Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 8:04 PM
371 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,870 Year: 16,476/21,208 Month: 2,365/3,593 Week: 478/882 Day: 99/97 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1082 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 121 of 169 (537121)
11-27-2009 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by traste
11-26-2009 1:45 AM


Re: Scientific laws
So you are referring to the RNA world theory.

No, he was talking about uracil - can you not read?

this theory as one scientist puts it" is fatally flawed because it failed to explained where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecule."

Who was this scientist? Please provide his name and where he made the quote.

n addition RNA cannot function independently without the help from the 2 macromolecules the protein and DNA

Really? Please provide evidence of this. Given the RNA Hypothesis, you might have thought that there would be an idea that this is not true... but that would have required 'thought' and I don't see a lot of that in these posts...

I hope I educate you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by traste, posted 11-26-2009 1:45 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by traste, posted 12-24-2009 12:29 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 122 of 169 (537292)
11-28-2009 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Theodoric
09-22-2009 10:20 PM


Re: you are ignorant
Theodoric writes:

You do know there is no scientific law called [Recurrent Variation] this don't you. If you have any evidence such a scientific law exists please present it.

look here


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Theodoric, posted 09-22-2009 10:20 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 5:32 AM Peg has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 123 of 169 (537297)
11-28-2009 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by cavediver
11-27-2009 3:35 AM


Re: Scientific laws
cavediver writes:

Yeah, of course it did Traste - I cannot believe the endless stream of crap you produce. Do you have a reference to this at all???

the quote comes from the British 'New Scientist' journal in an article entitled "Darwins Theory: An Exercise in Science" June 25th 1981 by Michael Ruse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by cavediver, posted 11-27-2009 3:35 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 5:29 AM Peg has responded
 Message 126 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 5:42 AM Peg has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1082 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 124 of 169 (537302)
11-28-2009 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Peg
11-28-2009 5:05 AM


Re: Scientific laws
the quote comes from the British 'New Scientist' journal in an article entitled "Darwins Theory: An Exercise in Science" June 25th 1981 by Michael Ruse.

Ah, I see. So it wasn't New Scientist stating this - it was made within an article - do we have a full, none-quote-mined copy of what Ruse said? Or are the creationists all just copying each other's quote-mine yet again?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 5:05 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:30 AM cavediver has responded
 Message 139 by traste, posted 12-24-2009 12:55 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1082 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 125 of 169 (537303)
11-28-2009 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Peg
11-28-2009 4:33 AM


Re: you are ignorant
look here

Peg, one guy from a plant institute publishing in what must be the most obscure journal unknown to man, and declaring that he has a "law" is not really how 'laws' come in to being in science...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 4:33 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:33 AM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1082 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 126 of 169 (537306)
11-28-2009 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Peg
11-28-2009 5:05 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Here is Michael Ruse's reply concerning the quote-mine:

No reputable biologist has any doubts about evolution -- it is so easy to quote people out of context.

I wonder how much Jesus loves the limitless lying and deception perpetrated by his followers... What do you think, Peg?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 5:05 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:38 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 127 of 169 (537372)
11-28-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by cavediver
11-28-2009 5:29 AM


Re: Scientific laws
cavediver writes:

do we have a full, none-quote-mined copy of what Ruse said?

im not sure

but im sure a copy could be got from New Scientist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 5:29 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by hooah212002, posted 11-28-2009 9:36 AM Peg has responded
 Message 135 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 9:43 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 128 of 169 (537373)
11-28-2009 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by cavediver
11-28-2009 5:32 AM


Re: you are ignorant
cavediver writes:

Peg, one guy from a plant institute publishing in what must be the most obscure journal unknown to man, and declaring that he has a "law" is not really how 'laws' come in to being in science...

i dont know how science officiates such ideas/theories/laws

how did Newtons/Gallileo or Eisteins laws become official?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 5:32 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-28-2009 9:39 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 137 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 9:48 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 129 of 169 (537375)
11-28-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Peg
11-28-2009 9:30 AM


Re: Scientific laws
I, personally, am having a rather hard time finding the original article. However, MANY creo-sites quote this. not a single scientific site does as such. Please, if you can find the original, provide it. I would love to read it.

