Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 121 of 323 (525118)
09-21-2009 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Archangel
09-21-2009 2:07 PM


Fraud is the subject
Archangel
I was the one who spurred you into starting this topic and since then I've just been watching as you've gone from an early attempt at showing evolutionary biology as fraud (by picking on human evolution) into a sort of general lashing out at anything that sounds like it doesn't fit your idea of "real science".
I'd like to put that concept to bed right now. Science changes as our knowledge grows; it is never final and complete despite several announcements that there is no more to learn. Consider a predecessor to your example of toxins as medicine:
I have a facsimile edition of the 1902 Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalog. I'm going to use a couple of examples to show how science has grown and our improved understanding has helped us just in the brief space of 107 years.
On page 583 there is a listing for an asbestos bread toaster, an asbestos disc covered in steel wire cloth and the bottom covered in a steel plate. It's purpose is toasting bread, crackers and whatnot that are placed on the steel wire over the heated asbestos pad. Nowadays we know about the health risk associated with asbestos...but at the time we only knew about the heat resistant properties.
On page 441 they sell the German Liquor Cure as well as a cure for opium and morphia habits. If I recall correctly the liquor cure consists of opium and the opium cure consists of liquor. Nowadays we try not to trade substance abuse problems around like that. On 447 we can also find Dr. Rose's Arsenic Complexion Wafers...perfectly harmless according to the listing.
Today we still see accepted drugs pulled from the market when scientific studies discover dangerous side-effects. Is this fraud, or just an increase in knowledge?
We know better nowadays...that doesn't make these things a fraud (although fraud exists and science-types can be guilty of it as easily as lawyers, judges and pastors). We've learned and as we've learned we apply our new knowledge to make things better, and you seem to say that real knowledge never changes. It changes constantly and sometimes too fast to follow...we don't now what will be the accepted explanation for evolution in five years time but we do know that we are getting real results by using the explanation we have.
You're making the mistake of assuming that because we can't know everything absolutely we can't know anything. This is simple failure to take into account the human condition...we can't know everything, even the bible changes just like scientific knowledge. Absolutes are the realm of philosophers and not scientists and engineers. Science works by a never ending process of trial and error and refinement. That's not fraud in my book, why is it in yours?
Tell me, by the same token there are many creation-science evangelists who are proven frauds, why do you not dismiss creation science as fraudulent as well? Nevermind, that's off topic but I hope it causes you to pause and think about if you're judging everyone in the game by the same rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 2:07 PM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 10:13 PM Tanndarr has replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 122 of 323 (525124)
09-21-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Huntard
09-21-2009 4:57 PM


Re: you represent consistent inconsistency
Huntard writes:
I know this is off topic here, but this is just plain wrong Archy. Planck time wasn't before the big bang, it was between T=0 (the actual "big bang", which occurred to current understanding about 14.5 billion years ago) and T=10-43.
Oh gee, stupid me. I said it happened prior to the big bang when you are saying it allegedly occurred simultaneously to it. And I'm just plain wrong, yet you didn't see fit to comment on or correct Hyroglyphx in referring to it in response to my mentioning the belief that life spontaneously appeared 3.5 billion years ago. I mean, he was only off by between 11 and 16.5 billion years or so, according to current understanding that is. At least you guys are consistently subjective and prejudice against those you disagree with.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 09-21-2009 4:57 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by JonF, posted 09-21-2009 7:57 PM Archangel has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 123 of 323 (525125)
09-21-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Archangel
09-21-2009 7:54 PM


Re: you represent consistent inconsistency
Oh gee, stupid me. I said it happened prior to the big bang when you are saying it allegedly occurred simultaneously to it
Both posters pointed out that the Plank time is after the big Bamng.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 7:54 PM Archangel has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 323 (525128)
09-21-2009 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Archangel
09-21-2009 7:58 AM


