Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 142 of 210 (359685)
10-29-2006 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 12:12 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
quote:
And this being stacked against science sometimes comes from themselves and sometimes comes from arbitrary rules about science that people of a anti-religious sentiments make up.
quote:
Some evolutionists are in the same boat when they immediately reject any notion of ID on the basis of it running counter to their personal irreligious beliefs. Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins come to mind.
But any individual scientists' "personal religious beliefs" have nothing whatsoever to do with any "rules of science", "arbitrary" or not.
It doesn't matter to the rules of science that Paleontologist Reverend Bob Bakker is a Pentacostal Christian, just as it doesn't matter that Richard Dawkins is an Atheist.
The rules are the same for everybody, regardless of religious beliefs.
Your claims are rubbish.
stop reading Creationist propaganda. They are lying to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 1:23 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 150 of 210 (359788)
10-30-2006 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rob
10-30-2006 1:23 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
quote:
One certainly cannot logically envision life as we know it spontaneously appearing.
Why not?
quote:
The difficulty for the naturalist, is that before natural selection can begin to pass any changes in a simple life form, to the next generation (and give us the opprotunity for more complex organisms), we must, by necessity, start with an organism capable of self-replication.
No. What we need to start with is a molecule capable of self-replication. The "organism" part comes much later.
quote:
Natural selection is a fact... but it cannot explain the origin of DNA,
So, are you saying that because we do not have perfect knowledge right at this moment, all of the 150 years of research which confirms the Theory of Evolution is somehow negated?
That's like saying that String Theory negates the Atomic Theory of Matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 1:23 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 9:52 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 152 of 210 (359826)
10-30-2006 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rob
10-30-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
quote:
We have not found one.
So, are you saying that because we do not have perfect knowledge right at this moment, all of the 150 years of research which confirms the Theory of Evolution is somehow negated?
That's like saying that String Theory negates the Atomic Theory of Matter.
quote:
I don't think so, and yes, if scientists can believe that, then I think they are in desperation (even unconsciously) wallowing in ignorance and half-truths.
They wouldn't be the first to notice a problem for their 'life-style' if they are wrong. And any self respecting android will fight tooth and nail to deny that he is not the superior life form in this universe.
Self respect... a subtle yet misunderstood power called pride!
So, is it your contention that scientists are incompetent at doing science?
Furthermore, you seem to imply that they are liars, knowing that they are perpetuating a falsehood.
Is this your position regarding the competency and integrity of scientists?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 9:52 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 8:31 PM nator has replied
 Message 159 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 1:09 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 177 of 210 (360991)
11-02-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Rob
10-30-2006 8:31 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
quote:
No, it is my position regarding the competency and integrity of mankind!
So, is it your contention that scientists, as a specific part of mankind, are either liars, knowingly perpetuating a falsehood, or utterly incompetent at doing science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 8:31 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 2:02 AM nator has replied
 Message 181 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 12:26 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 188 of 210 (361197)
11-03-2006 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Rob
11-03-2006 2:02 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
quote:
To answer your question... Not necessarily.
My point is that they are not exempt from such sins.
No, they aren't.
But is it your opinion that they are generally, in fact, guilty, of being liars who are perpetuating a massive falsehood, or utterly incompetent at doing science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 2:02 AM Rob has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 189 of 210 (361198)
11-03-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Rob
11-03-2006 12:26 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
quote:
It should not suprise us that an entire institution can be thoroughly deluded.
So, is it your position that all scientists who accept the ToE are incompetent at doing science, since possibly they have been lied to by a few other scientists who wish to fool them and they are too knuckleheaded to figure out that the data they've been using doesn't actually work?
Just so I am sure we are on the same page, Rob, could you please briefly give a run down of what is involved in submitting a paper for peer review, and the general process of getting a paper published in a professional scientific journal.
I want to know how well you understand the way the peer-review process works.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 12:26 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 5:38 PM nator has replied
 Message 192 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 5:54 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 204 of 210 (361276)
11-03-2006 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Rob
11-03-2006 5:38 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
I want to know how well you understand the way the peer-review process works.
quote:
More or less as well as any other human attempt to control themselves.
No, no, rob.
I am confident that you are perfectly aware that I didn't ask for your opinion of how well scientific peer review works.
I am equally confident that you know that I asked you to describe the process.
Please stop wasting my time.
Here, I'll help you get started:
Joe Biologist has done some research and has written up his results in a paper. He's like to publish his work in the prestigious professional journal, Super Duper Biological Science.
What's his first step?
Edited by AdminJar, : fix quote code

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 5:38 PM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by AdminJar, posted 11-03-2006 8:05 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024