Edited by hooah212002, : spellcheck


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:30 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:42 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 130 of 169 (537376)
11-28-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by cavediver
11-28-2009 5:42 AM


Re: Scientific laws
cavediver writes:

I wonder how much Jesus loves the limitless lying and deception perpetrated by his followers... What do you think, Peg?

well you know what they say...

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

but seriously, i think creationists are looking very closely at what evolutionists say and when they say something that appears to express some amount of doubt, creationists use it. YOu cant blame them can you? I mean the idea that life evolved and was not created is diametrically opposed to their entire belief system.

most of us are not scientists...and those who are seem to be branded as 'not real scientists' if they believe in creation. So its no wonder we pounce on anything that appears to discredit evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 5:42 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by hooah212002, posted 11-28-2009 9:42 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 134 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-28-2009 9:42 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 540 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 131 of 169 (537378)
11-28-2009 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Peg
11-28-2009 9:33 AM


Re: you are ignorant
dont know how science officiates such ideas/theories/laws

how did Newtons/Gallileo or Eisteins laws become official?

Peer review, further research and verifiable testing and confirmed predictions.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:33 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 132 of 169 (537379)
11-28-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Peg
11-28-2009 9:38 AM


Re: Scientific laws
but seriously, i think creationists are looking very closely at what evolutionists say and when they say something that appears to express some amount of doubt, creationists use it. YOu cant blame them can you? I mean the idea that life evolved and was not created is diametrically opposed to their entire belief system.

most of us are not scientists...and those who are seem to be branded as 'not real scientists' if they believe in creation. So its no wonder we pounce on anything that appears to discredit evolution.

Because it is decieptful, peg. Words are misconstrued. They are twisting peoples quotes around and shelling them out to APPEAR that there is doubt, when there isn't any.

Creationism and ID are out to bash Evolution, not prove themselves true. That is how they think they can sway people: by lying and saying that Evolution is wrong and you will go to hell if you question the bible.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:38 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 133 of 169 (537380)
11-28-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by hooah212002
11-28-2009 9:36 AM


Re: Scientific laws
hooah212002 writes:

Please, if you can find the original, provide it. I would love to read it.

i only have the reference in the bibliography in my 'evolution or creation' book.

I did a google but didnt come up with anything either... Perhaps someone would need to ask New Scientist or the author for a copy of the original article.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by hooah212002, posted 11-28-2009 9:36 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 540 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 134 of 169 (537381)
11-28-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Peg
11-28-2009 9:38 AM


Re: Scientific laws
but seriously, i think creationists are looking very closely at what evolutionists say and when they say something that appears to express some amount of doubt, creationists use it. YOu cant blame them can you? I mean the idea that life evolved and was not created is diametrically opposed to their entire belief system.

most of us are not scientists...and those who are seem to be branded as 'not real scientists' if they believe in creation. So its no wonder we pounce on anything that appears to discredit evolution.

Wow, Peg, your truthfulness meter just peged. I can't find anything in the above I would really disagree with. Though there are some 'real' scientists that keep more quite about their religious beliefs than others and do not make it an issue.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:38 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1082 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 135 of 169 (537382)
11-28-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Peg
11-28-2009 9:30 AM


Re: Scientific laws
but im sure a copy could be got from New Scientist

I may even have a copy in my archive - but it would take some climbing and searching

But the point is - Michael Ruse who is being quoted as saying

" an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argued that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials"

when questioned on this, replied

"No reputable biologist has any doubts about evolution -- it is so easy to quote people out of context."

so I don't think we even need to look for the article, when the author in question is giving us his own view...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:30 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by hooah212002, posted 11-28-2009 9:44 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017