Stephen Baldwin is a (badly informed) creationist!

[Ashles]

At the moment in the UK we have the latest series of Celebrity Big Brother currently on our screens and one of the guests is the delightfully arrogant Stephen Baldwin.

Apparently he is a born again Christian and a preacher, but tonight we found out he is also a creationist.

He was asked about evolution and incredibly he trotted out an argument that even other Creationists try not to use any more.

Stephen Baldwin: "If humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?"

Is there any way to persuade RS Lancaster to start StopStephenBaldwin.com?

Or get him on TV with someone who knows the very first thing about evolution?

[Sledge]

Hasn't the movie industry pretty much already stopped Stephen Baldwin?

[GreenLines]

If Puggles evolved from Pugs and Poodles, why are there still Pugs and Poodles?

[TheDoLittle]

It's pretty sad the only cool Baldwin is Adam...

[Kuko 4000]

Stephen Baldwin: "If humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?"



This will be a great opportunity to explain evolution to people. Just waiting for it to hit YouTube...

[Questioninggeller]

Stephen Baldwin: "If humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?"



Here's my response:

"If the Earth is flat, why don't people fall off it?"

[fuelair]

At the moment in the UK we have the latest series of Celebrity Big Brother currently on our screens and one of the guests is the delightfully arrogant Stephen Baldwin.

Apparently he is a born again Christian and a preacher, but tonight we found out he is also a creationist.

He was asked about evolution and incredibly he trotted out an argument that even other Creationists try not to use any more.

Stephen Baldwin: "If humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?"

Is there any way to persuade RS Lancaster to start StopStephenBaldwin.com?

Or get him on TV with someone who knows the very first thing about evolution?Do you, or anyone here, know a well informed creationist?:confused:

[dropzone]

It's pretty sad the only cool Baldwin is Adam...Not really. He's not related and the only Baldwin Brother he respects is Stephen.

Note that I used to converse with him on another board about vaccines and the most memorable exchange began, "Mike, you couldn't be more wrong." Not a good start for either a friendship or a discussion of the scientific method.


ETA: Corrected quote.

[monoman]

Has he mentioned "The Usual Suspects" yet? He's very modest and has a huge body of fantastic work, so I wouldn't have thought he'd have felt the need to....

[Ausmerican]

Do you, or anyone here, know a well informed creationist?:confused:

Damn, beat me to it.

[dropzone]

...He's very modest..Stephen or Adam? "very modest" describes neither.

[arthwollipot]

Do you, or anyone here, know a well informed creationist?:confused:Actually, I do. It's just that the subjects about which they are well-informed are... um, limited.

[jiggeryqua]

As an occasional student of Big Brother, it's interesting to note that contestants are not normally permitted any reading material (boredom generates better television). Mr Baldwin has been allowed to take in a bible, and has been giving scripture lessons to Stephanie Beecham, Vinnie Jones, some minor pop stars, a 'page 3 girl' (topless model) and the waitress who used to go out with Ronnie Wood.

I'm unsure whether Stephen Baldwin insisted on a right to take the bible in (BBC Radio 4's 'Desert Island Discs' allows guests to take one book to their fictional island, along with a bible that is taken for granted, by the by), or whether the producers were aware that it would be the one book guaranteed not to be read quietly to oneself and produce dull television.

[Mojo]

Stephen Baldwin: "If humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?"


If Stephen is descended from his parents, why are there Alec, Daniel and William?

[Mojo]

BBC Radio 4's 'Desert Island Discs' allows guests to take one book to their fictional island, along with a bible that is taken for granted, by the by...


I think they get the complete works of Shakespeare as well.

[Jack by the hedge]

(BBC Radio 4's 'Desert Island Discs' allows guests to take one book to their fictional island, along with a bible that is taken for granted, by the by)

To be fair to Desert Island Discs, they don't give all guests the bible & Shakespeare because they think everyone ought to have them, it's just a contrivance to get guests to choose something different.

Meanwhile, back at the OP, if white Americans are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? It's a mystery, sure enough.

[jiggeryqua]

I think they get the complete works of Shakespeare as well.

I thought that might be so when I posted, but decided it was too much of sidetrack either way. It's been a while since I listened to the show, but I just checked the Radio 4 site and you're right, the Bible (or similar religious text) and the complete works of Shakespeare are assumed either to grow on some kind of palm tree or to be particularly resilient in the event of a sinking ship...it may even be that the Bard's complete works would make a serviceable life raft.

[JonnyHendo]

To be fair, if you did as much coke as Stephen and you'll find god in there somewhere - along with father christmas and the tooth fairies!

[jiggeryqua]

Meanwhile, back at the OP, if white Americans are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? It's a mystery, sure enough.

Patience, the Americans will get round to getting rid of them eventually.

[Mojo]

Patience, the Americans will get round to getting rid of them eventually.


Boom goes London, and boom Paree... (http://www.randynewman.com/tocdiscography/disc_sail_away/tocdiscography/disc_sail_away/lyricssailaway#politicalscience)

[Ashles]

Do you, or anyone here, know a well informed creationist?:confused:

I meant he doesn't even seem to be aware of what Creationists themselves consider their 'better' arguments (idiotic though of course they all are).

As far as I remember even Answers in Genesis advises creationists to stay away from the 'If humans came from apes why are there still apes' stupidity because of how easily it can be demolished and how stupid it makes you lok.

If Answers in Genesis think you have a bad argument for Creationism...

[Third Eye Open]

You are on reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/an37h/stephen_baldwin_if_evolution_is_true_why_are/) ;)

[Giggywig]

Why would anybody care what Stephen Baldwin thinks about, well pretty much anything?

[Jack by the hedge]

Why would anybody care what Stephen Baldwin thinks about, well pretty much anything?
It's a good point, but the audience have at least heard of Baldwin. How many series of Big Brother have dragged by, worldwide, with millions tuning in to hear the ramblings of complete unknowns? Why they did that is even more mysterious.

[headscratcher4]

Isn't any sentence which includes the words "Stephen Baldwin" and "thinks" pretty much (and automatically) something of a non sequitor?

[AvalonXQ]

Do you, or anyone here, know a well informed creationist?

*raises hand*

[hmmm...]

Has he mentioned "The Usual Suspects" yet? He's very modest and has a huge body of fantastic work, so I wouldn't have thought he'd have felt the need to....


Yes he has - within the first few moments of entering the house. However the person he mentioned it to (Nicola), although she claimed to have seen it, clearly still didn't have a clue who he was - most amusing.

BTW after getting over the shock of seeing his "preacher Steve" performances, I think he should stay in the house for as long as possible - if anyone can give organised religion a bad name in the UK - he's the man. Stephen to win !!!!111!

[Big Les]

Has he mentioned "The Usual Suspects" yet? He's very modest and has a huge body of fantastic work, so I wouldn't have thought he'd have felt the need to....

Very, very funny. :D

[GanipGnop]

Stephen's bad with money too he just filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in New York, on July 21, 2009. He was a strong supporter of the McCain/Palin presidential ticket. He's so sad that he tattooed HM on his shoulder to get a cameo on the children's program Hannah Montana.

Baldwin co-founded the "Breakthrough Ministries" http://www.assalttour.com/ they use extreme sports to promote GAUD with the kids. It seems their last tour was in 2008 with no tour dates in 2009 I'd say they are on the way to being defunct. In 2008 Baldwin formed a for-profit organization called, "Antioch Ministry", which exists, "to facilitate the gifts and calling of Stephen Baldwin" I guess he saw the bankruptcy coming so he started a for profit god scam.

