are over it.

Yeah I know, feel like resurrecting a definition of god thread and going up against me instead??

[Terez]

No, not really. I still say your "god" is arbitrary but you're one of those people that feels the need to believe in god despite knowing better, so what can I do?

[Dolorous Menhir]

Quote

Dolorous Menhir, on Jan 6 2009, 05:24 AM, said:

Hi Gem - I'm now convinced you are a dishonest debater of the highest order. You have proven there is no statement (your own or another's) that you will not twist, refine or ignore in order to make it serve your own opinion. That you would casually abandon the argument when it was truly turning against you should have been expected, but is still disappointing.

You've made that conclusion about me in the past, dm

Tell me about it, I had to hold myself back from ending every sentence with "...just like Cold Iron." But you seem to have improved lately, you're not being annoying just for the sake of it, I think.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 6 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

No, not really. I still say your "god" is arbitrary but you're one of those people that feels the need to believe in god despite knowing better, so what can I do?

Why convince me I'm wrong of course. I'll make a post anyway and see if you bite.

ETA:

Dolorous Menhir, on Jan 6 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

Tell me about it, I had to hold myself back from ending every sentence with "...just like Cold Iron." But you seem to have improved lately, you're not being annoying just for the sake of it, I think.

I have no problem with gem making a stand, but I would also like her to make an effort (which I always do, even when I'm running out of valid arguments).

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 05 January 2009 - 10:24 PM

[Terez]

I know how to control my teeth, dear.

[Gem Windcaster]

Dolorous Menhir, on Jan 5 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

Hi Gem - I'm now convinced you are a dishonest debater of the highest order. You have proven there is no statement (your own or another's) that you will not twist, refine or ignore in order to make it serve your own opinion. That you would casually abandon the argument when it was truly turning against you should have been expected, but is still disappointing.

Err...what are you talking about? I may get a bit aggressive sometimes, but no worse than anyone else around here. What argument are you talking about that was 'turned against me'? That's pretty serious accusations you throw at me there DM, you should at least give an example. I have been completely honest throughout the whole thread. You might call me stupid, or even stubborn, hey I'd go with deluded. But dishonest? That's very strong, and it's calling me a liar.

Are you trying to bully me because you're out of arguments, or is that just your general style against someone that disagrees with you?

I don't twist statements, I explore them and think geometrically. The only things I am refining are my arguments. And I never ignore anything, but I reserve my own right to not comment on arguments I think are irrelevant. I am sure you do the same.

Cold Iron, on Jan 5 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 12:31 AM, said:

Evolution might have happened all throughout history, but without the effect on the species the theory says - in the long run.

This, again, is a misconception. Evolution makes no conclusions about any individual species, we make the conclusions, based on the fact that we know species evolve, coupled with whatever evidence we have.

Allright, I didn't think using singular over plural would make any difference in that sentence, since that wasn't my point, but okay, my bad. Now as for the underlined part: I acknowledge how you build the theory - I am sure it makes perfectly sense to you. But you yourself use the word 'conclusions'. And I don't make the same conclusions as you do. That doesn't mean that I don't recognize that I could make those conclusions, but I am more critical and less forgiving when it comes to evidence. I am a skeptical, and I think science is a size short when it comes to this area. It's nothing personal towards people accepting the theory, it's a philosophical difference.

Cold Iron, on Jan 5 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

What "long run perspective" specifically do you have a problem with? Humans evolving from apes?

Since you just said that evolution doesn't look at individual species, I don't see how I could have any problem with that, since the theory doesn't mention it...right? Allright, that was mean, sorry. But to answer your question, no I don't have a problem with anything in particular, I just think the conclusions are drawn too far. Difference of philosophical viewpoint, and nothing else.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on Jan 5 2009, 11:20 PM, said:

I have no problem with gem making a stand, but I would also like her to make an effort (which I always do, even when I'm running out of valid arguments).

Please tell me how I can I show that I make an effort? I am trying me best here, beating my head against the wall. I am beginning to think nothing I do will make you think I 'make an effort'. :Crash: I am open for suggestions though, by no means do I think I am perfect.

[Mherim]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 5 2009, 11:38 PM, said:

. I am a skeptical, and I think science is a size short when it comes to this area. It's nothing personal towards people accepting the theory, it's a philosophical difference.

You can be as skeptical as you want, but when you have admitted to not understanding neither the constraints nor the contents of the theory, that skepticism can only be misplaced.

Education first, then can you put yourself forward as "skeptic". At the moment, you sound like my 3 year old son who is skeptical when I explain to him how cakes are made (which may be warranted skepticism to him, but only because his understanding - as of yet - is insufficient).

[Gem Windcaster]

@Mherim,
so far the only 'knowledge gap' I have been showing is not agreeing with certain conclusions, which you guys have interpreted as me not understanding or not knowing essential parts of the theory. Also you must remember that I haven't read the theory in English, so I have a certain language gap to my disadvantage.