False standards and Poor analogies
Hi Archangel, trying to play the "big victim" card I see.
Real science which is founded upon a foundation of proven and tested conclusions builds upon that foundation with new technologies, applications and innovations based on new insights which are applied to it. But the foundation upon which the science rests remains unchanged and consistent as it was originally defined and proven to function in the real world.
No, science is a series of approximations of truth, based on what is currently known, making prediction, testing those predictions and then repeating the process with new information derived from the tests.
This is how medicine works, this is how physics works, this is how chemistry works, this is how astronomy works, this is how biology works.
You have completely ignored the examples I gave about the many natural toxins in nature which animals use for self defense, and are currently used in medicine. And I mean Blow Fish toxin, Sea Urchin Toxin and Jelly Fish Toxins for example. They are broken down to their molecular level, chemically separated, refined and tested in combinations to determine which properties have value in various applications as general medicines, vaccines, anti-virals and pain controllers.
Curiously, many modern medicines are based on knowledge from evolutionary biology that predicts cures.
Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs.
Can you provide a single example of such total revamping?
Darwin stated that evolution was descent with modification through natural selection of hereditary traits in populations where those traits provided an advantage for the individual to survive or reproduce.
Can you honestly show that evolution today is different from that founding principle?
Many aspects of how evolution accomplishes this have been uncovered since Darwin's time, including how DNA is the bearer of the hereditary traits during reproduction, but the basic principle remains the same: evolution is still the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation and what we see are added mechanisms, like genetic drift and the founder principle, in addition to validating the process of natural and sexual selection.
Adding to a theory is not a total revamping.
You people are so dishonest that you will call the science which led to these computers we are all using, engineering rather than the pure science they represent. You either forget or just are in denial to the fact that only around 6 or 7 decades ago computer science was completely theoretical.
Engineering generally (good engineering anyway) uses the same principles as science, because those principles work. Many many times engineers will make theoretical approximations of solutions to problems, and then test and refine their models to come closer and closer to an ultimate solution until the point is reached where it is good enough for practical purposes.
Engineers can do this without any knowledge of how a system works through the use of empirical formulations, developing equations from the parametric analysis of existing data and then using those equations to make the next approximations for the next round.
The point of engineering though, is not to understand HOW things work, but to figure out practical solutions to problems, to get close enough, by whatever method is most time and cost effective.
Furthermore, engineers will use approximations that are easy to calculate instead of actual equations of how things really work that are cumbersome and time consuming to calculate. This is why the moon shots, and the robot expeditions to mars used Newton's law of gravity rather than relativity.
In fact, IC engines are the standards ...
Which is why the engine power is measured in Horsepower?
Have you ever heard an auto manufacturer claim that the engines they put in their cars last year were a mistake which new technology proves never should have been offered in the first place?
Yes, they are called "recalls", sometimes they affect minor systems within the vehicle, sometimes the whole vehicle is replaced.
In addition to these problems, you all seem oblivious to the fact that in just determining the age of the earth come numerous theoretical applications which are all determined by our very limited ability to interpret them, and that how one theory affects, or is affected by another is well beyond our ability to judge at this time.
So let's start with a simple and easy to verify measurement first ... and see how we can develop further measurements with a minimum of "theoretical applications" by validating it with other methods.
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Let's explore how limited we are in being able to interpret the information available.
You people will consider we christians to be backward thinking believers in myths, when it is you who are steeped in believing in magical processes which you couldn't prove are real or accurately applied if your life depended on it. ... And you will insist that I am the ignorant one who clings to fairy tales.
Oh boo-hoo.
Just think, you are proposing that around 3.5 billion years ago, life spontaneously appeared on earth from non-life.
Actually, what we know is that some 4.0 billion years ago there was no life on this plant, but that by 3.5 billion years ago life not only had already begun, but that it was fully developed cellular life.
The earliest fossils that show life show life already developed, rock before that are not fossil bearing types of rock.
Now as science is an approximate understanding of reality, honed and refined by repeated testing, we can say that life certainly began somewhere between 3.5 billion years ago and 4.0 billion years ago.
How it began is not recorded in the fossil record, so we have no evidence on which to base even uncertain knowledge of how it began.
That uncertainty does not apply to life existing 3.5 billion years ago, and to the (constant) evolution of life from that point to the present.
Curiously, it just does not matter HOW life began, only that it DID begin, for evolution to explain the diversity of life that we now see in the world today.
Get a clue guys and then come back when you want to seriously discuss the problems with evolution and the fact that it is only by promoting frauds that this scam is called a science at all.
So far you have totally failed to present a single problem with evolution. You proposed a thread based on purported frauds committed by science to further public awareness of evolution, and what you end up with instead is an example of a creationist website that lies about evolution.
If your position is really based on truth then why do you need to use falsehoods to support it? If evolution is really based on lies, then why do you need to use creationist lies when you should have REAMS of data of the real enchilada.
Why can't you show how foraminifera are deposited in organized and sorted layers?
Why can't you back up your position with evidence?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : replaced chopped paragraph
Edited by RAZD, : t

