Education

I certainly do not want to step in the middle of a pissing contest between you and Schraf, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I don't really have a desire to read over some other message in which Schraf may have said something about research being biased opinions, as I would probably have to read through the entire thread to make sure I had the context correct.Having said that, it seems to me that when I read an exchange like:then I read this to mean that you are suggesting that evolutionary biologists do not "throw out" data or hypotheses or theories that have been shown to be false. Come on now Holmes, isn't that being just a bit over confrontational for the sake of being confrontational? You certainly know that this is not true. Scientists will disregard old ideas as new tests show them to be no longer true. And I also think that you knew that that was what Schraf was talking about, and yet still you replied in a manner that, to my eyes anyway, makes it appear as though you think scientists don’t discard false conclusions.And then later we get this exchange:it seems obvious to me that again you are simply having a personal battle with schraf while ignoring the true context of what she wrote. Or are you suggesting that you truly believe that evolutionary biologists do not design and perform experiments as tests of their hypotheses . or that creationists do as well?So, while you may have some disagreements with other posts by Schrafinator, I think it's a bit unfair to drag them into this particular thread. You're often that one talking about context, yet you seemed to ignore it here.Or, perhaps you would like to give us some examples of creationist experiments you are aware of that have indeed been performed and which support their claims. Or perhaps you will support your claim that evolutionary biologists do not subject their ideas to testing. Or perhaps you will admit that you knowingly took schrafinators comments out of context simply to piss her off.So I guess, in summary, I’d just like to say that as they relate to this specific thread, Schraf made some valid criticisms which I support. Creationists do not subject their ideas to any sort of testing while evolutionary biologists do, and the latter will also “throw out” ideas that are no longer supported by the evidence, while the former will not. Why not address just these points and let go of the personal animosity?

Randman, you are so full of shit you attract flies(only...ha...you have to admit...that's a good one).I have friends that are in the medical profession and can tell you first hand that they know virtually nothing about evolutionary theory. You are constantly throwing crap like this around without any validation whatsoever.While I’m bitching, let me add this . we have all read copious threads by you in which you repeatedly bring up Haeckels' drawings and your BS has always been addressed . yet you repeat it over and over. I’m fucking sick and tired with your Haeckel nonsense...please find some new dead horse to beat. We've covered it already . it’s been addressed . for the love of fuck, knock it off.Sorry . now back to the message at hand. Some do...many more do not...like yourself. True...so what? Nobody is forcing you to accept anything Randman. However, I personally fail to see how anyone that is educated in evolutionary theory can reject it based on that knowledge unless they have religious motivations. Admittedly, I have no data to back this up, but I'd bet that in a vast majority of cases where the ToE is rejected by someone that also knows and understands the scientific method, that rejection is predicated on religious beliefs, not evidentiary.

Well, some are friends, some are acquaintances (and I'd still call them "friends"), and one is a relative. Well goooooooolly, I'd sure recon so. They all even done goed to college, and did themsleves some book-learnen and everything. Boy, you sure friggen got me here. I guess they could all be Martians. The one that is a relative, however, does have a belly button (I know cuz I've seen it!) and has given "birth" to three human-like bipedal organisms though...if that helps.So what's your point, Philip? It's not an insult to state that even despite years of education, including medical school, that one has a very limited knowledge of evolutionary biology.

Yes Philip...limited knowledge. What's the big deal? No one that I know asserts to have full and complete understanding of all evolutionary theory. Seeing as how it involves multi-disciplines in biology, as well as physics, chemistry, geology, (and others), I fail to see how "admitting" to limited knowledge is in any way a great discovery on your part.Now, let me be perfectly clear on what I am telling you. A couple of my friends in the medical professions do know a great deal more about human anatomy than do I. I freely, and happily admit this (actually, I friggen hope they have a better understanding of anat and phys than I do). They’re doctors . they operate on people . they make diagnosis . they treat illnesses . but guess what they don’t do. They don’t get involved in experiments to test their hypothesis. Nope . sorry Philip...they save that particular practice for medical scientists. However, despite their many years of additional education and practical experiences within the medical field, they also have a "limited" knowledge of evolutionary biology...less so than mine (which is also limited). Got it. Being a doctor does not ipso facto make one necessarily an expert in evolutionary biology. I fail to see what the point is you are trying to make here. What do space-time continuums have to do with evolutionary theory?...light?...inflationary-big-bang-etiology(s) (what ever the hell those are)? Am I supposed to be impressed with your use of big words and complex sentences that mean nothing? Seriously . Punctuated chromosomal mutations . I love it . you are hoot Philip. N.A.S. has research droids? Wow, how cool is that!Also, what exactly is "fundamental evo science"?Will you concede that you have no idea what you're talking about? Specifically, which ignorant research scientists are you talking about here. Only those that deal with evolution, or are you referring to all U.S. scientists in general? It's nonsensical bull shit rambling like this that lead me to believe that you know nothing of science. A publicized disclaimer? Anyone that works in science KNOWS the limitations of science. We don't really need a disclaimer, we already know that science will never know anything with absolute certainty. And why are you again only requesting this nonsense for "evo-disputes"? Could it be because you gladly accept...oh... I don't know...what the hell, let's stick with medicine...could it be because you gladly accept medical science, scientists, and the brilliant work they have done in the past (and are continuing in the present), but yet you get your panties all in a bunch when the same standards are applied to evolutionary theory? Alabama physicians and lawyers are required to publish public disclaimers with regards to their limited knowledge of evolution and how it relates to the cosmos? How bizarre. And quite frankly, it seems like a big waste of money and/or paper to me. What, exactly, are these "special creation hypotheses"? Come on Philip...be the first person to EVER put forth a single testable creation hypothesis! Please oh please oh fucking PLEASE give us this hypothesis! This is a big one Philip. The other stuff you wrote is mostly meaningless garbage . but this is a big one. We all eagerly await this TESTABLE hypothesis!!! Are you going to post it soon?If not (and I predict you won’t), then maybe you will enlighten me as to what it is with the N.A.S., and how they define science, that has been perverted. Seriously, Philip, that’s a pretty serious charge to make. I would like to see you back it up. What is there that makes the N.A.S., and their unfettered support of the ToE, fail as an excellent scientific organization?If not, than I will take this to mean you concede that you have absolutely know idea how science actually operates. I won’t hold my breath.