ETA: "If humans are descended from Gaud, why is there still Gaud?"

[fuelair]

Stephen's bad with money too he just filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in New York, on July 21, 2009. He was a strong supporter of the McCain/Palin presidential ticket. He's so sad that he tattooed HM on his shoulder to get a cameo on the children's program Hannah Montana. (- para removed since not addressed in my response below, :) )

ETA: "If humans are descended from Gaud, why is there still Gaud?"


I believe the HM show actually may be meant to pull in the pedo audience,,,,,,,,,:D:D

[kuroyume0161]

Isn't any sentence which includes the words "Stephen Baldwin" and "thinks" pretty much (and automatically) something of a non sequitor?

That says it all.

Maybe he and Kirk Cameron can get together and promote creationism with the 'why apes exist and bananas fit into them so perfectly' tour.

[GT/CS]

That says it all.

Maybe he and Kirk Cameron can get together and promote creationism with the 'why apes exist and bananas fit into them so perfectly' tour.

Baldwin and Cameron together. I know there are a dozen jokes there but I just can't quite get one to come together. :boxedin:

[kuroyume0161]

I believe the HM show actually may be meant to pull in the pedo audience,,,,,,,,,:D:D

That was uncalled for. More, please. :D

[GanipGnop]

Baldwin and Cameron together. I know there are a dozen jokes there but I just can't quite get one to come together. :boxedin:

If they got married their celebutard name could be "Baldron" or "Camwin" (sounds like Lord of the Rings characters). That would be reality show gold "Love Thy Big Brother" w/ Stephen & Kirk! On tonight show Kirk & Stephen will debate the name of Jesus' favorite dinosaur and visit with Shirley Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church so she can publicly vilify them. Tune in won't you?

[GanipGnop]

I believe the HM show actually may be meant to pull in the pedo audience,,,,,,,,,:D:D

I'm not saying anything but the term "pedophile minister" made my google explode. :p

[learner]

*raises hand*


Ok then...who?

[Rrose Selavy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSmTPThWD_c

[GanipGnop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSmTPThWD_c

"Still, they're cousins,
non-Identical cousins and you'll find,
They laugh alike, they walk upright,
At times they even grunt alike —
You can lose your mind,
When cousins are two of a kind"!!!!

[arthwollipot]

*raises hand*Ok then...who?Interesting that I didn't get this question when I said:
Actually, I do. It's just that the subjects about which they are well-informed are... um, limited.In case you're interested, I have encountered several posters on this forum and others, who although being creationists, were well-educated in certain subjects. For example, I usually don't succeed when I try to argue biblical philosophy or ecclesiastical history with a well-educated creationist.

[AvalonXQ]

arth brings up a good point. "Well-educated" with respect to what? I know creationists with university degrees in biology, chemistry, and physics; creationists with sophisticated understanding of politics, literature, and theology; creationists with a better understanding of the ToE than your average atheist pundit. But he's right to point out that until we know your standard, it's not really possible to make a claim that meets it.

[arthwollipot]

Well, strictly speaking, the OP refers to Stephen as badly informed, which could very well refer simply to a particular subject, and not his general level of education.

In my experience, most if not all creationists are badly-informed on the subject of evolution. Many of them are quite well-informed in other subjects.

[dafydd]

The standard is not believing in fairy stories about the origin of the universe and the Earth,whether Christian,Hopi,Hindu et al.

[AvalonXQ]

In my experience, most if not all creationists are badly-informed on the subject of evolution.

I know a number of creationists that are better-informed on the subject of evolution than the average person who accepts it (I count myself in that category). It would be reasonable, then, to conclude that they meet the appropriate standard? Or not?

[metzomagic]

I know a number of creationists that are better-informed on the subject of evolution than the average person who accepts it (I count myself in that category).

Oh really? So that must mean that you don't accept abiogenisis (your 'creator' kicked things off instead) but that you do accept the theory of evolution by natural selection? Because if you are as well informed about the theory of evolution as you claim to be, then you cannot but accept it.

I was going to say more, but I'll stop for the moment and see how you respond before taking things further.

[dafydd]

I know a number of creationists that are better-informed on the subject of evolution than the average person who accepts it (I count myself in that category). It would be reasonable, then, to conclude that they meet the appropriate standard? Or not?

If creationists were well informed about evolution they would not propound the nonsense of creationism.

[AvalonXQ]

Because if you are as well informed about the theory of evolution as you claim to be, then you cannot but accept it.

You're making the claim that anyone who is more well-informed about the Theory of Evolution than the average person who accepts the theory, must accept it?
I'd love to see you support that claim. Please start by providing the amount of information the average person who accepts the ToE has, then argue that the ToE is logically necessary from that amount of information alone.

[metzomagic]

Please start by providing the amount of information the average person who accepts the ToE has, then argue that the ToE is logically necessary from that amount of information alone.

OK. I would assume that the average person who accepts the theory of evolution has at least made the effort to read a popular science book or two on the subject. I personally have read The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins) and Why Evolution is true (Coyne). In addition I have, of course, read a lot of material on the web.

You will probably contend that the average person who accepts the theory of evolution has limited their reading to random articles on the web?

[AvalonXQ]

OK. I would assume that the average person who accepts the theory of evolution has at least made the effort to read a popular science book or two on the subject. I personally have read The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins) and Why Evolution is true (Coyne).

Honestly, the average adherent to the ToE has probably not read this much. However, I'm happy to start here.
Do you believe that anyone who has read these two books must, by logical necessity, agree with common ancestry through natural selection?

[metzomagic]

Do you believe that anyone who has read these two books must, by logical necessity, agree with common ancestry through natural selection?

An emphatic YES to that! Otherwise I must conclude that the two scientists who wrote those books are *pathological liars*. Do you think that Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne are pathological liars? Do you think they are just making all that sh#t up?

[AvalonXQ]

An emphatic YES to that! Otherwise I must conclude that the two scientists who wrote those books are *pathological liars*. Do you think that Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne are pathological liars? Do you think they are just making all that sh#t up?

Ah, so you base your belief in this theory on appeals to authority -- it must be true, or else these books would be wrong! Perish the thought!
The question was not whether "Richard Dawkins is an honest man," but whether the facts and argument in these two books are sufficient, by themselves, to require by logical necessity that the ToE is accurate.

[Madouc]

Hmm...

You're making the claim that anyone who is more well-informed about Germ Theory than the average person who accepts the theory, must accept it?

Yes.

[AvalonXQ]

The argument appears to be, "anyone who doesn't accept all generally-accepted scientific theories must, by definition, be ill-informed about them."
You're welcome to believe that, but it's patently untrue.

[metzomagic]

Ah, so you base your belief in this theory on appeals to authority -- it must be true, or else these books would be wrong! Perish the thought!
The question was not whether "Richard Dawkins is an honest man," but whether the facts and argument in these two books are sufficient, by themselves, to require by logical necessity that the ToE is accurate.

Nope. I don't base my belief in appeals to authority. Dawkins and Coyne both espouse the scientific method, which relies on *empirical evidence* to arrive at its conclusions. What Dawkins and Coyne are doing is drawing on the combined wisdom of about a *million peer-reviewed papers* on evolution, and distilling the essence of this knowledge into a format that a layperson can digest and appreciate.

By contrast, creationists have not, in the 150 years since Darwin first proposed the ToE, managed to produce *even one single peer-reviewed paper* (in a *scientific* journal like Science or Nature) that refutes any aspect of ToE.

