|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Bolder-dash writes: Oh, no no no, that option won't work at all. I will be suspended for spamming if I do that. I forgot that technicality. Ok Option 3. By the way, when someone responds to one of your messages it gets a "You have not yet responded" link at the bottom of your message. If you click on the link it changes to "You have acknowledged this reply." In other words, you do not have to dignify unworthy replies with a response. But if you do reply it changes to "You have responded." On my "todo" list is to provide smilie-style acknowledgements. Instead of just being able to acknowledge a reply you'll be able to include an appropriate smilie: happy, sad, angry, bemused, etc. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Can we also give someone the bird?
Ok, just kidding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Hi Buz, The message you posted yesterday in the Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? thread, Message 576, contains no evidence, only claims of evidence.
It's intention was to comply with your request designating the mountain. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Buzsaw writes: It's intention was to comply with your request designating the mountain. Do you think you could identify the mountain for us and tell us the criteria you used for identifying it? Please reply over at the Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?, but just so people here know what we're talking about, here's the map:
The question is, which mountain and how did you identify it? The mountain may not actually be in this image, it's just as close as I could guess from Wyatt's map, but you can pan around, it's an interactive map. Ain't Google grand! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I can give you plenty of examples of scientists studying evolution who WANT to find particular conclusions.
Please do. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Theodoric writes: I think he is referring to creationist scientists studying evolution who want to conclude that god-did-it.
I can give you plenty of examples of scientists studying evolution who WANT to find particular conclusions.
Please do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
When Michael Behe says that evolution is wrong, why can't he just be saying that evolution is wrong. When Simon Conway Morris says that evolution is wrong, why can't he just be saying that evolution is wrong. When Michael Denton says its wrong... When a thousand other scientists say it's wrong, why must we look for a motivation for their saying its wrong-unless you are also going to look for a motivation every time a scientists says its right? When these scientists also agree to a statement of faith stating "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record" it is hard to take them seriously. Moreover, it is not enough to simply state that evolution is wrong. You must take it one step further: actually showing that evolution is wrong. Let's use Behe as an example. He claims that there are no evolutionary pathways that can lead to irreducibly complex systems. His evidence? Behe can't think of one. He offers incredulity as his evidence. This is not the type of evidence that scientists are looking for. Personal incredulity does not falsify scientific theories. Even worse, creationism/ID is always shifting the goalposts. When we ask for the testable mechanisms of ID the ID supporter quickly deflects the discussion into "well, what is the evolutionary mechanism". ID/Creationists can't decide if they are anti-evolutionists or ID/Creationists. Imagine if evolutionists adopted the same strategy? What if every request for evidence supporting evolution was met by the reply "well, creationism has no evidence therefore evolution is true by default"? Sadly, this is the default position of ID, that disproving evolution makes ID true by default.
So you claim intellectual dishonesty, and I also claim intellectual dishonesty on your side. Instead of claiming it, why don't you show it? This is the problem in many threads. There are claims of misdeeds, but no actual evidence of these misdeeds. For example, many claim that scientific journals have a bias that will not allow them to publish ID/creationist papers. I have asked again and again for examples of ID/creationist papers that were rejected by these journals. Guess what happens? It gets really silent. What I am told is that these papers would automatically be rejected so they aren't even submitted. They want to be Rosa Parks without having to bother with getting on the bus to begin with.
Do Universities have the moral superiority when they banish scientists with opposing viewpoints? Care to give an example so that we might better understand your sense of persecution?
If your side was really honest why wouldn't they encourage classes in school which teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Why wouldn't they explain more clearly to all students exactly what they know and what they actually don't know about how life operates. What they can show in a lab, and what they actually can only speculate about because they don't have true answers. The more your side fights transparency, the more obvious it is that it is they who are not operating in an honest fashion. This worldview also causes strain in these discussions. Creationists view a lack of a detailed and evidenced evolutionary pathway as a weakness of the theory. Scientists view this same lack as a strength of the theory and an opportunity for furthering our knowledge. Creationists fully adopt the argument from ignorance while scientists look to do away with ignorance. This is why ID/creationism will always lose. We will always be gaining new information, and as we fill these gaps the ID/Creationist argument is shown for what it is, a God-of-the-Gaps argument. The way around this for the ID/Creationist community is to move away from anti-evolution towards pro-ID/Creationism. Show how your claims can be used to make hypotheses, and then devise experiments to test these hypotheses. Submit this work to journals, and if rejected show the world the referee's reviews and why you think they are unfair. Show us how the inclusion of supernatural mechanism in science can work. You know, do the science before complaining that scientists don't take you seriously.
You can get down off your moral high horse, because you were never on it to begin with. Who is submitting their work to peer reviewed journals? Creationists or Evolutionists? Who is engaging the scientific community at scientific conferences? Creationists or evolutionists? Who is doing research in labs to support their theory? Creationists or Evolutionists? Sadly, you wouldn't know what the horse looks like, much less straddle it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
What in the world makes you think that Behe offers incredulity as his evidence for what is wrong with evolutionary theory. When you start off so wrong so early in your post it makes carrying on much further rather uninspiring.
