Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Questions--moral perspective
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 73 (90481)
03-05-2004 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
03-05-2004 1:56 AM


quote:
Is fundamental Christianity truly a threat to your cause? And if yes, why?
Fundamentalist Christianity is not a threat to the profession of science, unless a "The Handmaid's Tale"-type scenario were to play out.
Fundamentalist christianity is, however, a threat to the quality of our public science education, as they have repeatedly shown, and continue to show, that they are determined to try to impose their religious views into the science classroom.
quote:
After all, if you believe that an open-minded education system with instruction from many various perspectives is the cornerstone of a free education, why is evolution the sole theory directed in a classroom setting
The same reason the idea that the sun is the center of the solar system is the sole theory directed at a classroom setting.
The ToE is just as well-supported and fundamental to Biology as the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System is well-supported and fundamental to Astronomy.
quote:
(I mean, LEGALLY teachers have the right to discuss creation and its principles from an unbiased point of view at any time in a classroom)?
Well, sure, but since science class should be about science and not religion, wouldn't it be better to discuss various creation beliefs in a world religion class?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 03-05-2004 1:56 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 42 of 73 (90907)
03-07-2004 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Servant2thecause
03-05-2004 10:23 AM


Re: Interestting...
quote:
Also, if evolution is such a deeply-proven FACT, then why on earth is there still so much controversy (in a nationwide pole on MSNBC in 2002, approximately 55% of those surveyed said they did not object to the teaching of creation science in the classroom).
Over half of all Americans polled believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center, too.
Just because lots of people think something doesn't make it tru. It means that people believe what they want to believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-05-2004 10:23 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 43 of 73 (90908)
03-07-2004 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Servant2thecause
03-06-2004 12:53 AM


quote:
Therefore, you might as well save the time and energy it takes to pour your ignorance and arrogant insults into your replies,
quote:
Truly, the most ignorant, arrogant, and prideful people I have ever met are Darwinsists, namely the people on this particular site.
Um, can you please explain to me how Saviormachine's reply was in any way ignorant or arrogant?
quote:
Evolution, as even admitted by Gould, Darwin, Asimov, and many other evolutionists, is nothing more than a theory. It is unproved.
Yep.
Just like the Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory of Matter, and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System are also "nothing more than theories" and are also unproved.
A "theory" is as strong a statement one can make in science; it doesn't get any more confirmed than a theory.
Nothing is ever proved in science. This is the notion of tentativity.
quote:
Honestly, neither Biblical creationism nor Darwinian evolutionism can be proven by science ("Science" = knowledge through demonstrated evidence and observation). Therefore, if any evolutionist, atheist, or otherwise anti-creationist has an ounce of honesty and integrity, he would freely admit that BOTH viewpoints have to be taken by faith.
Do you think that there isn't any observed or inferred evidence at all which has led us to conclude that germs cause disease, that matter is made up of atoms, or that the planets of our solar system orbit the sun?
Do you think that scientists take these concepts on faith, in exactly the same way that Hindus take the existence of Vishnu on faith?
quote:
After all, with all other points thrown aside, there is no other way that i can think of to say it: Darwinian evolution (origin of life from nonliving matter
Wow, another strawman.
Evolutionary Biology does not address the origin of life. Evolutionary Biology applies only after life arrives on the planet. Various abiogenesis and panspermia theories about the origin of life are much less supported than the ToE. MUCH less supported.
You know, it would probably be a good idea to read some science-based books and websites and give the Creationism sites a rest for a while.
The disinformation you have been fed has been refuted probably hundreds of times on this site alone. Please, take the trouble to learn what scientist say, IN CONTEXT, not just isolated quotes.
quote:
and progression from simpler to more complex organisms) has never been proven.
Again, nothing is ever proven in science.
quote:
in fact, the Miller experiment (I'm POSITIVE you have heard of it) only proved that life cannot be created in the presence of oxygen (or else it would oxidize and self-destruct).
Since Miller's experiment is irrelevant to the validity of the Theory of Evolution, I will not comment upon it.
quote:
In stead of waving an arrogant finger at creationists and demanding that they "prove" their theory before they can teach it, why don't you get down off your platform and try to prove YOUR OWN theory beyond a reasonable doubt (by the way, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means creating an argument that cannot be refutted with even our BEST understanding of science).
Done.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-07-2004]