Secondly, if there is so much of the theory I don't know, it should be very easy for you guys argue much better. But when I challenge a certain conclusion, there is very few arguments thrown back; instead the insult fest starts.
I have nothing to prove here; you do. I don't have to disprove the theory, it's you that have to prove it.

Lastly, comparing me with a 3 year old is not exactly constructive, and not much of an argument either.

[Terez]

Gem, it's obvious to every native English speaker here that you have no problems whatsoever with the English language - that's the second time you've tried to use that excuse in a tight spot, and it won't cut it. Second, you have displayed a huge gap in your knowledge of the theory by confusing it with abiogenesis, and no matter how you try to backpedal on that, we all saw you make that mistake, and no one is buying that you actually meant something else.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 6 2009, 09:23 AM, said:

I know how to control my teeth, dear.

Well I'll continue here with gem for a while first then.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on Jan 5 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 12:31 AM, said:

Evolution might have happened all throughout history, but without the effect on the species the theory says - in the long run.

This, again, is a misconception. Evolution makes no conclusions about any individual species, we make the conclusions, based on the fact that we know species evolve, coupled with whatever evidence we have.

Allright, I didn't think using singular over plural would make any difference in that sentence, since that wasn't my point, but okay, my bad.

I meant that evolution is not the actual changes made by species over time, but rather the mechanism by which these changes occur. We have proof for the mechanism, because we have observed it directly. We draw conclusions from evidence such as the fossil record where we do not have direct observation.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Now as for the underlined part: I acknowledge how you build the theory - I am sure it makes perfectly sense to you. But you yourself use the word 'conclusions'. And I don't make the same conclusions as you do.

I have made none. I have said that evolution makes no conclusions. If it is particular conclusions that you take issue with, then your issue is not with evolution itself.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

That doesn't mean that I don't recognize that I could make those conclusions, but I am more critical and less forgiving when it comes to evidence. I am a skeptical, and I think science is a size short when it comes to this area. It's nothing personal towards people accepting the theory, it's a philosophical difference.

This is a perfect example of the lack of effort I was just referring to. Kindly explain what conclusions you disagree with, what area are you referring to precisely? This would allow us to attempt to address your issue directly, rather than simply jumping to the conclusion that it is nothing more than your faith that is the cause. I understand that you are philosophically inclined to be skeptical, that is perfectly fine, and actually makes you a better scientist. What one can't do, however, is philosophically disagree with a scientific conclusion, as it can only be disagreed with scientifically.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on Jan 5 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

What "long run perspective" specifically do you have a problem with? Humans evolving from apes?

Since you just said that evolution doesn't look at individual species, I don't see how I could have any problem with that, since the theory doesn't mention it...right? Allright, that was mean, sorry. But to answer your question, no I don't have a problem with anything in particular, I just think the conclusions are drawn too far. Difference of philosophical viewpoint, and nothing else.

So, to summarise. You do not disagree with the theory of evolution itself, but rather you disagree with all of the conclusions the theory draws us to, in general, purely due to your philosophical viewpoint. This is precisely what those who have been opposed to you in this discussion have been accusing you of. It's ok to be skeptical. It's ok to believe in something other than science, but what you did was claim that your belief is caused by a lack of evidence in the science, which, upon investigating, has proven not to be the case. Please reread my post before about the authority of science, I feel that you are causing yourself an unnecessary strain.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on Jan 6 2009, 01:23 AM, said:

Gem, it's obvious to every native English speaker here that you have no problems whatsoever with the English language - that's the second time you've tried to use that excuse in a tight spot, and it won't cut it. Second, you have displayed a huge gap in your knowledge of the theory by confusing it with abiogenesis, and no matter how you try to backpedal on that, we all saw you make that mistake, and no one is buying that you actually meant something else.

I have not read about the theory in English - which means I don't know the regular way to express things in English. I feel that difficulty acutely at this moment. As for the rest...
1. Any gap in my knowledge doesn't matter - I am still entitled to an opinion - if you disagree with that, then you possible couldn't comment on the bible either, due to lack of knowledge. And I never said I was an expert - however I can't say I believed you believes life comes from a rock when I actually didn't, but was being confrontational (and I have explained why).
2. I never confused anything - I have already said that I didn't actually think you believed life came from a rock - how many times do I have to tell you that? For someone that whines about me ignoring posts you are ignoring my posts an awfully lot!

Cold Iron, on Jan 6 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on Jan 5 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 12:31 AM, said:

Evolution might have happened all throughout history, but without the effect on the species the theory says - in the long run.

This, again, is a misconception. Evolution makes no conclusions about any individual species, we make the conclusions, based on the fact that we know species evolve, coupled with whatever evidence we have.

