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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 157 of 173 (548504)
02-27-2010 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by cavediver
02-27-2010 8:10 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Hello,
Melnick? Who the f'ck is Melnick??? And where did he say this?
Congratulations!! You have a very primative way of thinking. Actually this kind of thingking dates back to the time of Copernicus,where his critiques accused him of being irrelevant, nonsense,etc. Yes they dont evaluate his argument but they do evaluate him. rolleyes::

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by cavediver, posted 02-27-2010 8:10 AM cavediver has not replied

  
traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 158 of 173 (548507)
02-27-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Coyote
02-27-2010 1:22 PM


Re: Scientific laws
Hello,
And your religious belief is testable how?
Actually this question was in my mind when I wrote that sentence, yet no matter how far I will carry the explanation it is stiil inaccurate in your part, that is your cage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Coyote, posted 02-27-2010 1:22 PM Coyote has not replied

  
traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 159 of 173 (548510)
02-27-2010 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by anglagard
02-27-2010 7:24 AM


Re: Drop the Other Shoe
Hello,
It is a simple matter, they hate Darwin more than they love God.
Well, the reverse of his sentence is true to you and your co supporters. Actually we dont hate Darwin, we only criticized his idea that is the real reason that we do not employed ad hominem attack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by anglagard, posted 02-27-2010 7:24 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by anglagard, posted 02-28-2010 3:05 AM traste has not replied

  
traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 160 of 173 (548514)
02-27-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by hooah212002
02-27-2010 6:57 PM


Re: Scientific laws
Hello,
1: Evolution is not a belief system.
It is. In fact one of Darwin's great protagonist Thomas Huxley( also known as Darwin's bulldog) once said that he accepted evolution because of his philosophical faith.
There is no "belief" in evolution
I doubt that, given that even supporters expresses negative comments and attack evolution in private.
Is anyones knowledge in anything "their own"?
Absolutely No. We cannot even say that Eintien's knowledge on the theory of relativity is his own due to the fact that he study the result of other scientist, even if we argue that his idea is different from the others it still not absolutely his own because he deduced it from the result of others.
Whenever i quote something, I do my best to verify it against other reputable sources.
Im pretty sure that scientist like Behe and Kenyon are not among of your" refutable source." You dont need to explain I completely understand the cause.
Edited by traste, : correcting spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by hooah212002, posted 02-27-2010 6:57 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by hooah212002, posted 02-27-2010 10:32 PM traste has replied
 Message 166 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2010 10:39 AM traste has not replied
 Message 168 by Taq, posted 03-02-2010 10:55 AM traste has not replied

  
traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 162 of 173 (548526)
02-27-2010 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by hooah212002
02-27-2010 10:32 PM


Re: Scientific laws
Hello,
Source? or is this another of your statements you make that you have no evidence for.
Actually there is a lot. In fact the idea that the primative atmosphere was reducing is seriously question today yet biology textbooks tell us that it is a fact. The idea that molecules can replicate without the help from other molecules has been descrideted yet biology textbook stell us that it is a fact,the idea that protein can formed without the help from DNA has been discredited, yet biology textbooks tell us that is a fact. Satisfy?
There is no discussion as to the validity/FACT of evolution in scientific circles. The only thing that is debated/argued/questioned: is the manner in which it occurs.
Actually Im not really sure if you understand what you are talking about. The fact that there is wide disagreement among elite scientific figures, can be considered that they dont have yet the satisfactory explanation of how life began. Let me ask you, are therestill debate, argue ,question that the earth is round? Are there still debate, question , argue, that gravity cause objects to fall downward? These things are considered as facts to some degree,that is why we dont heared any scientistist arguing or questioning them. How about evolution? You yourself implied that there are still contreversies because you there are still "argued/questioned" yet you considered them as fact. Iam confused. Very confused.
If behe ever had a legitimately peer reviewed paper on anything, i would consider him a legitimate source. until then? He is nothing.
Behe has a Ph.D in Biochemistry and won the zigma prizes for best thesis. The real reason why you dont read his argument published in prestigious scientific journals like Nature, New Scientist,The Scientific American,etc, its not because he have no repliesbut its because his replieswas prevented to occured by many die hard Darwinist. I understand that peer review is the method being use to determine the correctness of scientific arguments but in the case of Behe that method is not fair. You might ask why. Because all the reviewers believe in evolution and they have a prejudiced towards ID. It is like throwing sheep to the cave of lion and hoping to come out.
Edited by traste, : correcting grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by hooah212002, posted 02-27-2010 10:32 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by hooah212002, posted 02-27-2010 11:35 PM traste has not replied
 Message 169 by Taq, posted 03-02-2010 11:02 AM traste 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