You take what as a "no"? I've re-read my message and can not figure out WTF you're referring to. How about you actually address the points I brought up? Of course, as I predicted, you avoided that idea altogether and instead gave a flippant response of "I take that as a no" . which in no way makes any sense. But then, why should I have expected otherwise?Here are just three points to which I'd like some sort of reasonable response. Is that asking too much of you Philip?1. What do space-time continuums, light, and whatever the hell "inflationary big-bang-etiology(s)" are, have to do with the ToE?2. Explain to me what “punctuated chromosomal mutations during the Cambrian" even are.3. Please list for me the "special creation hypotheses" that salvage the "perverted" ToE paradigms of the N.A.S.I look forward to your explanations and descriptions.

And how am I being impolite? By asking you to support what you say? By asking you to explain concepts that make so sense to me?Your response to my original post was a seven word sentence that made no sense. I asked what the "no" was all about and asked you address three simple points I made. That's not rude or impolite. Your responses, on the other hand...

I'm still not sure how I have been cursing and bashing you. Admittedly, I did say "WTF", so I guess that constitutes "cursing"...sorry. The point I have been trying to make is that I cannot really refute what you're saying because I have no idea what it is that you're saying.Let's go back to some earlier posts.In massage 251 you made the following comments: I responded by asking you to explain how these relate to the ToE. I'll repeat my request now:1. How do space-time continuums, light, and inflationary-big-bang etiology(s) in any way relate to the ToE. Additionally, what exactly are "inflationary-big-bang continuums?You went on to state the following (I have not copied it all, only that portions that I would most like to see a response for):I asked you a variety of questions, which you ignored, so I'll repeat them again, in a toned down version so perhaps you will supply me with some answers.A publicized disclaimer? Anyone that works in science KNOWS the limitations of science. We don't really need a disclaimer, we already know that science will never know anything with absolute certainty. And why are you again only requesting this nonsense for "evo-disputes"? Could it be because you gladly accept medical science, scientists, and the brilliant work they have done in the past (and are continuing in the present), but yet you get upset when the same standards are applied to evolutionary theory?You continue with: What, exactly, are these "special creation hypotheses"? Come on Philip...be the first person to EVER put forth a single testable creation hypothesis! Please give us this hypothesis! This is a big one Philip. The other stuff you wrote is mostly meaningless(IMHO) . but this is a big one. I eagerly await this TESTABLE hypothesis!!! Are you going to post it soon?

I will address these conjectures shortly. But first let's look at this portion of your response.I asked for an explanation as to what you consider to be the "flawed and perverted" ToE paradigms of the N.A.S. I'm still waiting. It's difficult to debate if I do not know your position.You do provide these however:and I hope you do understand that none of these are hypotheses...correct? None of these are testable, you do realize that...correct?The N.A.S. is a scientific organization (which I would have thought was plainly obvious from their name), and as such, adheres to the scientific method. So you are proposing that the N.A.S. write a disclaimer stating that evolutionary theory could be wrong cuz...well...cuz maybe God did it?Also, a judge in Dover PA recently did write somewhat of a disclaimer on the idea of the ToE and Intelligent Design. Maybe you should go read his decision. Here's a link:MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos Such as? I certainly cannot speak for any 9th grade biology teachers, but in what way have they delved beyond their scope? As far as the science can take them. Seems like the prudent thing to do, wouldn't you agree. No thanks, I'll let good ole NosyNed speak for himself...but admittedly, I know of no controversal suggestions he has put forth.

As far as the science can take them. Honestly, how is this circling the discussion? The ToE explains the diveristy of life on this planet. It does it via hypothesis formation, experimentation, and statistical analyses. What are your fears? What are these 9th grade biology teachers telling the children that has no scientific merit. I really don't know, that's why I'm asking you.NOT something you simply disagree with. I want you to attempt to explain to me how, whatever it is they are teaching, is not scientific. I may very well agree with your position...but you never seem to actually state your position.

I know your latest message wasn't a reply to me...but I have to ask: What are you talking about?For example, what is the meaning of this sentence?:Seriously. I have no clue what it is you are trying to say here.
"Unconstitutional seems to me like unbiblical"...this means nothing."disclaimer against all vicars in the US...be it Pope, Darwin, Al Qaeda..."Again, this is senseless rambling. You have said similar things in previous posts but when I have repeatedly asked you to explain how the ToE is "flawed" you ignore the question(s). How about it Philip? Will you please explain how the ToE is flawed? And this means what, exactly? Pre-confessing our sins? How can you pre-confess a sin? And again with the “perverted flaws" that you have never elaborated on, despite repeated requests from myself to please do so. Maybe in your next post? Please.