[tsig]

You're making the claim that anyone who is more well-informed about the Theory of Evolution than the average person who accepts the theory, must accept it?
I'd love to see you support that claim. Please start by providing the amount of information the average person who accepts the ToE has, then argue that the ToE is logically necessary from that amount of information alone.

You first. I want to see these well informed creationists because all the ones I have ever encountered had a completely false idea of evolution.

You can just reproduce their arguments here if you want.

[dafydd]

The argument appears to be, "anyone who doesn't accept all generally-accepted scientific theories must, by definition, be ill-informed about them."
You're welcome to believe that, but it's patently untrue.

Why must I accept that the creation story in Genesis is true? That's only one book.

[tsig]

The argument appears to be, "anyone who doesn't accept all generally-accepted scientific theories must, by definition, be ill-informed about them."
You're welcome to believe that, but it's patently untrue.

Every creationist that I have encountered had a complete straw man idea of evolution.

If you know of any different ones then name names, present their arguments or we might conclude that you were bluffing with a busted flush.

[metzomagic]

Get ready to play Creationist Bingo (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/09/bingo-creationi.html) guys.

[Sideroxylon]

Every creationist that I have encountered had a complete straw man idea of evolution.

If you know of any different ones then name names, present their arguments or we might conclude that you were bluffing with a busted flush.

Michael Behe has made the best arguments against evolution by a creationist. Flawed but not based on a complete strawman.

[dafydd]

Michael Behe has made the best arguments against evolution by a creationist. Flawed but not based on a complete strawman.

The keyword here is flawed.

[Sideroxylon]

The keyword here is flawed.

But far and away not badly informed to the degree of the average creationist proponent.

[kuroyume0161]

Ah, so you base your belief in this theory on appeals to authority -- it must be true, or else these books would be wrong! Perish the thought!
The question was not whether "Richard Dawkins is an honest man," but whether the facts and argument in these two books are sufficient, by themselves, to require by logical necessity that the ToE is accurate.

Appeal to an authority in the field is not a fallacy. If I were to appeal to Newton's discussion on the Calculus or his Theory of Gravitation then I would be using an expert authority on the topic and rightly so.

On the other hand, when you have a biochemist challenging evolutionary biology, that is appeal to authority (cough - Behe - cough).

ETA: I'm not your average person who 'believes' in evolution. I've read several dozen books and websites (like TalkOrigins for reference and prerequisite). And, as you can surmise, I've read the creationist/ID literature and books. Anyone who has even a modicum of exposure to the facts and theory cannot deny but through blind refusal to accept the evidence.

[tsig]

Michael Behe has made the best arguments against evolution by a creationist. Flawed but not based on a complete strawman.

Well he seems to think that evolution happened pretty much as science says it did except that some intelligent designer stuck a tail on a bacteria and fiddled with the clotting sequence of blood.

Is that also your position?

[AvalonXQ]

Appeal to an authority in the field is not a fallacy. If I were to appeal to Newton's discussion on the Calculus or his Theory of Gravitation then I would be using an expert authority on the topic and rightly so.

This is where I genuinely disagree, and this is the issue that I've brought up in the past. I say appeal to authority is not evidence, regardless of how many people (or which people) accept the individual as an authority.
Appeal to authority is not a fallacy because the authority is flawed; appeal to authority is a fallacy because authority is not evidence.

[metzomagic]

This is where I genuinely disagree, and this is the issue that I've brought up in the past. I say appeal to authority is not evidence, regardless of how many people (or which people) accept the individual as an authority.
Appeal to authority is not a fallacy because the authority is flawed; appeal to authority is a fallacy because authority is not evidence.

OK. What about the ca. million peer-reviewed papers that back up evolution with hard evidence? As I said earlier, a popular science book presents a synopsis of that evidence, with a measure of the author's editorial thrown in to make it unique/interesting. So... have you managed to at least read any books on evolution all the way through? If not, then how did you become so well 'informed' on the ToE? Hmm?

ETA: duly noted that you're "La la la la la, not listening!" to kuroyume's excellent point about an authority *in the field* not being an appeal to authority. Because that authority is firmly backed up *by science*. So since we've run into a brick wall with that, I have to try a different approach :-\

[Ashles]

This is where I genuinely disagree, and this is the issue that I've brought up in the past. I say appeal to authority is not evidence, regardless of how many people (or which people) accept the individual as an authority.
Appeal to authority is not a fallacy because the authority is flawed; appeal to authority is a fallacy because authority is not evidence.

But surely the implication is that the authority would have the evidence.

If I cite a respected Physics professor as a source for my argument then that is, while not evidence in itself, fairly compelling as an argument as presumably if pressed the professor's research is available.

[metzomagic]

Actually, let's cut to the chase:

You believe in the science that is related to things like gravity, relativity (maybe not, if you're a YEC, but that's another story), modern medicine, and that computer you're typing on. But when it comes to the ToE, you reject the science because it conflicts with your religious beliefs, right?

In that case, no need to continue this conversation.

[Ocelot]

This is where I genuinely disagree, and this is the issue that I've brought up in the past. I say appeal to authority is not evidence, regardless of how many people (or which people) accept the individual as an authority.
Appeal to authority is not a fallacy because the authority is flawed; appeal to authority is a fallacy because authority is not evidence.

It is evidence, it's just not proof. Appeal to irrelevent authority is not very good evidence, expert testimony is much better evidence.

[dafydd]

But far and away not badly informed to the degree of the average creationist proponent.

But he is still a creationist?

[dafydd]

This is where I genuinely disagree, and this is the issue that I've brought up in the past. I say appeal to authority is not evidence, regardless of how many people (or which people) accept the individual as an authority.
Appeal to authority is not a fallacy because the authority is flawed; appeal to authority is a fallacy because authority is not evidence.

Appealing to the bible is evidence?

[Ocelot]

Appealing to the bible is evidence? Not very good evidence.

[Ashles]

Appealing to the bible is evidence?


Appealing to the bible is evidence (in the same way that asking Uri Geller how he bends spoons is studying Physics).

[AvalonXQ]

OK. What about the ca. million peer-reviewed papers that back up evolution with hard evidence? As I said earlier, a popular science book presents a synopsis of that evidence, with a measure of the author's editorial thrown in to make it unique/interesting. So... have you managed to at least read any books on evolution all the way through? If not, then how did you become so well 'informed' on the ToE? Hmm?

ETA: duly noted that you're "La la la la la, not listening!" to kuroyume's excellent point about an authority *in the field* not being an appeal to authority. Because that authority is firmly backed up *by science*. So since we've run into a brick wall with that, I have to try a different approach :-\

I've made it through the popular books and articles in the subject, but still haven't managed to tackle the peer-reviewed literature. I plan to, assuming I have the education to understand it (which may change my mind; we'll see).
And I haven't ignored that point; I explained that I simply disagree.
The issue here is whether it's information (a lack thereof) that makes creationists creationists. I claim it's not; in fact, I claim that many creationists almost certainly understand evolution better than your average (uncritical, believes it because "science" says so) evolutionist.
Either way, Baldwin is definitely not an example of an informed creationist. On this we all seem to agree.

