EvC Forum: Is there anything up with the "Altenberg 16"?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Is there anything up with the "Altenberg 16"?

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2135 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 5 of 47 (468929)
06-02-2008 1:11 PM

Reply to: Message 4 by randman
06-02-2008 1:05 PM

Re: so what is taught is wrong?

But be that as it may, if this meeting consolidates and popularizes on-going significant changes in evo theory, it is worth noting as from what I can tell, adaptionism is indeed continually touted by proponents of evo theory as the primae-facie evidence and mechanism of evolution.

And if this meeting does something like this, how does that help those opposed to the theory of evolution on religious grounds?

Any changes in the details of "adaptionism" only makes the theory of evolution more accurate.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 4 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 1:05 PM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 7 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 1:43 PM		Coyote has not replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2135 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 29 of 47 (470283)
06-10-2008 2:21 PM

Reply to: Message 27 by randman
06-10-2008 1:00 PM

It's an interesting phenomena among evos that they will strenously object to even admitting basic facts if someone that is a critic brings them up but when one of their own discusses the same fact in reevaluating or modifying evo models, then somehow the same fact or argument has become magically true.

Perhaps the reason is that creationists are known neither for accuracy nor veracity when making claims about science.

Doubt me? Just look at AnswersInGenesis or any of dozens of other creationist websites. Here is a sample article from AnswersInGenesis on radiocarbon dating:

Carbon-14 dating - explained in everyday terms

Care to defend its accuracy? If so, set up a new thread and we'll have at it.

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 27 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 1:00 PM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 30 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 2:35 PM		Coyote has replied

Coyote

Member (Idle past 2135 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 31 of 47 (470287)
06-10-2008 2:42 PM

Reply to: Message 30 by randman
06-10-2008 2:35 PM

Perhaps the reason is that creationists are known neither for accuracy nor veracity when making claims about science.

Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos.

Then you accept my challenge and will be setting up a thread to discuss the article I cited above?

This is off topic here, so set up the new thread.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 30 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 2:35 PM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 32 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 2:44 PM		Coyote has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

0 online now:
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0