|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Professionalism or Prejudice? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As was stated earlier, many evolutionists will not even agree to debate a creationist due to a very poor track record of scoring any points against a creationist during the debate. Could you substantiate this claim?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4581 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
As was stated earlier, many evolutionists will not even agree to debate a creationist due to a very poor track record of scoring any points against a creationist during the debate.
Could you substantiate this claim?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
It'd like Holyfield getting back in the ring with Tyson. More like Holyfield getting back in the ring with Tyson's blind paraplegic nephew.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
About your signature, the Einstein quote is close, but not quite right. It is part of a longer passage from Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, page 46:
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind Einstein may have had in mind Kant's, "Notion without intuition is empty, intuition without notion is blind." I don't see anything in Einstein's quote that might upset evolutionists. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
It did seem to ruffle a few evolutionist feathers but the main intention was to entice creationists to reply. Unfortunately there are not very many creationists in EvC, most likely due to the adolescent hostility of many of the neo-evo's in here. It was time for a change anyway. That quote was far too uninspiring, especially to me.
The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the theory of evolution becomes just another implausible story amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
Let me begin this chapter with a small clarification of a statement I made in the very first chapter. I had stated that I will make no effort to respond to individual posters with individual replies. That would take up far too much of my time considering the number of replies that I have received in the past to any single post. I shall however, endeavor to answer all replies in a general manner throughout each succeeding chapter. Please bear with me. If you feel that I am ignoring you, perhaps you should re-examine your reply to me to see if it truly warrants a response from me. If you are being ignored, the chances are real good that you probably deserve to be ignored, due to the nature of your post. Should any of the neo-evo's or neo-creo's have a problem with this I suggest they first take notice of the numerous topics in which they have left posts unanswered, each of which is showing in their "Message Index", before they start whining to some admin that mean ol' DarkStar isn't following the forum guidelines again. As an example of what I am referring to, I shall point out only those posters who have replied to me thus far within this topic alone. Remember that these are topics and not individual posts awaiting replies, which would quite surely place the numbers much higher. As of today: Crashfrog has replies waiting in 11 topics. MrHambre has replies waiting in 15 topics. Schraninator has replies waiting in 12 topics. PecosGeorge has replies waiting in 12 topics, 3 of which were closed without having offered a reply. Sidelined has replies waiting in 9 topics. WJ has replies waiting in 15 topics, 2 of which were closed without having offered a reply. And just to show that I am not partial to admin's who have posted in this topic, whether to me or someone else: Percy has replies waiting in 15 topics. Adminnemooseus has replies waiting in 6 topics. AdminNosy has replies waiting in 5 topics. Lest you should think that I would not include myself in this: I have replies waiting in 4 topics, three of which I am banned from, and 1 in a"Free For All" thread where an admin requested that I not post, per the request of WillowTree to keep the number of posters at a desired minimum, allowing only invited posters to participate, and, to my chagrin, WillowTree has not seen fit to invite me, probably with very good reason. My general response in this chapter has to do with a request to substantiate my claim that many evolutionists will not even agree to debate a creationist due to a very poor track record of scoring any points against a creationist during the debate. As you shall see in the example to follow, macroevolutionists have a theory as to why this is true. Whether the facts will agree with this theory is yet to be seen but the odds are against this theory being any more credible than is the myth of macroevolution.
My first lesson in why the decked is stacked against scientists who debate with creationists came 13 years ago on a national TV programme. The topic was a Supreme Court decision to throw out laws that require equal time to be given to teaching creation science and evolution. I'd recently left my job as a college professor to become the Director of the National Center for Science Education. And my opposition was Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego. Gish is known for chewing up evolutionists in debate, and I didn't want to be his next snack. I went on the offensive, confronting Gish with the fact that, during the previous 15 years or so, membership of an organization of scientists, the Creation Research Society, had remained constant at about 600...clearly, scientists were not rallying around his flag. "Dr. Gish,"I proposed, "If creation science is such great science, why aren't more scientists jumping on your bandwagon?" His response was instant, "But Dr. Scott, hundreds of scientists are giving up on gradual evolution." He was right, of course. This was 1987, and there was quite a kerfluttle going on among scientists over whether the pace of evolution was gradual or jerky....the "punctuated equilibria" debate. But I knew damn well that the audience wasn't going to hear the word "gradual" in that sentence....only that "hundreds of scientists were giving up on evolution". Gish had scored. There were 15 seconds to go before a commercial break, certainly no time for a scholarly treatise on the pace of evolution. My heart raced, I hesitated before beginning to speak.....and the progamme's host moved on to another guest before announcing the commercial break. I had lost my opportunity. I was angry because instead of answering my question, Gish had cleverly used my attack to put me on the defensive - a good debating ploy, but not the way we do science. And debates are about scoring points, not arguing scientific issues, which is why so many scientists lose out in encounters with creationists. Creationists long ago learned the benefits of posing simple questions that have long and complex answers. Scientists are all too ready to take the bait. Most academics are used to explaining things in 50 minute lectures. On TV or with a live audience you often have less than a minute to make your point. What's more, there are few chances to correct misunderstandings: unlike college students, the audience won't be back next week.- Eugenie Scott, from the NewScientist, April 22, 2000 I included as much of the above article as I could find so that there would be no confusion as to the personal opinion of Eugenie Scott as to why she did so poorly in the debate. So there we have at least one theory as to why evolutionists avoid debates with creationists. The search for a more viable theory will continue but, in the meantime, I am sure that all of the neo-evo's will rally around this one as fervently as they rally around the myth of macroevolution.