[metzomagic]

I've made it through the popular books and articles in the subject, but still haven't managed to tackle the peer-reviewed literature. I plan to, assuming I have the education to understand it (which may change my mind; we'll see).
And I haven't ignored that point; I explained that I simply disagree.
The issue here is whether it's information (a lack thereof) that makes creationists creationists. I claim it's not; in fact, I claim that many creationists almost certainly understand evolution better than your average (uncritical, believes it because "science" says so) evolutionist.
Either way, Baldwin is definitely not an example of an informed creationist. On this we all seem to agree.

So... explain to me how you can 'understand' evolution, but not accept it? I think we're back to making a straw man out of evolution again :-\

And... you haven't answered my question about whether the reason for rejecting the evidence for evolution is not on scientific/rational grounds, but rather that it conflicts with your religious beliefs?

ETA: only 2 more posts and I can get me an *avatar*! (and mine will be from a video game too, Avalon ;-)

[AvalonXQ]

So... explain to me how you can 'understand' evolution, but not accept it? I think we're back to making a straw man out of evolution again :-\

It might be. The only way to know whether I actually understand the theory of common ancestry, or whether I understand a straw man of the theory, is to talk to me about it.

[Ashles]

The issue here is whether it's information (a lack thereof) that makes creationists creationists. I claim it's not; in fact, I claim that many creationists almost certainly understand evolution better than your average (uncritical, believes it because "science" says so) evolutionist.

I think I know where you are coming from (but don't necessarily agree).

A creationist arguing against evolution will often refer to terms (speciation, alleles, nucleotides, mutation, genetic drift, genomes etc.) that your average layperson will be unfamiliar with (or at least niot fully understand scientifically).
Now often they utterly misuse the term and get things wrong, but in many instances it is clear that they do understand what the terms mean therefore are clearly more knowledgeable about the science of genetics than your average layperson.

However (and this is the real issue) they then consciously and deliberately choose to misrepresent what those scientific fields actually demonstrate.
In fact (which is worse) they actually need a fairly good knowledge of the subjects in the first place in order to misrepresent the information as they do.
It's a pretty unpleasant use of a fair amount of education solely in order to push forward a religious belief and encourage ignorance in others (which is unforgivable).

[AvalonXQ]

I think I know where you are coming from (but don't necessarily agree).

A creationist arguing against evolution will often refer to terms (speciation, alleles, nucleotides, mutation, genetic drift, genomes etc.) that your average layperson will be unfamiliar with (or at least niot fully understand scientifically).
Now often they utterly misuse the term and get things wrong, but in many instances it is clear that they do understand what the terms mean therefore are clearly more knowledgeable about the science of genetics than your average layperson.

However (and this is the real issue) they then consciously and deliberately choose to misrepresent what those scientific fields actually demonstrate.
In fact (which is worse) they actually need a fairly good knowledge of the subjects in the first place in order to misrepresent the information as they do.
It's a pretty unpleasant use of a fair amount of education solely in order to push forward a religious belief and encourage ignorance in others (which is unforgivable).

Interesting. So now you're claiming that creationists aren't ignorant; they're just willful liars.
I assure you that I am neither.

[metzomagic]

It might be. The only way to know whether I actually understand the theory of common ancestry, or whether I understand a straw man of the theory, is to talk to me about it.

So when you look at, for instance, a series of illustrations showing how tetrapods slowly lost their legs over a couple of million years and evolved into whales, does that not just strike you as a magnificent demonstration of the evolutionary process? Or you deny that these transitional fossils even exist, as most creationists do?

[Ashles]

Interesting. So now you're claiming that creationists aren't ignorant; they're just willful liars.

Those who are scientifically educated - yes. (Or indulging in deeply held delusion)

I assure you that I am neither.

Then I recommend further scientific research.

[AvalonXQ]

So when you look at, for instance, a series of illustrations showing how tetrapods slowly lost their legs over a couple of million years and evolved into whales, does that not just strike you as a magnificent demonstration of the evolutionary process?

I think it's an amazing artist's representation of how scientists imagine the evolution should have looked, and I ask for the actual fossil evidence -- which is quite lacking.

[AvalonXQ]

Those who are scientifically educated - yes.

Any easy way to villify your opponents and avoid serious discussion.

[Ashles]

Any easy way to villify your opponents and avoid serious discussion.

Are you scientifically educated on the subject of evolution then?

ETA: Are there specific areas of the theory of evolution you feel you have found scientific error with?

[paximperium]

I think it's an amazing artist's representation of how scientists imagine the evolution should have looked, and I ask for the actual fossil evidence -- which is quite lacking.
You asked? Which universities have you asked for access to the fossils in question? Or at least link to an academic website that you "asked" for this information.

[AvalonXQ]

Are you scientifically educated on the subject of evolution then?

No. I hold no degree in biology, medicine, or any discipline where evolution is discussed in depth as part of the curriculum.

[Ashles]

Avalon - have you checked out:

Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/)

If there is a question or scientific doubt you have that is not answered there please let us know.

[AvalonXQ]

Avalon - have you checked out:

Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/)

If there is a question or scientific doubt you have that is not answered there please let us know.

Talk Origins is an amazing site. I'm glad it exists and I appreciate the opportunity to take advantage of its explanations.

[Ashles]

No. I hold no degree in biology, medicine, or any discipline where evolution is discussed in depth as part of the curriculum.

Okay well that's fair enough and I always respect someone who admits a lack of knowledge in any area and a desire to learn more.
We should all be continuously learning all the time and should be able to get information from various sources and then compare them with critical thinking to discover which sources seem most robust and evidenced.

I heartily recommend the site I mentioned above - Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/)- which really does provide a wonderful overview of the scientific evidence for evolution, but also goes into incredible detail for those who want it, and adresses every criticism of evolution that I have ever heard raised.

ETA - This was posted before I read your previous post.
So having read Talk Origins do you still have concerns about the likelihood of the theory of evolution as being factual? If so may I ask what these specifically are?

[desertyeti]

I think it's an amazing artist's representation of how scientists imagine the evolution should have looked, and I ask for the actual fossil evidence -- which is quite lacking.

Common appeal to "missing links" here.
In fact, there are so very many links in the evolutionary chain, that it is actually difficult to draw distinct lines between taxa (species, genera, families, orders, etc.).
And before anyone gets all upity...yes, I am educated in paleontology and evolution, and have done many years of research in the fields.
Those claiming gaps exist in the evolutionary record are quite simply, talking out their arse with nothing to back it up.
Simply put, Creationists ignore data.
End of story.

[AvalonXQ]

Common appeal to "missing links" here.
In fact, there are so very many links in the evolutionary chain, that it is actually difficult to draw distinct lines between taxa (species, genera, families, orders, etc.).
And before anyone gets all upity...yes, I am educated in paleontology and evolution, and have done many years of research in the fields.
Those claiming gaps exist in the evolutionary record are quite simply, talking out their arse with nothing to back it up.
Simply put, Creationists ignore data.
End of story.

Am I reading you right in saying that there are no gaps in the fossil record?

[Ashles]

Am I reading you right in saying that there are no gaps in the fossil record?

I thought you had read Talk Origins?

The answer to that is right there on the most commonly asked questions page (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html).

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)
Fossil Hominids FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/)
Punctuated Equilibria FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html)
Missing Links still Missing? (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html)

Do you have a specific question about fossil 'gaps' not adressed there?

[desertyeti]

Am I reading you right in saying that there are no gaps in the fossil record?

No.
As I said clearly above, there are very many links, so many in fact, that it is very difficult to find any significant "gaps."
Do you have a "gap" in mind?
Or are you simply spouting off?
Can you define a "gap"?
What degree of morphological variation do you consider acceptable within a single taxon? And what about between two separate taxa?
Until you define that, you cannot define a "gap."