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 7:58 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 125 of 323 (525137)
09-21-2009 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tanndarr
09-21-2009 7:24 PM


Peepul writes:
Archangel,
you are a good reasoner and for that reason I really hope you stick around in this forum.
Thank you Peepul, I have enjoyed the exchanges to a point, but there is only so much which can be said to the same hard heads about this subject. I only came here because one of your members who is a true child emotionally and intellectually challenged me on another forum that these evolutionists would crush me here, and destroy my arguments. As it turns out, their defense of evo is no more substantial than his was on the other forum. I have seen clearly that here he is relegated to nothing more than a yes man who is too afraid to actually share an opinion for fear of looking stupid. As wrong as they are, at least some here actually defend what they believe while others just continue to make it about me like this other poster who couldn't defend evo always does.
Peepul writes:
But I disagree entirely with what you say here. I don't know why you think evolution is a fraud and evolutionists are not interested in the truth - that's what they are generally interested in most of all.
In truth, I don't believe that the average pro-evolution layman is dishonest as much as deceived. It's those who create and promote the frauds as they force the most innocuous observations into flowery tales of these discovered bones having been buried with ceremonies and heartfelt send offs as if they found a diary written in shakespearian english. It's enough to make me gag. They create scenarios which never took place regarding the bones of long dead animals and attribute them to human evolution just because the animal these bones belonged to was apelike.
Tanndarr writes:
I'd like to put that concept to bed right now. Science changes as our knowledge grows; it is never final and complete despite several announcements that there is no more to learn. Consider a predecessor to your example of toxins as medicine:
Why are you just repeating what I said using different words Tannbarr? What makes something you say correct but when I say it, it's wrong? Here is how I said it in post 103.
Archangel Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs. Have you ever heard an auto manufacturer claim that the engines they put in their cars last year were a mistake which new technology proves never should have been offered in the first place? Of course not. We may be inventing new technology like Hybrid, Electric and Fuel Cell Technology for pollutions sake, but nobody is saying its necessary because internal combustion engines just don't perform well anymore.
In fact, IC engines are the standards which new technologies must compete with before they will be accepted as reliable new power plants in cars. That is real and true science. It is testable and repeatable and verifiable before being accepted as the norm. Give me that reliability with evolution and you will have a convert. But you can't and that's because it's a man made lie and a manufactured myth with no basis in fact at all.
Real science which is built upon a foundation of proven and tested conclusions builds upon that foundation with new technologies, applications and innovations based on new insights which are applied to it. But the foundation upon which the science rests remains unchanged and consistent as it was originally defined and proven to function in the real world. The fact is that evolution cannot even agree on the foundational principles upon which it is built starting with the age of the earth and the universe we inhabit. And my argument which has only been responded to with excuses is that until the foundational beliefs regarding the origin of life on earth are absolutely determined and known, then it is impossible to build a realistic explanation for the process itself.
I just expanded on and clarified the fact that although true science is based on a factual and unchanging foundation, evolution isn't because there is no factual foundation upon which one can build. That is what you are missing. The foundational science upon which true science rests doesn't change EVER. Only the advances add to its original content. I made that very clear and stand by it since you can't offer one iota of evidence that life as you state came to be spontaneously some 3.5 billion years ago as you claim. That is one hump you evos will never get over with me as you continue to focus on minutia rather than dealing directly with the challenges I throw at you,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tanndarr, posted 09-21-2009 7:24 PM Tanndarr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2009 10:43 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 127 by Tanndarr, posted 09-21-2009 11:00 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 126 of 323 (525141)
09-21-2009 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Archangel
09-21-2009 10:13 PM