Allright, I didn't think using singular over plural would make any difference in that sentence, since that wasn't my point, but okay, my bad.

I meant that evolution is not the actual changes made by species over time, but rather the mechanism by which these changes occur. We have proof for the mechanism, because we have observed it directly. We draw conclusions from evidence such as the fossil record where we do not have direct observation.

Neither the mechanism or fossil record are, according to me, enough to draw the conclusions that evolution happened as the theory claims. It's a possible explanation, technically, but it's just as easy to not draw that conclusion as to do it. This is where my philosophical view comes in.

Cold Iron, on Jan 6 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Now as for the underlined part: I acknowledge how you build the theory - I am sure it makes perfectly sense to you. But you yourself use the word 'conclusions'. And I don't make the same conclusions as you do.

I have made none. I have said that evolution makes no conclusions. If it is particular conclusions that you take issue with, then your issue is not with evolution itself.

The evolutions is not the data, it's the conclusion, imo. This is where this debate goes awry, because you don't understand that's how I see it. I see the theory as conclusions drawn from the data. I'm not a proper scientist in that way, I am a philosopher (which I have been saying from the beginning), so I didn't realize just how different my view was.

Cold Iron, on Jan 6 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

That doesn't mean that I don't recognize that I could make those conclusions, but I am more critical and less forgiving when it comes to evidence. I am a skeptical, and I think science is a size short when it comes to this area. It's nothing personal towards people accepting the theory, it's a philosophical difference.

This is a perfect example of the lack of effort I was just referring to. Kindly explain what conclusions you disagree with, what area are you referring to precisely? This would allow us to attempt to address your issue directly, rather than simply jumping to the conclusion that it is nothing more than your faith that is the cause. I understand that you are philosophically inclined to be skeptical, that is perfectly fine, and actually makes you a better scientist. What one can't do, however, is philosophically disagree with a scientific conclusion, as it can only be disagreed with scientifically.

What, one can only debate the issue if one is a scientist? (in that case you guys can't discuss the bible without believing it right?) I have never stated anywhere that I refute the theory scientifically, but rather on a philosophical ground. Can one refute a scientific theory based on philosophy? That seems to be the general idea that one can not. I disagree, since I think science is based on a philosophical ground aswell. I simply have a different view. I am however, very happy with going through specifics, although I probably will need to read up on things.

Cold Iron, on Jan 6 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on Jan 5 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

What "long run perspective" specifically do you have a problem with? Humans evolving from apes?

Since you just said that evolution doesn't look at individual species, I don't see how I could have any problem with that, since the theory doesn't mention it...right? Allright, that was mean, sorry. But to answer your question, no I don't have a problem with anything in particular, I just think the conclusions are drawn too far. Difference of philosophical viewpoint, and nothing else.

So, to summarise. You do not disagree with the theory of evolution itself, but rather you disagree with all of the conclusions the theory draws us to, in general, purely due to your philosophical viewpoint. This is precisely what those who have been opposed to you in this discussion have been accusing you of. It's ok to be skeptical. It's ok to believe in something other than science, but what you did was claim that your belief is caused by a lack of evidence in the science, which, upon investigating, has proven not to be the case. Please reread my post before about the authority of science, I feel that you are causing yourself an unnecessary strain.

Again, the conclusions to me are the theory. I don't think a scientific view point is necessary in this debate, in order to participate. Imo, scientific theories needs much more of philosophical critics to get much better. There's a whole point of view that science normally ignores.

I wish I could have seen this difference in perspective earlier - I have been sounding like I have some sort of scientific evidence that refutes the whole theory, while in fact I simply have been displaying my regular philosophical skepticism, wrongly assuming that people understood that my perspective is different. That being said, I do understand that there is confusion when I so strongly criticizes the theory, using a similar language like everyone else in the debate.
I don't know if that makes any sense to you, please work with me here...

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 06 January 2009 - 02:41 AM

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

Cold Iron, on Jan 6 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

I meant that evolution is not the actual changes made by species over time, but rather the mechanism by which these changes occur. We have proof for the mechanism, because we have observed it directly. We draw conclusions from evidence such as the fossil record where we do not have direct observation.

Neither the mechanism or fossil record are, according to me, enough to draw the conclusions that evolution happened as the theory claims. It's a possible explanation, technically, but it's just as easy to not draw that conclusion as to do it. This is where my philosophical view comes in.

I'll reiterate, the theory does not draw any conclusions, it describes the mechanism. You have admitted that you do not have the scientific knowledge required to refute the theory. This is understandable, if you did, you'd likely be looking at a Nobel prize. This means that the conclusions you are referring to are only in your head. This means you have to type them up and click post for us to know what you are talking about.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

The evolutions is not the data, it's the conclusion, imo. This is where this debate goes awry, because you don't understand that's how I see it. I see the theory as conclusions drawn from the data. I'm not a proper scientist in that way, I am a philosopher (which I have been saying from the beginning), so I didn't realize just how different my view was.

