Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 196 of 304 (425726)
10-03-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by CTD
10-03-2007 10:03 PM


Re: what it is
Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been advancing our understanding Biology over the last 150 years at the most astonishing pace have all just been deluded? Since several of the main occupations of scientists are critically examining theory and trying to falsify hypotheses, are you also accusing all of those Biologists of being so poor at doing science that they have, to a person, missed the fact that the overarching, foundational theory that underpins all Biology is completely false?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 10:03 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by CTD, posted 10-04-2007 1:50 AM nator has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 197 of 304 (425731)
10-03-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dr Adequate
10-03-2007 5:33 PM


Sometimes good things happen
I said
quote:
Simple: The same way non-Norse European navigators could believe one would could drop off the western edge of the Atlantic. It's what they were taught.
Dr Adequate responded
Of course, you made this rubbish up in your head, which is why you can't produce one shred of evidence for your delusions.
Thanks for tempting me. I actually learned something new! Since you were unwilling to divulge details, I suppose it falls to me.
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org//library/russell/FlatEarth.html
Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia
Too bad you couldn't be honest about it, but had to throw in your signiture "made it up in your head" slander.
But at any rate, the teaching I received on flat earth beliefs was grossly in error. Turns out this is a myth which came about innocently, but has since been maliciously perpetuated.
link 1 says:
It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.
I stand corrected - not for making up fiction, but for believing evolutionist propaganda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-03-2007 5:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2007 3:30 AM CTD has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 198 of 304 (425734)
10-03-2007 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by CTD
10-03-2007 10:03 PM


Avoidance of the subject and flippancy
iceage writes:
You must never have been exposed to a scientific/academic environment.
CTD writes:
You must believe this statement to have propaganda value. It does.
It is just when you make statements like...
CTD writes:
The only ones whose behavior is unethical in this respect are those who discover the truth and act to suppress it.
It is somewhat apparent.
CTD writes:
As a response, it is insufficient. I'm not sure which of my sentences you disagree with. I expect it's the second. From your perspective the unethical ones would be those who blab. But your post never got around to what's unethical about blabbing.
Immature mocking response lacking any substance or quality.
I just explained in the prior post the value of honesty and integrity within the scientific community. And now you claim that "from [my] perspective the unethical ones would be those who blab".
If you are going to be flippant then don't even attempt a response.
I will restate the point. It is uncharacteristic, unrealistic and unsupported that there is a cadre of scientists who "discover the truth but act to suppress it". This is a myth the YECers pass around in close circles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 10:03 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by CTD, posted 10-04-2007 2:42 AM iceage has replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 199 of 304 (425789)
10-04-2007 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by nator
10-03-2007 10:09 PM


Re: what it is
Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been advancing our understanding Biology over the last 150 years at the most astonishing pace have all just been deluded?
The question is poorly phrased. I never indicated that I thought all biologists have been deluded. There have been a considerable number of scientists in the last 150 years. The number would vary greatly depending upon how terms are defined, but it's going to be more than a handful.
Intellects don't add in such a manner that 10 scientists are twice as smart as 5. Even so, with such a number of people as I imagine working for such a long time it would be remarkable if none of them were able to make any progress in disspelling false ideas. My assessment of the situation is that progress has indeed been made.
nator maintains that there is an "overarching, foundational theory that underpins all Biology". If such a thing exists I'd say it's anatomy (although I haven't heard of a theory of all anatomy). It might also refer to genetics. Neither of these actually underpin all aspects of biology. I think nator intends to use these terms to refer to evolutionism, and that's just a repetition of empty hype.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by nator, posted 10-03-2007 10:09 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Modulous, posted 10-04-2007 10:57 AM CTD has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 200 of 304 (425796)
10-04-2007 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by iceage
10-03-2007 10:43 PM


flippancy
Immature mocking response lacking any substance or quality.
I just explained in the prior post the value of honesty and integrity within the scientific community. And now you claim that "from [my] perspective the unethical ones would be those who blab".
In the future there's a simple way to avoid this. When you agree with me, don't try to pretend you're disagreeing.
We both seem to agree that it's unethical to cover up the truth. We disagree on but one point: has it happened?
Two short sentences & presto! I know you want to make a big show of disputing what I say, but there are more efficient ways to go about it.
An obvious problem with your argument about the ethics of the scientific professions might that judges & lawyers make similar statements. Many of us have seen how corrupt they are. But there's no shortage of "we have to maintain the highest standards of ethics" noise from their camps, is there?
I'm not really concerned with noise. I'd like to see less threats against scientists' jobs when they do try to discuss issues which are inconvenient for fundamentalist evolutionists.
I'd like to see evidence rather than reasoning when "intrusive burial" claims are made.
I'd like to see more "we can't make it work just yet" and less "dark matter" and "dark energy".
I know we need less censorship, and it's been a problem for quite a long time.
Then maybe I'd be more receptive to claims of high ethics in the scientific community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by iceage, posted 10-03-2007 10:43 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by iceage, posted 10-04-2007 3:27 AM CTD has replied
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2007 3:41 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 205 by Admin, posted 10-04-2007 8:00 AM CTD has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 201 of 304 (425803)
10-04-2007 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by CTD
10-04-2007 2:42 AM