"True" science and other creationist fantasies
...although true science is based on a factual and unchanging foundation, evolution isn't because there is no factual foundation upon which one can build.
Who told you that? Some preacher? Some anti-science creationist website? Your "common sense?"
In any case you, and they, are wrong. You just have an extremist anti-science position because you don't like some of the results of science.
Why don't you let scientists decide what is and what is not science, eh? They're qualified, and you have demonstrated that you're not.
That is what you are missing. The foundational science upon which true science rests doesn't change EVER. Only the advances add to its original content.
And what would that "foundational science" be? Physics? Phlogiston chemistry? Is it based on earth, air, water and fire or some such? Do the positions of the stars make any difference?
No? Well, how about the scientific method. Perhaps anything that follows the scientific method is science whether creationists agree or not.
The claim made in the past few years about "true" science, in a further effort to discredit the evolutionary sciences and any other parts of science that creationists disagree with, is inherently dishonest. All science follows the same methods--and no, laboratory repetition is not required; that is a creationist lie.
You guys should just go ahead and do your own "science" -- but please, don't call it science when it is the exact opposite.
I made that very clear and stand by it since you can't offer one iota of evidence that life as you state came to be spontaneously some 3.5 billion years ago as you claim. That is one hump you evos will never get over with me as you continue to focus on minutia rather than dealing directly with the challenges I throw at you,
There is no scientific theory about the first life; there are competing hypotheses which are seeking evidence. Perhaps one day we will have a true scientific theory.
But that's better than what you have; you have a religious belief that doesn't need or want evidence.
But what do origins have to do with evolution anyway? Evolution works just as well with 1) life from the proverbial warm pond, 2) life from a comet, or 3) Old Man Coyote or some other deity creating it.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 10:13 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 127 of 323 (525145)
09-21-2009 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Archangel
09-21-2009 10:13 PM


Tanndarr writes:
I'd like to put that concept to bed right now. Science changes as our knowledge grows; it is never final and complete despite several announcements that there is no more to learn. Consider a predecessor to your example of toxins as medicine:
Why are you just repeating what I said using different words Tannbarr? What makes something you say correct but when I say it, it's wrong? Here is how I said it in post 103.
Because what I said is not what you said. You single out evolution when the hypothesis-test-repeat cycle is common to all science:
Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs.
See? These are two very different statements. You want to treat biology like it's a different kind of science than say physics when it's pretty much the same.
I did notice that you totally dodged the point that I was trying to make: The methodology of science is not, in itself, fraudulent in any way whatsoever. There is no vast global conspiracy to push untested science onto students, we're just teaching the best science we have right now.
Your examples would be damning if people still taught children that Nebraska man is a predecessor to H. sapiens. Instead, if Nebraska man or Piltdown man appear in a textbook at all they appear as object lessons in how people may fake evidence or the popular press can inflate reasonable claims to make big news. It's a non-starter. On the other hand the same old tired PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) appear on creationist web sites with stunning regularity...why aren't your accusations of fraud falling there?
Your concept of True science is the old no true Scotsman falacy...science you like is true science and science you don't like isn't. You can't define it in any other manner and even if you could you wouldn't be able to find a recognized body of scientists who would agree with your definition.
I think what you're trying to say, and I apologize for putting words in your mouth, is that the facts...the truth if you will...never change. What does change though is the depth of our understanding of the facts, as our understanding improves then our explanations must change to take it all into account.
...since you can't offer one iota of evidence that life as you state came to be spontaneously some 3.5 billion years ago as you claim. That is one hump you evos will never get over with me as you continue to focus on minutia rather than dealing directly with the challenges I throw at you,
This topic is about the fraudulent basis for evolution, not proof of abiogenesis. The challenge here was presented to you and you, to your credit, took up the challenge. Unfortunately you've failed to make your point stick and now you're reduced to thrashing out the standard "evolution can't explain X" arguments in the hope that it will somehow make your position sound more reasonable.
Please try to return to the topic and show us how modern evolutionary synthesis rests on a fraudulent foundation. If you want to go to another topic and discuss the things you think evolution can't explain feel free to do so, but it doesn't support your argument here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 10:13 PM Archangel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Peepul, posted 09-22-2009 1:28 PM Tanndarr has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 128 of 323 (525157)
09-21-2009 11:49 PM


