Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by king_alvarez, Apr 24, 2008.
Do you often criticize what you will not fairly investigate first hand?
By the way, even though we disagree on many things, I appreciate that you generally take the time to provide a sincere answer to sincere questions instead of relying on pithy quips and one-liners. I have to wonder, though. I assume you're so used to typing out those sequences that you could do it in your sleep, but how long does it take to put together an answer like that. (The correct and sarcastic answer is: "I have it in auto-text because of how often I have to recycle it.")
Seriously, though, I have another question along these lines. I remember in a previous thread, a comment was made that about the inability of all dog breed to have come from an original pair. ["Do you really think that two dogs can carry all the genes that bulldogs, great danes, chihuahuas, mastifs, whippets, St Bernards, etc. have?"] However, not long ago I saw a program on PBS that put forward that very idea. The program showed studies on how wild canines could, within just a few generations, become completely different from the original, depending on the environment. I got the feeling that the point was made that the many different resulting breeds were inherent in the original wild dog, and task-specific characteristics were honed in through successive generations through artificial selection. What also was interesting was that along with temperament and talent changes came unanticipated size, shape, and color changes, not to mention more.
I could keep describing it as I found it very interesting, but my basic question is how does this relate to the lizards, and how does this affect the statement I referenced above about the inability of some animals to have inherent to them multitudes of different available characteristics.
Am I to understand that you investigated, firsthand, the claims put forth by Expelled?
I've seen the movie. If that is what you meant.
I can't comment on Expelled yet since I've not had a chance to go see it, but am doing so next week some point....
But on the second, can you expand with what treatment you're referring to?
Though, I can also give a listing of examples where theories that were considered to be secure in their accuracy have been discarded due to proof against them, if you'd like.
Well, we both know, that majority consensus is not always the arbiter of truth or "fact".
We both already know that "facts don't speak for themselves."
That was my point.
Edit: Belated spellcheck.
No, it isn't. Did you look into the claims the movie made, independently of watching the movie? Did you check school records, newspaper clippings, employment histories, anything other than take Expelled's message at face value?
Actually, I have, and have been so interested for a number of years.
So in a very literal sense, you are admitting that you give subjective evidence more weight than objective evidence.
All evidence is objective in the sense that it physically exists. There are dinosaur bones in the ground. There are passages in the Bible which purport to be historical or prophetical statements. Neither can be reasonably disputed. They are the hard facts.
The evidence only becomes subjective when you move forward based on it, but even then, it's not the evidence itself that's subjective.
Ah. In that case, perhaps you can clarify where, if at all, [link=http://www.expelledexposed.com/]Expelled Exposed[/link] fails to address it.
Just to clarify: it's a hard fact that passages in the Bible purport to be historical/prophetical, right? Not a hard fact that they are historical/prophetical.
You're confusing claims with evidence. "Dinosaurs existed" is a claim, "There are dinosaur bones in the ground" is evidence in support of the claim.
"These Bible passages are historical/prophetical" is a claim. Not the evidence in support of a claim.
No, evidence is subjective when it is anecdotal, personal, unobservable or unrepeatable.
Fails to address what?
Well, the film (as I understand it) claims they were unjustly and immediately blackballed out of the scientific community. The website says otherwise. One of them must be out of sync with the facts. If it is the film, then I don't need to watch it to dismiss it. If it is the site, I'd be interested in sources besides the film that back up the film's claims.
Sounds like you're just simply not truly interested in doing anything but trying to discredit that which you disagree with while simultaneously not having actually viewed it on it's own merits to know exactly what you are trying to disagree with.
While, in the meantime, it seems you want to have a discussion where you would have us believe your opinions are purely reasoned and objective.
It would seem you're not actually listening to what I'm saying.
You have a prime opportunity to discredit that which I agree with (the [link=http://www.expelledexposed.com]Expelled Exposed[/link] website) by simply providing evidence beyond the film, which is admittedly biased and therefore not objective, that it (the website) contains false information. Documents that show that the firings and such happened precisely as Expelled purports. If you were to do so, I would find an interest in watching Expelled.
Alternatively, you could point out where the site puts words in the film's mouth, therefore invalidating the site's counter-argument. Then I would find an interest in seeing what Expelled really has to say.
But if you do not feel that the site contains false information, then its discrediting of Expelled is valid and there's no purpose in watching it.
So I'm perfectly objective and willing to consider evidence counter to what I agree with. All you need to do is present it.
Perhaps by saying "internal" evidence, you are understanding that as "personal" evidence. That is not the case. By internal I mean within the pages, that is, does the Bible stand up to an examination of the consistency of its text, its claims, and its prophecies. Then the examination is expanded to look at its consistency to outside sources.
So, regarding the definition of evidence, I think we are agreed. (And I'll give you the addition of anecdotal and personal evidence being subjective, though one could make the argument that there are often objective and verifiable facts to the stories, but the persons interpretation of them becomes subjective.)
Ah, I see. I have found the Bible to fail on both accounts. But that is outside the topic of this thread.
That is, I think, precisely the difference between facts and evidence. So on this, indeed, we are agreed.
Your link does not appear to work, so having no idea exactly to what you are specifically referencing,...I am not going to a web-site to do whatever it is you're requesting.
Further, if you disagree with the individuals interviewed it is your responsibility to prove your points, and not mine to prove your own unsubstantiated points are without credibility. I would suggest that in a formal debate setting, which we are not in,...the burden of proof falls upon the one making the assertion.
But again, you don't actually know what the content of Expelled is or is not, having chosen not to waste your money, as you stated.
Again, critiquing something without actually having read or seen it is certainly going into territory in which, proverbially speaking, 'angels dare not tread.'
Quite so. You asserted that Expelled is "worth seeing" and truthful. The burden of proof is, therefore, on you.
At any rate, as you said yourself, it's not so much about the science of evolution in particular but the practices of science in general, which is a broader topic than the topic of this thread, which is specifically about evolution and which, oddly, we haven't discussed much.
There's no "burden on me," you're being silly.
So, evidence of evolution.
As I posted in another thread, there was a recent fossil discovered of a [link=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm]snake with legs[/link].
A frequent anti-evolution argument is that there is a lack of transitionary fossils. Although the argument was false to begin with, here's a new example of a transitionary fossil.
Actually, the loss of legs would be loss of information and not a gain.
Your links don't appear to be working...or, is it something to do with my connection?
Evolution, at least based on the natural selection mechanism, does not mandate a gain of "information".
EDIT: It must be your connection, I can access the links without trouble.
Depends on what you're trying to present.
Everyone agrees in evolution to the extent of organisms change. That's not where the debate is at, however, but that is where it is critiqued for plasticity beyond falsification.
"EDIT: It must be your connection, I can access the links without trouble."
Thanks. Let me see if I can figure out what's up with this...