Re: flippancy
Iceage writes:
Immature mocking response lacking any substance or quality.
I just explained in the prior post the value of honesty and integrity within the scientific community. And now you claim that "from [my] perspective the unethical ones would be those who blab".
CTD writes:
In the future there's a simple way to avoid this. When you agree with me, don't try to pretend you're disagreeing.
I have never pretended to disagree. I have don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Your quote
CTD writes:
From your perspective the unethical ones would be those who blab.
You are the one pretending. Here you are mockingly pretending a position that I would not take. Didn't even hint at it.
This is dishonest discourse.
CTD writes:
Two short sentences & presto! I know you want to make a big show of disputing what I say, but there are more efficient ways to go about it.
What the hell are you talking about? Try to be clear and precise and unambiguous.
CTD writes:
An obvious problem with your argument about the ethics of the scientific professions might that judges & lawyers make similar statements.
Comparing Law with Science is comparing Apples to Oranges.
How many scientist are found out taking payment on the side by evolutionist underground consortium.
As I pointed out before, if a scientist was able to falsify an existing theory or propose a new theory, equation or model that better matches the data that individual would he heralded as a hero. There is no analogue within law. In law you are a hero if you can get a known criminal off the hook. You comparison falls flat.
CTD writes:
I'd like to see less threats against scientists' jobs when they do try to discuss issues which are inconvenient for fundamentalist evolutionists.
Does this happen often?
Here is story where a college instructor is fired for making disparaging remarks about the creation myth.
http://news.yahoo.com/...ollegeteachercreationistsgotmefired
The Discovery Institute, CRI, etc are well funded. DI hands out something 60K fellowships to researchers. Want a job? get a degree and trying to sell creationism these folks will fund you.
CTD writes:
I'd like to see evidence rather than reasoning when "intrusive burial" claims are made.
You mean like this... http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm
You will have to be specific if you want to make a point...
CTD writes:
I'd like to see more "we can't make it work just yet" and less "dark matter" and "dark energy".
From the Dark Matter wiki... "dark matter is hypothetical matter of unknown composition"
From a NASA educational website "There is currently much ongoing research by scientists attempting to discover exactly what this dark matter is, how much there is, and what effect it may have on the future of the Universe as a whole"
There is truth in the advertising. Dark Matter is speculative at the present time and presented as such.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by CTD, posted 10-04-2007 2:42 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by CTD, posted 10-04-2007 12:36 PM iceage has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 202 of 304 (425806)
10-04-2007 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by CTD
10-03-2007 10:28 PM


Re: Sometimes good things happen
I stand corrected - not for making up fiction, but for believing evolutionist propaganda.
Let me explain something to you. You are a creationist. The halfwitted garbage that you recite when you argue for creationism is creationist propaganda.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 10:28 PM CTD has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 203 of 304 (425810)
10-04-2007 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by CTD
10-04-2007 2:42 AM


Re: flippancy
We both seem to agree that it's unethical to cover up the truth. We disagree on but one point: has it happened?
Well, given that you have absolutely no evidence that scientists have covered up the truth, I'd say that the answer is no. Presumably you would claim that the answer is yes, despite your total inability to find evidence for this. You are, after all, a creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by CTD, posted 10-04-2007 2:42 AM CTD has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 204 of 304 (425821)
10-04-2007 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by CTD
10-03-2007 9:26 PM


I cannot say just how stupid you are. An observant teacher would observe that some students tend to question things critically while others do not.
When the pace is such that students find themselves "cramming" before tests, they don't really have time to question everything even if they otherwise would be inclined to do so. Some students struggle enough just to get by, and don't have a lot of spare intellectual energy. If you are a teacher you should be able to make a better list than I.
I was asking about scientists - you seem to have changed tune to students now. Why is that?
A gradutae of a scientific discipline is NOT a scientist. If your opinion of scientists is based upon an observation of students, then obviously there is a huge flaw in your reasoning.
The complete arrogance and utter ignorance demonstrated in your accusation is simply astounding.
Your disproportionate response could be interpreted as incriminating.
Your swift moving of goalposts seems to be the justification of my statement...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 9:26 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by CTD, posted 10-04-2007 10:10 AM cavediver has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 205 of 304 (425838)
10-04-2007 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by CTD
10-04-2007 2:42 AM