This comic defines the reverse evolution which has taken place in our education system, which has created minds which are so dumbed down they actually believe they are advanced in their thinking. It's ironic really.
http://www.chrismclaren.com/...2007/08/cartoon-evolution.gif
And don't worry, I'll respond to your posts tomorrow, but I can only take so much of what you offer per night.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 09-22-2009 6:38 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 129 of 323 (525178)
09-22-2009 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Archangel
09-21-2009 11:49 PM


Hi Archangel,
Love your comics, keep 'em coming!
Archangel writes:
And don't worry, I'll respond to your posts tomorrow, but I can only take so much of what you offer per night.
Take your time, there's no time limit, no need to hurry. Like Tanndarr I'd like to see you return your focus to the topic, which has to do with the reasons for the public acceptance of evolution (such as it is), and not with cosmology, religion, engineering, the nature of science, or how deluded and hard headed your opponents are.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 11:49 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 130 of 323 (525196)
09-22-2009 11:11 AM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
Coyote writes:
Who told you that? Some preacher? Some anti-science creationist website? Your "common sense?"
In any case you, and they, are wrong. You just have an extremist anti-science position because you don't like some of the results of science.
Why don't you let scientists decide what is and what is not science, eh? They're qualified, and you have demonstrated that you're not.
There you go again attempting to imply that I am anti-science because I reject the methodologies used and abused by this so called evolution science which is the only science specialty I reject. And only because it doesn't follow the prescribed and proven methods for arriving at the truth. For example. show me the scrutiny and quality of the peer review process used to verify the claims made about the tool making and burial practices discovered for Neanderthal. And confirm for me that it wasn't just a procedural process of rubber stamping an outcome which this self policing community didn't give because the conclusions agreed with their preconceived notions?
And what would that "foundational science" be? Physics? Phlogiston chemistry? Is it based on earth, air, water and fire or some such? Do the positions of the stars make any difference?
No? Well, how about the scientific method. Perhaps anything that follows the scientific method is science whether creationists agree or not.
The claim made in the past few years about "true" science, in a further effort to discredit the evolutionary sciences and any other parts of science that creationists disagree with, is inherently dishonest. All science follows the same methods--and no, laboratory repetition is not required; that is a creationist lie.
No it doesn't. Evolution science attempts to answer questions it is ill-equipped to answer in any way since we don't currently possess a platform by which to observe the necessary natural phenomena with which to perform the required experiments to prove when and how life allegedly spontaneously appeared from non life these guestimated 3.5 billion years ago. In other words, here are the steps of scientific methodology:
The steps of the Scientific Method are:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion
There are no real or verifiable experiments to run which prove the predictions made which can come to the conclusions which evolution assumes and presumes in its stated belief system. Everything it claims and has claimed for a hundred years now are preconceived notions which it (the science) has no hope of proving through experimentation. It can also be said with confidence that the original hypothesis was never formed based on original observations which pointed to life spontaneously appearing out of primordial ooze 3.5 billion years ago. All of that is based on nothing more than pre-conceived assumptions which evolution has gone on to support with any conglomeration of evidence they can create to prove that which their agenda requires.
There is no scientific theory about the first life; there are competing hypotheses which are seeking evidence. Perhaps one day we will have a true scientific theory.
Then you finally admit that I am absolutely correct in my absolute claim that nothing you base your preconceived notions on regarding evolution are real or currently provable in any way. Then where is the argument? Evolution is based more in the wants/desired outcome of evolutionists rather than any rational observations or facts which lead to provable experiments which have any hope of verifying what what you continue to keep insisting is a true science which follows the accepted scientific methods required for real and true scientific results.
But that's better than what you have; you have a religious belief that doesn't need or want evidence.
Since I have clearly proven my point above, and you have actually agreed with me that you have no hope of currently proving anything about our origins which you claim are true, you have by default admitted that everything you believe regarding this theory of evolution is based on nothing more than faith in the men who's unprovable/untestable/unverifiable research you rely on. Therefore, my faith in a personal and infinite God who is much more reliable in every way than finite man who has no better a perspective than I, myself do; then how can you question the preference to trust His word over the unprovable fables of men with absolutely no eternal perspective at all? I'm relying on the creator of everything as you rely on fallen man.
But what do origins have to do with evolution anyway? Evolution works just as well with 1) life from the proverbial warm pond, 2) life from a comet, or 3) Old Man Coyote or some other deity creating it.
Here is where you not only embarrass yourself but sacrifice all credibility that you actually respect the scientific method which you claim evolution follows. It is the origins of life which evolution claims occurred which it bases its whole theory upon. That is why it is so disingenuous for evolution to attempt to separate itself from abiogenesis in debates like this when challenged by people like me, as you then must acknowledge that humble beginning when dealing with the original random mutation which led to the theory of common descent via natural selection. It all starts with the appearance of spontaneous life from non life according to evolution, whether you want to connect the processes or not.