[Ashles]

No.
As I said clearly above, there are very many links, so many in fact, that it is very difficult to find any significant "gaps."
Do you have a "gap" in mind?
Or are you simply spouting off?
Can you define a "gap"?
What degree of morphological variation do you consider acceptable within a single taxon? And what about between two separate taxa?
Until you define that, you cannot define a "gap."

Surely it's a bit like saying you can't be sure that you are related to your great-great-great-great grandfather unless you can lay your hands on every one of your descendents skeletons back to him.

In my opinion it's frankly amazing and painstaking scientific work we have as many fossils as we do.

[AvalonXQ]

I thought you had read Talk Origins?

The answer to that is right there on the most commonly asked questions page (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html).

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)
Fossil Hominids FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/)
Punctuated Equilibria FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html)
Missing Links still Missing? (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html)

Do you have a specific question about fossil 'gaps' not adressed there?

Talk Origins does a very good job of addressing why there are gaps, very clearly acknowledgining that there are. Which is why I was confused by desertyeti's assertion that "Those claiming gaps exist in the evolutionary record are quite simply, talking out their arse with nothing to back it up." This would seem to include the writers of Talk Origins at least.

[desertyeti]

Surely it's a bit like saying you can't be sure that you are related to your great-great-great-great grandfather unless you can lay your hands on every one of your descendents skeletons back to him.

In my opinion it's frankly amazing and painstaking scientific work we have as many fossils as we do.

Absolutely!
And the advances in molecular data sets are truly astonishing. When fossils corroborate and in fact, predict relationships later confirmed by DNA, it's a great thing for evolutionary biologists and paleontology as a field.

[Ashles]

Talk Origins does a very good job of addressing why there are gaps, very clearly acknowledgining that there are. Which is why I was confused by desertyeti's assertion that "Those claiming gaps exist in the evolutionary record are quite simply, talking out their arse with nothing to back it up." This would seem to include the writers of Talk Origins at least.

Well I took his post to mean that "Those claiming issues with the theory of evolution simply because there are gaps in the fossil record are talking out of their arse with nothing to back it up" as obviously there will never be a complete fossil record.

[desertyeti]

Talk Origins does a very good job of addressing why there are gaps, very clearly acknowledgining that there are. Which is why I was confused by desertyeti's assertion that "Those claiming gaps exist in the evolutionary record are quite simply, talking out their arse with nothing to back it up." This would seem to include the writers of Talk Origins at least.

You still haven't defined a "gap."
And yes, I maintain that the "gaps" most often discussed (between classes: eg., reptile to bird, fish to amphibian, reptile to mammal) simply do not exist. Not only because they involve paraphyletic taxa and are therefore biologically meaningless, but because there are taxa that clearly and abundantly show mosaics.

And again, until the taxonomic unit being discussed is determined, a "gap" cannot be defined.
Now prove me wrong...

[metzomagic]

Talk Origins does a very good job of addressing why there are gaps, very clearly acknowledgining that there are. Which is why I was confused by desertyeti's assertion that "Those claiming gaps exist in the evolutionary record are quite simply, talking out their arse with nothing to back it up." This would seem to include the writers of Talk Origins at least.

Now you've resorted to the standard (and boring, and mind-numbingly frustrating) creationist debating tactic of moving the goal posts. OF COURSE there are gaps. There HAVE TO BE GAPS! Do you know how difficult it is for a creature to become fossilised? Very bloody difficult. And then we have to find them to boot.

So even if we find 100,000 more fossils of unique species in the next 20 years, the creationists STILL won't be satisfied because there will STILL BE GAPS!

As it is, the drawings of transitional whales that I alluded to earlier are based on real fossils. And they show a clear transition from tetrapod to whale. To this day, we find dead whales with vestigial rear legs intact. So what, your 'creator' put those there intentionally to 'test our faith'?

Why do you outright deny every bit of evidence that is presented? I'll tell you why. Because evolution conflicts with your religious beliefs. But you won't admit it. So we sit here going in circles. THIS is why scientists refuse to debate creationists in a public forum. It's because the creationists don't have one iota of their own evidence. So you must resort to trying to pick holes in evolution. Bottom feeders *grumble*

[AvalonXQ]

Now you've resorted to the standard (and boring, and mind-numbingly frustrating) creationist debating tactic of moving the goal posts. OF COURSE there are gaps. There HAVE TO BE GAPS! Do you know how difficult it is for a creature to become fossilised? Very bloody difficult. And then we have to find them to boot.

This isn't me moving goalposts; this is you misreading or mischaracterizing what I said.
Read the exchange again, then consider whether you're actually wanting to discuss with me, or whether you're just trying to find a common enough thread between what I say and what you hate to shoehorn me in and go off on a rant of your own.

We have one guy whose statement I read as "there are no gaps" (and note I didn't accuse him of saying it; I asked him if that's what he was saying). Then we have you and Talk Origins, both of which admit very specifically that there are gaps; in fact, there HAVE to be gaps. I asked about the contradiction here. I didn't make any claims or attacks regarding the material in either direction.
But you're so ready to dismiss me as ignorant that you jump the gun and just attack whatever you see without actually reading it.
This is why people like you continue to insist that there are no educated, or honest, or reasonable (take your pick) creationists -- because you don't actually see the text that a creationist writes. You only see the text you expect him to write.

[Ashles]

This isn't me moving goalposts; this is you misreading or mischaracterizing what I said.
Read the exchange again, then consider whether you're actually wanting to discuss with me, or whether you're just trying to find a common enough thread between what I say and what you hate to shoehorn me in and go off on a rant of your own.


Can I ask you my question again Avalon:

Is there a question or concern or doubt about the likelihood of the theory evolution that you have, that is not addressed adequately by Talk Origins?

[AvalonXQ]

Is there a question or concern or doubt about the likelihood of the theory evolution that you have, that is not addressed adequately by Talk Origins?

There are several. When I encounter a reasonable evolutionist rather than one that prejudges me, I may choose to ask him about them.

[desertyeti]

Ill again (for the third and final time) ask...how does one define a "gap"?

[Ashles]

There are several. When I encounter a reasonable evolutionist rather than one that prejudges me, I may choose to ask him about them.

Why not ask me? I don't think I have been anything other than reasonable towards your posts in this thread?


ETA - And to be fair, is it relevant whether someone prejudges you or not? If you have a scientific question, either that person is able to answer it logically and with evidence, or not.
I have asked questions of, and responded to many posters on this forum who may have prejudged me or my position. But it is the quality of their evidence and their information that is the most important factor in a scientific discussion.

[Sideroxylon]

Well he seems to think that evolution happened pretty much as science says it did except that some intelligent designer stuck a tail on a bacteria and fiddled with the clotting sequence of blood.

Is that also your position?

No, its not mine.

Is that where Behe ultimately takes his argument? I assumed he was implying divine fiat. What I know of him comes from the Nova & BBC documentaries of the Dover trial and my current read "Doubting Darwin" by Sahotra Sarkar.

[AvalonXQ]

Ill again (for the third and final time) ask...how does one define a "gap"?

Once you've clarified, I agree with what you said. The definition of a "gap" depends on which groups you're comparing, and whether there's a "gap" (and how "large") is highly context-dependent.

[SonOfLaertes]

Talk Origins does a very good job of addressing why there are gaps, very clearly acknowledgining that there are. Which is why I was confused by desertyeti's assertion that "Those claiming gaps exist in the evolutionary record are quite simply, talking out their arse with nothing to back it up." This would seem to include the writers of Talk Origins at least.