As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?Charles Darwin "The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."P. Lemoine "The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity..... Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."G. Salet "Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."Steven Jay Gould The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story, nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
the thing is that evc IS filling in this "emptiness" and making us all less blind to what is at least for me but the colors of the icons. Kant also related notion and intution to representation and at this level it would be difficult to show that the form of discussion we have here has indeed not gotten a little better than Kant but not as good as a STEPford wife! contrarrrr- it has.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-05-2004 11:22 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crashfrog has replies waiting in 11 topics. Not every reply necessitates a response. Unlike you there are no threads with replies waiting where I have been asked, repeatedly, to respond.
Whether the facts will agree with this theory is yet to be seen but the odds are against this theory being any more credible than is the myth of macroevolution. We've substantiated "macroevolution" a number of times with evidence, despite a total failure on your part to explain exactly what distinguishes it from "microevolution." I'm comfortable describing "macroevolution" as a myth - there's no such thing. Macroevolution is not required for evolution to explain the history of life on Earth, which it does. Oh, and in regards to your quote mining hackjob:
Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists And moreover, there are thousands of examples of transitional forms in the vertebrate phylum alone, which you can read about here:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ So I simply don't understand how you can claim that the result you refer to as "macroevolution" - assuming that you'd ever care to explain what you mean by the term - is a myth when it's actually one of the better-substantiated conclusions in science. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-06-2004 01:02 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Dudstar, you have a career awaiting you as a spin doctor. Eugenie Scott's story about debating Gish has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of biological evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Then do tell what is the SHAPE of the form of the represenation of the cognition presented IN INTUITION of evolution. Fact is one thing but elaboration of the intire (or did you mean Dark not dud) biotic-abiotic interactivity. Even the blade of grass goes for primates like us technically in my own understanding of the current positioning post Lewonitn on the coupled nature of any changable differential equations. We need more references to the work of biological change and less nonclassica criticism which can not pass the straight face test. So if Dan writes the candle was burnt from both ends.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
DarkStar
Sidelined has replies waiting in 9 topics Really?! 'cause when I check under my name going back as far as the site will showing the replies awaiting I find I have 6 replies in arrears none of which are from you. Please clarify as this is a mystery.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4581 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
I meant Tyson the ignorant thug resorting to ear-biting, rather than fighting like the champion that he once was. Before the competition developed its current body of knowledge through actual research, creationists were the champs. Now they're down to low blows and lobe-chomping....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I have replies waiting in 4 topics, three of which I am banned from, and 1 in a "Free For All" thread where an admin requested that I not post, per the request of WillowTree to keep the number of posters at a desired minimum, allowing only invited posters to participate, and, to my chagrin, WillowTree has not seen fit to invite me, probably with very good reason. DarkStar: I did respond to your post with a post of thanks. Of course you are invited, IF you are going to support me. The only reason the debate is "closed" is because of disruptive trolls and their fraudulent drive-by dismissals. Did you somehow miss my reply to you ? Anyone who is suspended like myself must be producing evidence which upsets the status quo.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Hi DarkStar !
If want to read what I consider an interestng exchange about evolution then read the following posts in the following sequence: Free For All Forum - "Proof of God" topic: Read my post #428 then.... Read Gilgamesh post #439 then.... Read my posts #441 and 442. I would of linked these but I cannot get them to work.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Could you point us towards some of this "evidence"? I've been checking out the board and I've come across a number of your recent posts - was the evidence some time in the past? - A couple of months ago?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024