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2009 11:33 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 132 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2009 11:56 AM Archangel has replied
 Message 134 by dokukaeru, posted 09-22-2009 1:55 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 5:59 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 131 of 323 (525199)
09-22-2009 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Archangel
09-22-2009 11:11 AM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
Since I have clearly proven my point above, and you have actually agreed with me that you have no hope of currently proving anything about our origins which you claim are true, you have by default admitted that everything you believe regarding this theory of evolution is based on nothing more than faith in the men who's unprovable/untestable/unverifiable research you rely on.
You have not proven your point. EVOLUTION DOES NOT DEPEND ON ANY PARTICULAR ORIGIN! Your claims to the contrary mean nothing; science will proceed whether you say yea or nay.
And for you to claim not to be anti-science is a joke. You hate the results of evolutionary sciences and are looking for any way to undermine those sciences and peoples' trust in them. You don't know squat about those sciences, but you hate them anyway--for reasons having to do with religion, not science, and for reasons having nothing to do with the accuracy of those sciences.
Therefore, my faith in a personal and infinite God who is much more reliable in every way than finite man who has no better a perspective than I, myself do; then how can you question the preference to trust His word over the unprovable fables of men with absolutely no eternal perspective at all? I'm relying on the creator of everything as you rely on fallen man.
You left off, "Amen." That kind of posting is nothing but preaching. It undermines your paltry attempts to sound scientific, and gives away your whole approach to science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 11:11 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 132 of 323 (525201)
09-22-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Archangel
09-22-2009 11:11 AM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
And confirm for me that it wasn't just a procedural process of rubber stamping an outcome which this self policing community didn't give because the conclusions agreed with their preconceived notions?
http://www.ffzg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/neanderthal_dead.pdf does that very nicely, thank you very much. It's a critical assessment of bunches of possible Neanderthal burials,

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 11:11 AM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 2:19 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 133 of 323 (525217)
09-22-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Tanndarr
09-21-2009 11:00 PM


Archangel, why are you not addressing your original topic? The contribution of fraud to the acceptance of evolution is the topic of this thread. So far you haven't demonstrated any evidence that fraud has contributed to the acceptance of evolution. It's time to put up or shut up.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Tanndarr, posted 09-21-2009 11:00 PM Tanndarr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 2:26 PM Peepul has not replied