Avalon, nobody is trying to say that there are no gaps in the fossil record.

I don't believe that you are intentionally missing the point here, but you are indeed hanging on with dimming hope to a strawman's view of "gaps" and the fossil record.

Gaps in the fossil record exist, and no one is denying that fact. There are too many "gaps" to count.

At the same time, there are no gaps in the fossil record.

Why? Because there are lineages for which a wealth of fossils have been found. Fossils which clearly show the slow transition of that lineage over vast Time. These lineages tend to be those which had lived in environments which lend themselves to fossilization, such as the evolution of land tetrapods from their four-finned fish ancestors (swampy environments) or the evolution of shoreline-dwelling animals to marine mammals. This fossil evidence exists in bulk, whether you like it or not.

So there are no gaps in the fossil record - there are only lineages for which the fossil evidence has not been found yet, or the members lived in environments for which fossilization is rare.

To claim "gaps" exist, you must prove that the lineages for which there is a wealth of fossil evidence, spanning several speciation events over Time, do not exist. You can't acknowledge that virtually complete evidence exists for some lineages and then point to the the lineages with sparse fossil evidence and shout "Gaps!".

[AvalonXQ]

Why not ask me? I don't think I have been anything other than reasonable towards your posts in this thread?

You've taken every opportunity to use anything I say at this thread as a jumping-off point for a rant about the ignorance of creationists -- up to and including things I haven't actually said but that you assume that I would say.
Under that framework, I don't think I'll choose you to further my education.

[metzomagic]

Now you are being *completely disingenuous*. You originally replied to my question about the drawings of the transitional fossils thusly:

I think it's an amazing artist's representation of how scientists imagine the evolution should have looked, and I ask for the actual fossil evidence -- which is quite lacking.

So what the hell does "which is quite lacking" mean then?! Other than to imply that you don't think we have enough fossil evidence? Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to nail down jello.

[AvalonXQ]

To claim "gaps" exist, you must prove that the lineages for which there is a wealth of fossil evidence, spanning several speciation events over Time, do not exist. You can't acknowledge that virtually complete evidence exists for some lineages and then point to the the lineages with sparse fossil evidence and shout "Gaps!".

I entirely agree. To properly address a theory of common ancestry against one where groups of animals are unrelated, it's important to address the strongest, not the weakest, fossil record. That's a very good point.

ETA: Can you tell me what you would consider to be the strongest such record?

[Ashles]

You've taken every opportunity to use anything I say at this thread as a jumping-off point for a rant about the ignorance of creationists -- up to and including things I haven't actually said but that you assume that I would say.
Under that framework, I don't think I'll choose you to further my education.

You do realise people can simply scroll up and see that that is patently untrue?

Well I take back what I said about commending you on having a desire to learn more on the subject. It is clear you do not wish to.

I find that very interesting and I encourage you to ask yourself honestly why you choose not to ask questions on a scientific subject you claim to want to know more about.

Either my answers would have had scientific validity or they would not have - my own position and attitude should have been entirely irrelevant.

[Ashles]

So what the hell does "which is quite lacking" mean then?! Other than to imply that you don't think we have enough fossil evidence? Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to nail down jello.

I suspect that is exactly the point.

Sadly it appears he does not want to ask genuine questions as he appears to fear that there will be perfectly good answers for them.
Much better not to ask the questions then he can still pretend to not be aware of the scientific evidence.

[AvalonXQ]

You do realise people can simply scroll up and see that that is patently untrue?
You're completely correct. Metzo's been doing the judging, not you. That's my mistake.
I must be replying too fast. I have no idea how I managed to read over a dozen posts by Metzo and Ashles and conflate the two as one person this whole time. My apologies.

[Ashles]

Blah


Anything but honestly ask a scientific question eh?

Your answers have been steeped in contempt, incredulity, and judgment. There are plenty of sources of information; I don't need you.

Hey, when you aren't really looking for answers you don't need anyone.

If you are familiar with Talk Origins it's clear you have already managed to completely ignore all the information on it.

So I don't know where else you'll go next to ignore information. Maybe you could try walking past a library?

[Ashles]

You're completely correct. Metzo's been doing the judging, not you. That's my mistake.
I must be replying too fast. I have no idea how I managed to read over a dozen posts by Metzo and Ashles and conflate the two as one person this whole time. My apologies.


Well I'm prepared to retract my more recent frustrated posts (with equal apologies) and ask again if there are questions you have not addressed by Talk Origins.

I have to head home now so won't be able to answer them for a couple of hours but would be happy to do my best when I get in.

[AvalonXQ]

Hey, when you aren't really looking for answers you don't need anyone.

If you are familiar with Talk Origins it's clear you have already managed to completely ignore all the information on it.

So I don't know where else you'll go next to ignore information. Maybe you could try walking past a library?

Apparently my window for getting answers out of you has passed, huh?
I agree, I was the one who did the judging there, not you. I made a mistake, and I apologize.

[Mashuna]

Look, can the two of you stop being reasonable and apologising to each other? We've got a great opportunity for a simple misunderstanding to really blow up and firmly entrench some deep emotional positions. If we can get to that point, we can finally throw all the evidence bit away, and get straight on to the insults. That's always the fun bit to read.

[joobz]

Well I'm prepared to retract my more recent frustrated posts (with equal apologies) and ask again if there are questions you have not addressed by Talk Origins.

I have to head home now so won't be able to answer them for a couple of hours but would be happy to do my best when I get in.

Apparently my window for getting answers out of you has passed, huh?
I agree, I was the one who did the judging there, not you. I made a mistake, and I apologize.
No better demonstration of honest characters than this. I have much respect for the both you. Thank you.

[AvalonXQ]

Sadly it appears he does not want to ask genuine questions as he appears to fear that there will be perfectly good answers for them.

I'll address this specific point, because I think it's a meaningful jumping-off point:
Fear? Yes. Quite a bit, in fact.
I'm a Biblical literalist; I was raised to believe (and continue to believe) in a literal Genesis account. There's no wiggle room there; if common ancestry is correct, then what I have believed is wrong, and I have to rethink quite a bit regarding my religion and how I live my life. That's scary. It causes me quite a bit of apprehension to consider the personal consequences of this.
None of which will stop me from doing it, because I was also raised to believe in critical analysis and in coming to the truth, and that knowledge is always superior to ignorance. I've never been one to let emotion interfere with facts or logic, except where emotion is an appropriate factor to consider.
But, yes -- when you question things that are important to you, there is fear there. We shouldn't expect otherwise.

[SonOfLaertes]

I entirely agree. To properly address a theory of common ancestry against one where groups of animals are unrelated, it's important to address the strongest, not the weakest, fossil record. That's a very good point.

ETA: Can you tell me what you would consider to be the strongest such record?

I'm hardly an expert, but the two examples I already gave you are good examples. I have read of numerous discoveries for each. Animals which live in or around areas in which a layer of sedimentation can quickly cover a dead or dying animal are always good candidates.

Do some independent research on the evidence for tetrapod evolution. You will find not only an abundance of fossils which cover an abundance of stages in the process; you will find that these fossils have been found in numerous places by various teams in multiple locations. You will also find that many of the discoveries are of close to complete animals. You will find enough independent lines of evidence to necessitate only one explanation other than descent with modification: a worldwide conspiracy of absurd proportions.

