What makes a transitional organism transitional?

[Dave-regenerated]

Also, are you a Padre Pio fan?

[The Barbarian]

I see.  You'd like to come clean about this and show us your evidence, but the Evil Barbarian© won't let you.   

Very convincing...

1 hour ago, Dave-regenerated said:

Tell us when you were born again, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and renewed in your mind so that you were able to discern spiritual things that unbelievers aren't privy to?

How about you just post the evidence that shows statistics rules out evolution, or that thermodynamics rules out evolution?  You said you were going to do that.   What's holding you up?  

 

[The Barbarian]

53 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

Also, are you a Padre Pio fan?

Dallas Sidekicks fan.

So when are you going to show us that evidence that rules out evolution?   You said you were going to do it.   Now you seem to be backing out.  What's up with that?

 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by The Barbarian

[teddyv]

5 hours ago, Dave-regenerated said:

Tell us when you were born again, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and renewed in your mind so that you were able to discern spiritual things that unbelievers aren't privy to?  I want a time and date and experience.  I don't want you to confuse water baptism with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Thank you for supplying that information in advance.

I guess you are regretting getting involved in this thread.

[one.opinion]

I have to say that dropping a conversation when seeing one is wrong is preferable to the usual gaslighting and personal attacks that is the norm here, although there was certainly some personal attack thrown in.

[Tristen]

On 8/31/2022 at 10:56 PM, The Barbarian said:

So your barber is as good a source on medical issues as your doctor?  No, I don't think so.

"This can be a fallacy if the referenced person does not have proper authority."
https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/appeal-to-authority/

Nevertheless, knowing what one is talking about is a huge advantage.

"There are two fallacies people have about experts.  First is that experts know everything.   The second is that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's."

Robert Heinlein

I'll still listen to my doctor about whether or not I'll need an operation, regardless of what my accountant says.

Happens all the time.   A neighbor says "it's time to refinance your house."    I go to an expert on real estate and get her input.   And I pay more attention to what she says.  Which is a logical decision.   Either or both could be wrong.   But the likelihood of the real estate professional being wrong is less. 

We all have to make decisions based on incomplete information and go with what we see as the likelihoods.   That's perfectly logical.  

 

 

 

“So your barber is as good a source on medical issues as your doctor?  No, I don't think so.”

What you’ve done here is attempted to defend one logic fallacy with two other logic fallacies.

The first logic fallacy you’ve employed here is a Strawman argument. This is where you misrepresent the position of an opponent in order to tear down the argument you have dishonestly attributed to them. Here you’ve misrepresented my argument as claiming all Authority to be equal. Yet I have been very clear about my position. Did you miss where I said, “we could fairly assume that someone with Expertise has some learned capacity to provide a quality argument. And their credentials could be a determinant as to whether or not they are worth hearing/considering/referencing”, and in a previous post, “Credentials have rational benefits”?

The second logic fallacy in your comment is a False Analogy. The reason we employ the practical services of any expert is so that we don’t have to gain the expertise ourselves. But in a debate scenario, the purpose of engagement is to analyse rational arguments – ideally motivated by the pursuit of truth. That means our job is to consider the logic and evidence provided to support a conclusion. Credentials themselves are logically irrelevant in a debate.

No matter how you try and wiggle your way around it, credentials alone do not provide any logical support for a conclusion. The conclusion can only be justified by an argument.

Ultimately;

- Doctors can be wrong/mistaken/incompetent

- Doctors can exaggerate and/or overstate claims

- Doctors can have their own biases and/or agendas and/or worldviews - which influence how they interact with the data

- Doctors can lie

- Doctors can disagree with other doctors

What matters is that the doctor arrives at their conclusions via a rational path of reasoning; given their expert knowledge. Whether or not you choose to investigate the doctor’s reasoning is up to you. Likewise, if you are happy for experts (in particular, those who already agree with you) to tell you what to think about “transitional fossils”, then that is also up to you. But if you are not prepared to investigate the arguments, I don’t see the purpose of you pretending to engage in debate.

 

[one.opinion]

Todd Wood on transitional fossils:

“As you note, I do not deny that intermediates exist (e.g., feathered dinos here and here). In fact, there are lots and lots of really interesting intermediate forms in the fossil record.”

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-about-transitional-forms.html?m=1
 

I know it came up earlier, but some would rather point out argumentative fallacies than spend two minutes looking for information on their own - as if the legitimacy of a viewpoint hinges on the ability of the interlocutor to adhere to rigid set of argumentation guidelines.

In any case, there seems to be a direct correlation between familiarity with facts and acceptance of (at least, what appears to be) transitional fossil forms.

[The Barbarian]

So your barber is as good a source on medical issues as your doctor?  No, I don't think so.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

What you’ve done here is attempted to defend one logic fallacy with two other logic fallacies.

Seems to me that when you have a technical issue, it would be best to talk to people who know something about it.   We'll just have to disagree on that.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

What matters is that the doctor arrives at their conclusions via a rational path of reasoning; given their expert knowledge.

So if your barber uses "rational paths of reasoning" then he's as good as y9ur doctor on medical questions?   No, I don't think so.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Likewise, if you are happy for experts (in particular, those who already agree with you) to tell you what to think about “transitional fossils”

Rather, since I happen to have some coursework in paleontology, the question is whether you are happy for people claiming to be experts to tell you what to think about them.  

But I don't think your "barbers" are a very reliable source.  

As you've seen there are many, many transitional fossils and entire lineages of them.   

No point in denying the facts.

59 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

In any case, there seems to be a direct correlation between familiarity with facts and acceptance of (at least, what appears to be) transitional fossil forms.

Knowing what one is talking about, is a huge advantage, yes.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Doctors can be wrong/mistaken/incompetent

- Doctors can exaggerate and/or overstate claims

So, in the event that your barber disagrees with your doctor about the advisability of a certain procedure, you go with your barber, because doctors "can be wrong or overstate claims."

That still doesn't sound very wise to me.  

[Tristen]

On 9/4/2022 at 11:24 AM, one.opinion said:

Todd Wood on transitional fossils:

“As you note, I do not deny that intermediates exist (e.g., feathered dinos here and here). In fact, there are lots and lots of really interesting intermediate forms in the fossil record.”

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-about-transitional-forms.html?m=1
 

I know it came up earlier, but some would rather point out argumentative fallacies than spend two minutes looking for information on their own - as if the legitimacy of a viewpoint hinges on the ability of the interlocutor to adhere to rigid set of argumentation guidelines.

In any case, there seems to be a direct correlation between familiarity with facts and acceptance of (at least, what appears to be) transitional fossil forms.

 

If something you desired costs $100, and you only have $50, it would do you no good to whine about adhering so rigidly to mathematical guidelines.

Like mathematics, logic is an authority that governs our reality. Logic is not subjective, or arbitrary. And it's not like I made up the rules for personal gain. The rules don't change just because you don't like the outcome.

The "guidelines" of logic exist to determine the relationship between a claim and the truth. If you are operating outside of logic, you are not sincerely engaged in the pursuit of truth.

In this thread, I have directly addressed the "information" provided. I have argued that we are operating on different definitions of "transitional fossils" - such that the provided evidence does not address any contested issue.

Your Response - to insinuate (Innuendo fallacy) that I am unfamiliar with the facts and have failed to take the required time to examine the "information". You are trying to invalidate my position by making claims about me personally (i.e. Adhominem fallacy) - i.e. claims which are, 1) entirely unsupported, and 2) entirely irrelevant to any argument I have presented. 

Therefore, since you are clearly operating outside of the "guidelines" of logic, you are not engaged in an honest examination of truth.