But since you feel the ToE is so science based, and simply a reading of the facts, please give 3 or 4 of your favorite examples of evidence for the ToE. This should be easy for you since there is so much. Pick the best 4 that have the strongest weight in your opinion if you don't mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
I can give you plenty of examples of scientists studying evolution who WANT to find particular conclusions. Indeed there are. The difference is that when the evidence leads them to some other conclusion, they follow. They (usually) do not, as you creationists always do, ignore or lie about the evidence to reach some errant conclusion. If a real scientist does ignore, lie, fake data like a creationist does then he will be found out and his career is over.
That is all you are doing when you pick out some creationist website and try to show that they have an agenda, and then use that to paint every objection to evolution as having an agenda. Which is indeed the case, except the creationist agenda is evil. You want a theocracy in which you can brainwash children into your cult and burn and eat the rest of us. Make no mistake about this. If christians had their way in this society they would be burning scientists, jews, moslems, witches and democrates at the stake every weekend. It is part of your history and the only thing keeping you from doing so now is the prospect of some secular judge throwing your ass in jail.
When Michael Behe says that evolution is wrong, why can't he just be saying that evolution is wrong. When Simon Conway Morris says that evolution is wrong, why can't he just be saying that evolution is wrong. When Michael Denton says its wrong... When a thousand other scientists say it's wrong, why must we look for a motivation for their saying its wrong Because the motivation is there, and it is evil.
Atheists have also be shown to be very afraid or at least antagonistic towards those of faith ... And with good reason. Your purpose is anti-intellectual, anti-reality, anti-humanity.
So you claim intellectual dishonesty, and I also claim intellectual dishonesty on your side. Do you have the moral superiority? Do Universities have the moral superiority when they banish scientists with opposing (read: creationist) viewpoints? (parentisies mine) In spades, bucky.
If your side was really honest why wouldn't they encourage classes in school which teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Why wouldn't they explain more clearly to all students exactly what they know and what they actually don't know about how life operates. We do. You just don't care to see it. What you are looking for by this statement is to justify adding your creationist mythology to the explanation in a vailed attempt to proselytize the children to the detriment of our species.
The more your side fights transparency, the more obvious it is that it is they who are not operating in an honest fashion.
Transparancy? Science is the most open philosophy in existance. The papers, studies, raw data, all of it is open and public for all the world to see. We are not the ones hiding our purpose behind some secret "Wedge Document." You are.
You can get down off your moral high horse, because you were never on it to begin with. And how would you know? You have no experience with honesty or morality. You're a creationist, for god sake. These things are far outside your intellectual capability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What in the world makes you think that Behe offers incredulity as his evidence for what is wrong with evolutionary theory. A simple inspection of his book.
But since you feel the ToE is so science based, and simply a reading of the facts, please give 3 or 4 of your favorite examples of evidence for the ToE. I'll give you mine, which has never even been challenged by creationists in the four years since I first presented it: the astronomically unlikely convergence between the phylogenies of Geomyidae and Geomyodoceus. As you can see the thread remains open for discussion. There was some confusion of terms but no creationist has ever even attempted to challenge the findings of this research, which pretty much single-handedly demonstrates the reliability of molecular phylogenies and therefore proves evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Please present your 4 favorite pieces of evidence for the ToE in order of preference or in order of the weight of conviction that you feel it carries (Thankfully, Percy has personally guaranteed to support my request for evidence).
Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4510 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes: You say, well if you are too lazy to read a book we can't help you. True enough. If you're really too lazy to read a book then no one can help you. Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs. -Theodoric Reality has a well-known liberal bias.-Steven Colbert I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.- John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes: There is this really good forum. But since you feel the ToE is so science based, and simply a reading of the facts, please give 3 or 4 of your favorite examples of evidence for the ToE. This should be easy for you since there is so much. Pick the best 4 that have the strongest weight in your opinion if you don't mind.You may have heard of it: www.evcforum.net Or you can look up these words on google:Endogenous retrovirus Recurrent laryngeal nerve Nylon-eating bacteria Vestigial Organs If you wish to discuss them, then there are already threads open. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I asked for four actually. Since it is the most tested and proven theory in the history of science according to you, this should be easy.
Is it hard coming up with 4? You know I just don't want to shoot down your one piece of evidence, and then have you come back with a whole other tangent of evidence you have decided is more worthy after we see that your STRONGEST bit of evidence is really not so strong. So are you going to just stay with one, or do you want to try for 4. Its a pretty small number you know (for the MOST proven theory in history-isn't that how you like to put it?)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I don't think its very good form on a debate forum to tell me I have to go look up on google for your 4 strongest bits of evidence. Are those the ones you are going to choose or not?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024