And, heres the point somewhat belabored: if this evidence exists, then there are no gaps in the fossil record as Creationists define "gaps". There are only a scientist's definition of "gaps": spaces not filled in at this point in time.

[KingMerv00]

Who cares about the fossils anyway? The genetic evidence is enough on its own.

[desertyeti]

Who cares about the fossils anyway? The genetic evidence is enough on its own.

But the fossils are an independent data set that allow refinement and/or corroboration of dates of divergence. Also, they provide critical insight into lineages with no living representatives (Pterosauria, Ornithischia, and others come to mind).

[metzomagic]

I'll address this specific point, because I think it's a meaningful jumping-off point:
Fear? Yes. Quite a bit, in fact.
I'm a Biblical literalist; I was raised to believe (and continue to believe) in a literal Genesis account. There's no wiggle room there; if common ancestry is correct, then what I have believed is wrong, and I have to rethink quite a bit regarding my religion and how I live my life. That's scary. It causes me quite a bit of apprehension to consider the personal consequences of this.
None of which will stop me from doing it, because I was also raised to believe in critical analysis and in coming to the truth, and that knowledge is always superior to ignorance. I've never been one to let emotion interfere with facts or logic, except where emotion is an appropriate factor to consider.
But, yes -- when you question things that are important to you, there is fear there. We shouldn't expect otherwise.

Thanks for coming clean on this. I did pose this very question several times previously (as in: is it your religious beliefs that will not allow you to accept the evidence for evolution?). I may have been confrontational, but that's what happens when someone becomes frustrated due to perceived evasiveness from the other party.

Just to clarify further before we proceed: you can believe in the literal creation account in Genesis, but you can also believe that the 'days' are not literal days. So do you also believe the Earth is only ca. 6000 years old then? This is important, because a lot of the science we are discussing (or trying to discuss) depends on the acceptance of a very old Earth. Speciation does not occur overnight (except in a petri dish :-)

[KingMerv00]

But the fossils are an independent data set that allow refinement and/or corroboration of dates of divergence. Also, they provide critical insight into lineages with no living representatives (Pterosauria, Ornithischia, and others come to mind).

Sure the fossils help but they aren't necessary. The fact that the fossil evidence matches perfectly with the genetic evidence is just a lovely bonus.

[SonOfLaertes]

Sure the fossils help but they aren't necessary. The fact that the fossil evidence matches perfectly with the genetic evidence is just a lovely bonus.

But fossils are something that casual observers, and kids, can wrap their minds around. I once took my (teenage) nephews to the AMNH in NY. They were both believers in evolution but had voiced some doubts. After walking through the exhibits they were blown away by the sheer number and diversity of dinosaur species. They are intelligent kids, they could put two and two together. One of my nephews has taken a paleontology course in college because of the visual impact the fossils made on him that day.

[dafydd]

I'll address this specific point, because I think it's a meaningful jumping-off point:
Fear? Yes. Quite a bit, in fact.
I'm a Biblical literalist; I was raised to believe (and continue to believe) in a literal Genesis account. There's no wiggle room there; if common ancestry is correct, then what I have believed is wrong, and I have to rethink quite a bit regarding my religion and how I live my life. That's scary. It causes me quite a bit of apprehension to consider the personal consequences of this.
None of which will stop me from doing it, because I was also raised to believe in critical analysis and in coming to the truth, and that knowledge is always superior to ignorance. I've never been one to let emotion interfere with facts or logic, except where emotion is an appropriate factor to consider.
But, yes -- when you question things that are important to you, there is fear there. We shouldn't expect otherwise.

There is a large gap in the biblical story of creation.It's called evidence.You were brainwashed as a child,that's not your fault but merely believing in something without a shred of proof does not make that something true.

[desertyeti]

Sure the fossils help but they aren't necessary. The fact that the fossil evidence matches perfectly with the genetic evidence is just a lovely bonus.

In some cases (many bird taxa), the genetic evidence is so difficult to unravel, that the fossils actually ARE necessary. Genetic convergence and long-branch attraction in phylogenetic analyses are the rule rather than the exception in rapidly evolving clades. For these taxa, fossils are the only way to derive realistic evolutionary scenarios...hence the emphasis on finding ancestors...

[Lurker]

Look, can the two of you stop being reasonable and apologising to each other? We've got a great opportunity for a simple misunderstanding to really blow up and firmly entrench some deep emotional positions. If we can get to that point, we can finally throw all the evidence bit away, and get straight on to the insults. That's always the fun bit to read.


Seconded! Think of us poor lurkers having to read the mushy-mush. Get with the sharp pointed sticks already!

[Third Eye Open]

This is where I genuinely disagree, and this is the issue that I've brought up in the past. I say appeal to authority is not evidence, regardless of how many people (or which people) accept the individual as an authority.
Appeal to authority is not a fallacy because the authority is flawed; appeal to authority is a fallacy because authority is not evidence.

Sorry, but I'm not going to bother to read the rest of the thread after this comment. This kind of mindset is useless for learning, and I highly expect that you only use this rigorous definition of evidence when it applies to subjects you disagree with.

One person can not learn or know everything. This is why the invention of writing was such a boost to technological advance, because instead of the whole of human knowledge being trapped inside individual brains, knowledge could be transferred from one person to another.

When someone such as Richard Dawkins, who has spent his entire life studying a subject, writes down that knowledge in a book for others, it can be called nothing but foolish to distrust those words because you have not yourself done every experiment, every test and had every experience that he has. It is only through books, and trusting the knowledge of others, that anyone can have more than mediocre knowledge in any one subject. There is just not enough time in your life span to study everything for yourself without trusting the knowledge of others.

It is even more foolish to disregard this information when it matches up with countless other people who have spent their lives studying the same things.

Tell me AvalonXQ, do you disregard quotes from expert linguists on the translation of the bible as 'appeals to authority'? Even when they have spent their life studying the language and you have not?

What about recommendations from your car mechanic? Do you prefer to spend years learning about cars before you trust a humans knowledge other than yours?

This kind of attitude is more evidence to me that religious belief is seriously crippling to the minds ability to learn.

[Rrose Selavy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5502087#post5502087)
This is where I genuinely disagree, and this is the issue that I've brought up in the past. I say appeal to authority is not evidence, regardless of how many people (or which people) accept the individual as an authority.
Appeal to authority is not a fallacy because the authority is flawed; appeal to authority is a fallacy because authority is not evidence.



AvalonQX, we have already clashed on this issue, specifically on the indocrination of your children but I have to say, how can you disregard any appeals to authority when your belief in Creationism is surely entirely based on the "authority" of the Bible, if not what evidence do you have?
-

[AvalonXQ]

Third, you are welcome to immediately accept everything you read. I'll choose to be a little more...
...skeptical.
Of course, you're not reading any more posts here, right? Excellent. Don't let the unsubscribe button hit you on the way out.

[TSR]

I still haven't seen your reply to the question about what evidence *you* have supporting your belief in a literal Genesis?

[Third Eye Open]

Third, you are welcome to immediately accept everything you read. I'll choose to be a little more...
...skeptical.


Amazing. Never mind the excluded middle / strawman fallacy you are making here, lets just try to understand your point.

You are saying that taking the literal interpretation of one book written thousands of years ago by uneducated sheepherders as absolute truth, while simultaneously throwing the entire lifetimes worth of study of tens of thousands of people out the window is 'skeptical'.

Interesting.