Re: flippancy
Hi CTD,
There's a recurrent theme in many of your posts questioning honesty and integrity, sometimes of scientists, sometimes of the people you're debating with, sometimes of both. This has the effect of causing threads to change focus from the actual topic to defenses of honesty and integrity.
When someone proposes the same answer for many different questions, we usually ask them to take that answer to its own thread, else too many threads end up considering the same question. In the case of your concerns about honesty and integrity, they can be applied to nearly any thread. Why do geologists believe seashells on mountain tops are evidence of an ancient earth? They're dishonest. How can biologists accept the ToE? They're dishonest. Why do evolutionists deny that evolution is racist? They're dishonest. Why do geologists deny the possibility of a vapor canopy and fountains of the deep? They're dishonest. Why to most evolutionists reject holistic medicine? They're dishonest. Why do evolutionists say that abiogenesis and evolution are two different theories? They're dishonest.
So because you are raising issues of honesty in so many threads, I'm requesting that you take these issues to a single thread and to stop raising them in other threads. You can propose a thread to discuss it over at [forum=-25].

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by CTD, posted 10-04-2007 2:42 AM CTD has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 206 of 304 (425862)
10-04-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by cavediver
10-04-2007 4:48 AM


A gradutae of a scientific discipline is NOT a scientist. If your opinion of scientists is based upon an observation of students, then obviously there is a huge flaw in your reasoning.
Here we go with the definitions again...
No. I won't play that junk. I said they believe it because it's what they were taught. You dispute this. You assert that there's a flaw in my reasoning, but you don't explain what it is.
Any 'scientist' is going to have to come from somewhere. If they don't come from schools I can only imagine you're invoking spontaneous generation of adults. If so, please provide some evidence. It could revolutionize biology.
The issue was: how could scientists come to accept evolutionism since their profession involves testing ideas? I explained how this happens. In my scenario, they're taught evolutionism before they are ordained.
Just when exactly do spontaneously generated 'scientists' obtain their knowledge of evolutionism?
Anyhow, either way we have our fully-fledged, ordained 'scientist'. He's not going to encounter macroevolution in his daily work, so he doesn't need to test it. Microevolution has nothing to do with the issue - it's been around forever. Tests involving microevolution generally say nothing about whether life was created or life evolved.
Anyone involved in life sciences is going to encounter evidence for creation in the form of elegant, highly organized systems; and some will realize the necessity of an ingenious designer. There's a good chance they'll have incidental contact with other types of evidence which has the potential to damage macroevolutionary concepts. They may notice these things, or they may have other issues on their mind. They may notice and find that evolutionism has an "answer". Unless they're greatly concerned, any answer will do. Everyone has a issues to deal with in life, and trivial oddities can't all be pursued. Besides, just look at the great bulk of "evidences from different fields of science" - surely one tiny gnat of evidence is meaningless next to the blue whale that's been accumulated.
So whence the question in the first place?
Creationists marvel at the wonders God has made, and have a hard time understanding how others can be oblivious to the evidence. Just as evolution is implied when one is trained to view and interpret the patterns in the fossils, so creation is implied when one looks for beauty and clever design in lifeforms.
It's very difficult to convince a creationist that life can be the result of chance. Regardless of how the basic ID argument is attacked, on an intuitive level it's dug in like a tick. On the other side, evolutionists don't seem inclined to look for different patterns and interpretations of the fossil records. I can't say how much beauty they find in them. "Is it science?" doesn't apply terribly well to either case because these are things people are involuntarily inclined to believe.
A vast, all-encompassing conspiracy? Not really. A multitude of dupes? More like a multitude of people who have other priorities. A key ingredient of evolutionism is that it has no practical application in normal scientific endeavours. Nobody butts heads with it - and it's not falsifiable in the normal scientific sense, unless one goes out of one's way to make it so. (I'm not sure if they've ever managed the trick yet. I know they've been trying.)
The conspiracies aren't secret, either. The X Club was not a secret, and the various evolutionist organizations of our time aren't all that hard to spot.
X Club - Wikipedia
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide3.html
And it's no big secret what happens to anyone who makes a stir and is perceived as a threat to evolutionism. They better get ready to find another job, because there's always an attempt to attack one's livelihood.
There are indeed hard-core fundamentalist evolutionists who will do or say anything to support their religion. In behaviour, they're more akin to politicians than scientists. The leaders of fanatical evolutionists are no better than the televangelist charlatans they habitually denounce. And they love the publicity that comes with any 'red alert' situation.
But there's good news: Roughly half the kids graduating high school ("U.S.") are rejecting evolutionism to one extent or another. The per centage was much worse not too many years ago. It's shifting rapidly. Considering the longstanding monopoly, and increasing requirements that the religion must be taught as if it were an established fact, this is really something!
I think I see a pattern. 10 or 15 years back (I forget) a major campaign was launched to get evolutionism into lower grades. Books were re-written to stuff it in at every opportunity, and teachers were given special training. But it's backfired spectacularly. Young kids are much smarter than the evolutionists thought. And they have a lot of free time, a luxury not often found in the adult world. The earlier they encounter the idea, the longer they have to question it. And it's banished by scrutiny.
What we need is an International Evolution Week. A week off work for all scientists to "celebrate Evolution". That'd get 'em a free little time, and draw their attention. I know it'd help the leaders of the movement raise money with special events & TV programs, but in the long run I think they'd lose a lot of ground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by cavediver, posted 10-04-2007 4:48 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Vacate, posted 10-04-2007 4:54 PM CTD has not replied
 Message 210 by obvious Child, posted 10-04-2007 10:53 PM CTD has not replied
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2007 5:42 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 213 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2007 5:53 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 214 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2007 6:40 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 216 by anglagard, posted 10-07-2007 1:41 AM CTD has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 207 of 304 (425864)
10-04-2007 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by CTD
10-04-2007 1:50 AM