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4614 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 134 of 323 (525221)
09-22-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Archangel
09-22-2009 11:11 AM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
Hello ArchAngel, welcome to EVC.
ArchAngel writes:
It is the origins of life which evolution claims occurred which it bases its whole theory upon.
Please do not take this the wrong way, but you seem to have some ignorance as to what the theory of evolution is and what it says.
Evolution does not speak of the origins of life. ToE would hold true if life spontaneously arose, was brought here from another world/dimension, or was breathed into by God.
I think if you took the time to research what the ToE actually is, we could alleviate a great deal of this "nashing of teeth".
Also, could you please cite a specific reference for your definition of science?
Eagerly awaiting your response and thanks,
Joe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 11:11 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 135 of 323 (525223)
09-22-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Coragyps
09-22-2009 11:56 AM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
Coragyps writes:
http://www.ffzg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/neanderthal_dead.pdf does that very nicely, thank you very much. It's a critical assessment of bunches of possible Neanderthal burials,
From the introduction in your posted link, and I quote:
It is probably fair to say that most scholars accept that some Neanderthals received deliberate burial after death, and that such burials appear not to have included grave goods or any other form of elaboration visible in the archaeological record. Gargett, however, (1989; 1999) has argued that we have no one convincing example of burial. Whilst a number of surveys over the last two decades are generally favourable to the notion, reviews tend to make generalisations of the 􏰑Neanderthals did bury their dead􏰒 variety. Such a generalisation over Upper Pleistocene time and space may not be justified, and certainly merits closer inspection.
It also say's in the abstract that This article demonstrates that Neanderthal mortuary activity was a real phenomenon that requires exploration and interpretation and examines the nature and extent of variability in mortuary behaviour. Like most of what evo does, it must interpreted based on evidence like this:
2.1 Fragmentary Neanderthal remains
The 􏰑archaic􏰒 skeleton of Skhl 9 may be the oldest burial known as yet (Stringer 1998) although it is conceivable that the Tabun C1 Neanderthal is as old as 120 ka BP (eg, McDermott et al 1993; Grn et al 1991) and in any case the dating of the entire Tabun sequence is a fiercely-debated issue (eg, Millard & Pike 1999) 1 . With the exception of the Sima de los Huesos sample from Atapuerca, it is only from the substages of OIS5 that near complete human remains are found on enclosed sites in Eurasia, and only from late OIS3 and OIS2 (ie, the Mid Upper Palaeolithic) that they are found on open sites. Prior to this, as Gamble (comment to Gargett 1989) has noted they are 􏰑truly bits and pieces􏰒. The existing database indicates that the earliest burials are of anatomically modern humans at the gate of Africa (Hublin 2000). For the Neanderthals specifically, with the possible exception of La Quina and La Ferrassie, all burials for which there is chronological data2 post date c 60 ka BP, ie, belong to OIS3 (Defleur 1993). For example, the Amud 1 skeleton has a terminus post quem of 50-80 ka BP3 andtheKebaraskeletonissecurelydatedto c 60 ka BP (Schwarcz et al 1989; Valladas et al 1998). Clearly a new depositional phenomenon came into play in OIS5, at least among early anatomically modern humans, which by early OIS3 was also practised by the Neanderthals. Despite caution about taphonomic factors this is usually taken to indicate the origin of formal burial.
Notice how this allegedly scientific thesis with all of its scientific jargon is rife with assumptions and interpretations which are based on nothing more than wishful thinking. No where is there any actual photographic or documented evidence of formal burials, and by that I mean photos of the archeological digs or seismic graphs which confirmed the earth density around the bones as compared to the variant earth in the area which proved an original burial had taken place at all.
Only to you evolution cultists do you accept it as evidence because you can read that somebody wrote that it occurred and only maybe, no less. And Garrett points out my precise concern.
Gargett (1989, 1999) has put forward a literature- based critique of Neanderthal burial based on sedimentology, stratigraphy and taphonomy. He drew attention to the 􏰑double standards􏰒4 applied to Palaeolithic research in that 􏰑􏰈it is simply assumed that 􏰈[anatomically modern] human
2 Before Farming 2002/1 (4)
remains discovered in an archaeological context were placed there purposely􏰒 (ibid 157) given that the criteria for recognition of purposeful burial were ill-defined due to the ubiquity of burial in later prehistory, history and the ethnographic present. With Neanderthals, as he notes, the proportion of fragmentary Neanderthal remains is considerably higher in the Upper Pleistocene record than for modern humans, which has led to the assumption that preservation of more complete Neanderthal remains which stand out is due to deliberate burial.
The trick is to find unbiased sources which are interested in pure science no matter where it takes them. Although Garrett is such a researcher, he finds himself disregarded by the scientific community which rejects his objectivity refusal to make unfounded assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2009 11:56 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 5:19 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 144 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2009 6:35 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 151 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2009 8:30 PM Archangel has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024