Some Evidence Against Evolution

Don't get things to mixed up. Scientism is, I think, the idea that science can answer all questions. I would be surprised if there are many, or even anyone, here that suggest that.All branchs of science have an equal use for God. They simply admit to not dealing with the idea. It is outside of the perview of all branchs.Science ( I won't comment on "scientism") can not eliminate God unless you set it up that way. Only the literal fundamentalists seem to have a bent to make that happen.

I do not normally contribute: just lurk and learn. I do not have the immense discipline that other posters show when dealing with Creationists, and for that I apologise.You state:
"I do read the posts how could you say this ?I fully know and realize that nobody is going to listen to a person that ignores the input of others.True, I have not responded to the degree that the replies deserve but you make it sound like the one way street of Soviet detente.I have not been able to expand on the general posts and replies that I have generated because to do so would be vacating the subject of the topic too far.My quarrel is with scientism, and that branch of science readily admits that they have no use for God.Why don't you be specific and tell me what evidence I have ignored ?"Well "scientism" and it's use for God is outside the realm of the this topic, but these aren't and you have ignored them:You have proven yourself to be a person that does not listen and ignores the input of others. Evidence and questions that you have ignored:
1. Message 22. Message 33. Message 74. Message 165. Message 176. Message 187. Message 208. Message 229. Message 3310. Message 3611. Message 3712. Message 4213. Message 5414. Message 5615. Message 7115. Message 7416. Message 7517. Message 7718. Message 7819. Message 8020. Message 81You've ignored the fossil evidence presented to you. You've ignored the evidence presented about Mr Milton's veracity as a credible source. You've ignored something in the realms of 50 questions put to you that are directly relevant to the conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence.The conslusions drawn from the evidences presented in these message threads is that the fossil records support the theory of evolution (and the premise that Milton is a crank). Would you like to rebut the former with "cutting edge arguments of creationists"? I'd wager that there isn't an individual on this site that fears such an onslaught.What other conclusions do the fossil records support?You have once again missed, in your post above, an opportunity to address any of the evidence and questions put to you; but now here is your chance. Go for it.Prove to me that you are not merely here to spout Creationist mantra and are prepared to engage in reasoned debate.

I went back to # 2 and to # 3 - I did respond. I also have said that I am not through responding. I also just said that I have not responded to the degree that is deserved. You are a cranky dishonest person to have the nerve to say I am ignoring posts when I clearly explained what I've done and what I intend to do.As far as Milton is concerned there was not a shred of evidence posted the backs the slander that erupted when I cited him as a source.
The only thing said about Mllton was biased opinions , soon I will post evidence from his book that I will look forward to the responses.Your flamboyant posts are an instant broken record. I am guilty of responding slowly. You intentionally conclude that I am doing this on purpose to disrespect those who have replied. Your howling I cannot match and your dishonest charges is part of the m.o. of scientism.You are an enemy, a child that wants everything instantly on your own terms. Nothing I say or do or dont do will ever get your respect and I know in the future you will prove me right in this aspect.NosyNed if you happen to read this I will respond soon. Sorry that this kind has gotten an instant response from me but I couldn't let this mofo get away with this mis-use of logic. W.T.

read post # 93 please W.T.

Now, now, drop the hostility. The fact is that you have given no evidence to show that Milton is in the least a reliable source.Still I take your continued reliance on Milton to indicate that your claim to have a "load" of evidence against evolution to be false.

This is the problem I have with the responses in this discussion.The majority simply declare Mr. Milton to be an unqualified voice. Well most of the people in this topic, with lightning speed, constantly claim that everything they believe is based upon evidence.
Where is the evidence in any response that proves Milton a crackpot - the chorus of opposition only offered personal attacks and ambiguous accusations. How come not one person attacked the content of anything he said ?I direct these questions to you Ned because your reply was kind of neutral towards Milton. The content of the topic I posted cited Milton as saying that neo Darwinists have not demonstrated the evidence of their claims to an intelligent person of the public. The context of this topic began with me citing Milton and this will not stop. His book begins with quotes from Dawkins who did the exact same thing that most of the people in this room did the moment Milton was cited - he dismissed the entire book without refuting a thing.

Willowtree, don't get so defensive about Milton. Feel free to cite any of his evidence. However, be prepared to have such "evidence" thoroughly debunked. I hope the evidence will be more credible than the material he cited in this debate.So, time for you time give some substantive responses.[This message has been edited by wj, 12-04-2003]

You suggest the people here may be too quick to take Milton as being unreliable. Has it occured to you that some here (not me) may know as much, or more than you do about him? They may already have finished their assessments.You now have a couple of choices:
1) Take what they say as being an indication that you need to get another source for information.
2) Defend Milton's positions and be prepared for the rebuttals. Since it appears some here are already familiar with him you may find it tough to do that against prepared debate opponents.s------------------
Common sense isn't

I reject Milton as a reliable source not simply because he has no qualifications but also because of his extreme bias.The evidence that Milton is a crank has been provided - from his own website. The "rebuttal" consisted of a single assertion which dealt with only part of the evidence, is on the face of it completely false and has not been supported.If you think that Milton has some good arguments then use those. Don't just report Milton's opinions and expect us to believe them because you ignore the evidence of Milton's unreliability.

I have read both his comments and the rebutal and find both of them to be devoid of much "hard data" and mostly opinion.
From philosophy of science: " a researchers must be able to distinguish between data and the writers opinion for example look for words that qualify statements such as: probably, mostly, could, most agree, could have been, should be,has been, etc.."Just my 2 cents.[This message has been edited by Thronacx, 12-04-2003]

I don't think your quasi-Vulcan objectivity is even worth that much. Dawkins was characteristically forthright in announcing his disgust with Milton's work, but he also accused Milton's publishers of irresponsibility for their failure to submit Shattering the Myths of Darwinism to any reasonable professional review process. In other words, if Milton expected his work to be taken seriously as science, he should have insisted that it be reviewed by scientists before it was published. Otherwise, he's like a chess player who doesn't play by the rules, but thinks he can beat Kasparov. It's his opinion, but it's not chess.You've never made clear your views on any subject, Thronacx, except that we all have our preconceptions. Tell us something we don't know.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Just for pure aguments sake:
If your "peers" think your a nut to start with whats the point of letting them review your work... Think galileo all his "peers" thought he was a heritic.ps. not that this guy is any comparision to galileo but this just illustrates my thoughts.

I'm not a scientist but from what I understand the peer review that has to be passed in order to get published is done anonomously. The reviewers don't know who wrote the paper.Can someone who has more knowledge or experiance confirm this?------------------
Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

Thronacx,Dawkins wasn't necessarily demanding that Milton subject his ravings to professional peer review, he simply pointed out that no one with even a reasonable scientific background seems to have judged the technical shortcomings of the book. I too think the motivation for publishing such nonsense is strictly financial, and that's the publisher's business. So let's not pretend that Milton is aiming at anything more than making a buck off people who don't know any better.I don't know whether you're suggesting that Milton may be on to something that the scientific establishment wants to keep under wraps, which would be a typically paranoid creationist fantasy. Dawkins mentioned that Milton's work confuses scientific terminology so often and so egregiously that it's unlikely that scientists harbor jealousy for the keen scientific insight displayed in Milton's book.So the matter seems to boil down to this: we feel Milton deserves a fair hearing, but his work lacks scientific merit. The alternative is that we're horrified that he has exposed the vast Darwinist conspiracy to which every scientist on Earth as well as every last one of us is a party. Which seems more likely? Or am I just being biased again?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

No, his peers in the study of nature did not think he was a heretic.