Again, the theory itself draws no conclusions. People do. This means that conclusions are subjective by nature. You may have some very different conclusions to me. You need to tell me what the conclusions are with which you think you are disagreeing.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

What, one can only debate the issue if one is a scientist? (in that case you guys can't discuss the bible without believing it right?) I have never stated anywhere that I refute the theory scientifically, but rather on a philosophical ground. Can one refute a scientific theory based on philosophy? That seems to be the general idea that one can not. I disagree, since I think science is based on a philosophical ground aswell. I simply have a different view. I am however, very happy with going through specifics, although I probably will need to read up on things.

You don't have to be a scientist, but if you are attempting to show that a scientific conclusion is false, you need to do so using contradictory scientific evidence. Scientific theory is based on the philosophy that the natural world is governed by complete and consistent rules. Philosophical objection to this is quite valid, and actually has mathematical support (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_i...teness_theorems). Despite this, however, we can say that for the purposes of describing the observable world, scientific theory is valid, and I'm sure you don't want to go down that road (be my guest, though, that would be fun). So, either you have a scientific basis for disagreement with a scientific conclusion, or you have no basis at all.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

Again, the conclusions to me are the theory. I don't think a scientific view point is necessary in this debate, in order to participate. Imo, scientific theories needs much more of philosophical critics to get much better. There's a whole point of view that science normally ignores.

Science is not in the business of points of view. It is in the business of demonstrable facts.

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 6 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

I wish I could have seen this difference in perspective earlier - I have been sounding like I have some sort of scientific evidence that refutes the whole theory, while in fact I simply have been displaying my regular philosophical skepticism, wrongly assuming that people understood that my perspective is different. That being said, I do understand that there is confusion when I so strongly criticizes the theory, using a similar language like everyone else in the debate.
I don't know if that makes any sense to you, please work with me here...

You can move those goalposts as far away as you like, I've got stamina. And just for clarity, when you say there is no proof of evolution, it is natural for people to assume you mean scientific proof, as this is the only proof there is. Philosophical proof is something I've never heard of, but I'll work with you anyway...

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 06 January 2009 - 04:29 AM

[Dolorous Menhir]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 5 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

Err...what are you talking about? I may get a bit aggressive sometimes, but no worse than anyone else around here. What argument are you talking about that was 'turned against me'? That's pretty serious accusations you throw at me there DM, you should at least give an example. I have been completely honest throughout the whole thread. You might call me stupid, or even stubborn, hey I'd go with deluded. But dishonest? That's very strong, and it's calling me a liar.

Very well, an example.

You give your standard for proof:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 5 2009, 02:13 AM, said:

To be honest I am not sure if that would be enough, because it depends on what it shows. A proof in my eyes would be data similar to setting up a video camera that would record over millions of years, actually showing the different species evolve. I guess actually having dna samples would be a start. But as it is now, there's too little knowledge of how the evolution part would even work, and how it effects a species. The way I see it, the current theory produces more questions than answers.

I would summarise this as "demonstrate to me that evolution has been directly observed in a recorded environment".

Illuyankas provides such proof:

Illuyankas, on Jan 5 2009, 02:23 AM, said:

Well, I have no idea if it's been posted here before - can't remember, it's been too long since I read the earlier pages - but it's too good not to add it again, here is the website for what's described in this report, about a twenty year experiment involving E. coli populations of which one group evolved the ability to metabolise citrate around the 31,500th generation. I'm sure it's old news to most of you in this thread but I had forgotten it until recently, so enjoy it again.

You acknowledge this without actually addressing it:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 5 2009, 03:01 AM, said:

Thank you for the link, but if I remember correctly this is what DM was talking about earlier in the thread.

Several people, including Cold Iron, point out that this meets your test:

Cold Iron, on Jan 5 2009, 09:19 AM, said:

It's proof, gem. No matter how often you say there is no proof for evolution, there is. And this is not the only proof. Natural selection has been observed not only in bacteria, but also plants, invertibrates, and vertibrates.

If direct observation is not proof, then there's no proof for you either.

Unable to meet this head-on, you resort to classic (and dishonest) Gem debate tactic "Wait, I didn't actually mean what I wrote! You people are totally misunderstanding my plainly written, impossible to misunderstand statements!"

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 5 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

The problem is, CI, we define evidence and proof differently.

Translation: CI is using those words in the standard way. Your definitions of evidence and proof are "whatever I need them to be to support my existing, unchanging, opinion".

This was the exchange that led me to say the debate was turning against you.

[Terez]

Disclaimer stickers for Mississippi textbooks:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01...ississippis.php

And legislation for Oklahoma:

http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/01/antievolut...-moves-by-rail=