The reason I didn't bother reading the rest of this thread (never said I was abandoning it, just skipping to the end) is because I had figured it would go something like this:

AvalonXQ: Evolution is dumb, lol
Everyone else: The scientific consensus is that evolution is as much of a fact as the law of gravity.
AvalonXQ:ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY!!
Everyone else: Yes, biologists are an authority on biology, that's not how that fallacy works.
AvalonXQ: Just because someone said it doesn't mean it's true! My word as a random poster on an internet forum is exactly as valid as someone who has spent years studying biology and written dozens of books on the subject! Any skeptical person would treat them exactly the same!

I've seen this tactic before and it's old and boring, I was just skipping to the end. Please continue to bash your head against the impenetrably closed minds of us obstinate skeptics.

[dafydd]

AvalonQX, we have already clashed on this issue, specifically on the indocrination of your children but I have to say, how can you disregard any appeals to authority when your belief in Creationism is surely entirely based on the "authority" of the Bible, if not what evidence do you have?
-

I have asked him for evidence,but answer there came none,don't hold your breath.It's the indoctrination of children that I object to the most.I let my daughters make up their own minds.

[AvalonXQ]

Amazing.

Agreed. Ignored.

[Igor, you fool!]

AvalonXQ, congratulations on admitting that the theory of evolution worries you because it contradicts the things that you were taught as a child. I think that shows a great deal of honesty.

I'd like you to ask you this: If you had been taught the theory of evolution as a child and then read the bible later in life, do you think that you would still favour biblical creationism over evolution?

You can see what I'm driving at of course. Children are much less skeptical than adults. Indeed, the result of human evolution is that children believe what they are told (they will gladly appeal to authority!) - it is necessary if they are learn quickly.

So, do you accept the possibility that your credulous belief as a child could have been mistaken, and that it could now prejudice your adult self against a perfectly rational scientific theory?

[Third Eye Open]

Agreed. Ignored.

Sweet! Ignored in two posts! I think I'm getting better at this, though limbo ignored me after one post, so I don't think I'm going to beat that.

[GanipGnop]

There is a large gap in the biblical story of creation.It's called evidence.You were brainwashed as a child,that's not your fault but merely believing in something without a shred of proof does not make that something true.

There are large gaps in the entire buybull Jesus goes from a kid to an adult with no record in between Jesus the kid and Jesus the adult. They might have been two different people for all we know, hell Jesus mows my grass for Christ's sake. It is funny how biblical Jesus has this huge gap in his life and Xtians never question it. Those missing years may have covered Jesus' homosexual love life or the time he experimented with Satan worship.

[kuroyume0161]

There are large gaps in the entire buybull Jesus goes from a kid to an adult with no record in between Jesus the kid and Jesus the adult. They might have been two different people for all we know, hell Jesus mows my grass for Christ's sake. It is funny how biblical Jesus has this huge gap in his life and Xtians never question it. Those missing years may have covered Jesus' homosexual love life or the time he experimented with Satan worship.

Large doesn't cover it. If we omit the apocryphal texts and ignore the simply brief insertion of the trip to Jerusalem at age 12, there is a gap of 91% (birth and then 30-33). That is quite a bit of 'gap'.

[Mojo]

The only way to know whether I actually understand the theory of common ancestry, or whether I understand a straw man of the theory, is to talk to me about it.


Nope. The only way we can find out about this is for you to talk to us.

[Mojo]

I think it's an amazing artist's representation of how scientists imagine the evolution should have looked, and I ask for the actual fossil evidence -- which is quite lacking.


Invoking "gaps in the record" makes you look kind of badly informed.

[dafydd]

Invoking "gaps in the record" makes you look kind of badly informed.

And the owner of a brass neck,taking into consideration that creationism is one long gap.

[metzomagic]

It appears as if AvalonXQ has gone off to do a bit of reading/reflection, which is what I would expect him to do at this juncture. It was quite brave of him to admit that he was a biblical literalist, and I imagine it will take him some time to reconcile his beliefs against what the evidence for evolution says.

In any case, it looks like he's ignoring me. So be it.

[Mojo]

It appears as if AvalonXQ has gone off to do a bit of reading/reflection, which is what I would expect him to do at this juncture.


I thought he was a creationist.

[Ashles]

I'll address this specific point, because I think it's a meaningful jumping-off point:
Fear? Yes. Quite a bit, in fact.
I'm a Biblical literalist; I was raised to believe (and continue to believe) in a literal Genesis account. There's no wiggle room there; if common ancestry is correct, then what I have believed is wrong, and I have to rethink quite a bit regarding my religion and how I live my life. That's scary. It causes me quite a bit of apprehension to consider the personal consequences of this.
None of which will stop me from doing it, because I was also raised to believe in critical analysis and in coming to the truth, and that knowledge is always superior to ignorance. I've never been one to let emotion interfere with facts or logic, except where emotion is an appropriate factor to consider.
But, yes -- when you question things that are important to you, there is fear there. We shouldn't expect otherwise.

I very much respect this post.

There are many here who have gone through a similar process.

I myself have never been particularly religious, but I believed a LOT if stuff about ghosts and UFOs and other similar phenomena. I would read lots that supported the stories and very little that might contradict them.

My change in position however was not a sudden one, but gradual as I never saw any real evidence for these stories and my beliefs waned through lack of anything verifiable.

A bigger moment for me bizarrely involved a Macdonald's Filet o Fish.

A friend was telling me how a friend of theirs had once bitten into a Macdonalds Filet o Fish and there had been an abcess in the fish flesh which had burst pus into his mouth.
Pretty yucky story.

But then about a week later a work colleague started telling me how a friend had bought a Macdonalds Chicken burger... I interrupted the story asking if this ended with an abcess - they looked surprised and said it did.

I did a little research and discovered it was an urban myth. This lead me to question what I was told in almost all areas with a great deal more scrutiny.

Then I studied Experimental Psycholgy at Uni and it taught me a lot about our perception mechanisms and memory, and how easily and regularly they can be fooled.

That's why I feel observation, experimentation, replicability and predictability are the only useful methods in learning about our world.

There may be a God (and personally I feel it would be lovely if there were) but I have never seen or encountered anything to make me believe there is one.
My parents were not particularly religious and the UK as a whole is not particularly religious so I never had much religious upbringing.

I also find it interesting how people believe in the God that is predominant in their area - children growing up in a Christian country are unlikely to spontaneously believe in Allah and vice versa. We pick up the beliefs of our parents and environment.

Your personal journey of belief will be individual to you and I wish you luck with it.
I would not ever wish to 'convert' someone who was religious to a non-religious position, but I would always want to help them understand scientific facts. If those facts in turn affect their belief system, that is a matter for the individual.

A belief in evolution and a belief in religion are not mutually exclusive.
I don't much care what a person's religious beliefs are, but I always care when someone misrepresents or misunderstands a scientific concept.

If a person is intersted in learning the actual facts of the subject this should always be encouraged and assisted.

When a person is learning facts that may contradict their previous beliefs that can be a tough journey and they should always be lauded when they continue to take that journey, wherever it leads them.

If you have any questions we can help with please let us know.

[dafydd]

Sweet! Ignored in two posts! I think I'm getting better at this, though limbo ignored me after one post, so I don't think I'm going to beat that.

That's what he does when he loses in a discussion.

[KingMerv00]

Agreed. Ignored.

Ignore him if you like but his primary point still stands. Why isn't believing in the Bible an argument from authority?

Also, would you mind explaining this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses) genetic evidence for evolution?

[Blackwell]

<snipped a great post from Ashles that you should all read.>

Nom nom nominated.