Re: what it is
nator maintains that there is an "overarching, foundational theory that underpins all Biology". If such a thing exists I'd say it's anatomy (although I haven't heard of a theory of all anatomy). It might also refer to genetics.
Theories explain things. Can you guess what theory is used to explain anatomy? The theory of...evolution!
Genetics of course, was synthesised with Darwinism to forge the neo-synthesis...which was the the accepted theory of evolution for a long time (I hear that other mechanisms being added to the explanation has caused some people to contemplate the theory is sufficiently far from the original neo-synthesis to warrant a new label to differentiate them).
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by CTD, posted 10-04-2007 1:50 AM CTD has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 208 of 304 (425886)
10-04-2007 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by iceage
10-04-2007 3:27 AM


Thank you
iceage
Here is story where a college instructor is fired for making disparaging remarks about the creation myth.
I appreciate the link. Had to find a few more accounts to dig up what most likely happened.
And the other stuff was pretty on-target as well. That's about the best dark matter discription for laymen I've seen. No oversell there. Wiki's not usually quite so state-of-the-art. I'll have to check out the rest of the article!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by iceage, posted 10-04-2007 3:27 AM iceage has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 209 of 304 (425977)
10-04-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by CTD
10-04-2007 10:10 AM


Decline of a nation
Young kids are much smarter than the evolutionists thought. And they have a lot of free time, a luxury not often found in the adult world. The earlier they encounter the idea, the longer they have to question it.
Increased fundementalism and degrading education system resulting in increased rates of people being oblivious to science. You really are onto something here.
Roughly half the kids graduating high school ("U.S.") are rejecting evolutionism to one extent or another. The per centage was much worse not too many years ago. It's shifting rapidly.
This can be evidenced by the increasing rates of people who keep saying "Its just a theory". Its really quite sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by CTD, posted 10-04-2007 10:10 AM CTD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by obvious Child, posted 10-04-2007 10:55 PM Vacate has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 210 of 304 (426067)
10-04-2007 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by CTD
10-04-2007 10:10 AM


quote:
I think I see a pattern. 10 or 15 years back (I forget) a major campaign was launched to get evolutionism into lower grades. Books were re-written to stuff it in at every opportunity, and teachers were given special training. But it's backfired spectacularly. Young kids are much smarter than the evolutionists thought. And they have a lot of free time, a luxury not often found in the adult world. The earlier they encounter the idea, the longer they have to question it. And it's banished by scrutiny.
Could you explain why largely only the US and some middle eastern states have this phenomena?
Outside of those places, such as Europe or Asia, evolution is accepted as fact that those who proclaim various origin stories are basically mocked by the general public. As Europe and Asia lead the world in test scores from the youth, it would seem that only places where the youth are poorly educated, such as the US and Middle East is where creationism can actually take root.
You see some of the most ardent youth supporters of Creationism in the US south which has the worst education systems in the union and in the Middle East were education is largely just religious memorization. Literal Genesis is heavily believed in the youth of Pakistan who receive little more then religious indoctrination.
Could you care to explain this galaxy sized problem away?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by CTD, posted 10-04-2007 10:10 AM CTD 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