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-06-2004 12:53 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 73 (90910)
03-07-2004 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Servant2thecause
03-06-2004 1:02 AM


quote:
Also, before I forget...
I am a devoted Christian and have spent much of my adult life studying and arguing evolution with friends and family members of different faiths.
Then I am shocked that you still don't know what the scientific meaning of "theory" is after years of talking about them.
Furthermore, you still don't know that the various origins of life theories have nothing to do with the validity of the theory of how life changed once it got here.
These are basic, basic concepts that one must understand to even hope to get the science right.
quote:
I have talked with enough evolutionists out there to know that they simply DON'T know how to prove their theory to the open world (otherwise there would not be so much back-and-forth conflict among scientists).
Um, you don't know any professional scientists, do you?
Science is a very contentious profession. Not because people are angry and yell at each other, but because people disagree all the time about the interpretation of evidence and what conclusions can be made from inference.
However, all of this discussion is the way consensus is reached.
While individual scientists may argue about the exact mechanisms[/b] of HOW Evolution occurred, there hasn't been any disagreement on IF evolution has occurred (and continues to be observed) for 100 years or so.
quote:
Therefore, I would find it impossible for anybody on this website to impress me with their knowledge of science, so don't try.
Gee, there are several actual professional scientists on this board.
It's too bad you have already decided to discount everything they say, even though you could learn a lot from them, as many of us have.
Hmm, what was that you were saying about arrogance and ignorance?
quote:
Furthermore, evolutionists often try to the tactic of drawing attention away from the topic by resorting to personal attacks (doubting the credibility of a creationist,
Well, pointing out that the credentials of a given Creationist are lacking in a particular subject, this is not a personal attack. This is just another reason to not give their views in that subject as much consideration as someone who is an expert in that subject.
I mean, would you consider the opinion of your dentist to be more or less weighty than your auto mechanic's on the subject of the internal combustion engine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-06-2004 1:02 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 45 of 73 (90912)
03-07-2004 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Servant2thecause
03-06-2004 2:56 AM


quote:
The truth is, however, that the fossil record is complete as it ever will be (we are finding less and less fossils of different varieties).
Really?
Please cite your source for this information.
Please, not religious sites; an article or three from a professional, peer-reviewed Paleontology journal would be ideal.
Hell, I'd even accept a Scientific American Article.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-06-2004 2:56 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 46 of 73 (90913)
03-07-2004 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Servant2thecause
03-06-2004 3:06 AM


quote:
First off, don't make the mistake in assuming that I don't know anything about evolution (I've studied hard at it, and in fact I used to be such a firm evolutionist that I thought the entire idea of creationism was bogus and I would NEVER believe it).
I don't assuming anything. I'm simply reponding to the mistakes about basic science that you've written.
You have not demonstrated that you have ever undertaken any study of science or Evolution at all, otherwise you would know what "theory" and "proven" mean in a scientific context.
You would also have learned that the ToE and Abiogenesis are two different theories.
I mean, Anyone can read the FAQ's at TalkOrigins and learn those three things in about 15 minutes, but you want me to believe that you have studied science and Evolution "hard"?
Sorry, I don't believe you one bit.
quote:
In fact, the scary thought is that, with the attitude i'm recieving from you, i probably used to be somewhat like you.
What, you used to require evidence before believing something and now you don't?
quote:
Also, what is wrong with quotes.
They are not evidence, for starters.
They are also very easy to take out of context.
That's why many Creationist websites are filled with misquotes from Evolutionists.
Many of the best Evolution sites are filled, by contrast, with well-referenced essays explaining scientific ideas rather than op-eds.
quote:
Earlier, when I gave you an argument I was attacked by not showing references. Now that i HAVE, you apparently glanced over the entire list of quotes without contemplating their reasoning and credibility (which DO contain arguments against genetics and fossil record as proving evolution),
LOL!!
Quotes are not references!
quote:
and moved on to expecting ME to provide you with a wealth of anti-evolution arguments as though i was BORN with all the answers.
Well, you are claiming to have all the answers, so is it so unrealistic for us to expect you to provide?
quote:
Honestly, wasn't if from a quote by either a teacher or writer in which YOU first heard of the fossil record? (the only other alternative i can think of is if YOU were the one who discovered and pieced togethe the fossil record... highly unlikely).
Um, references to journal articles is what is required. You know, evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-06-2004 3:06 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 73 (90915)
03-07-2004 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Servant2thecause
03-06-2004 3:25 AM


quote:
After all, you referred me to the talkorigns site (which i have been to and even written to and had soon realized that the site is not scientific because it is very biased against any evidence that is non-evolutionary) and yet you expect me to believe it just because of what they say?
Go to one of the TalkOrigins essays, such as this one on the multiple evidences for Macroevolution:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2C
It has a long list of titles, authors, and locations of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles at the end.
These are the references which indicate where the author of the essay got their facts from.
The reason they list all of these peer-reviewed journal references is so that you don't have to take anybody's word for it on that site. You can go and read those primary sources in the journals and decide for yourself.
The site is not biased against non-evoolutionary stuff. It is biased in favor of the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-06-2004 3:25 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 48 of 73 (90917)
03-07-2004 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Servant2thecause
03-06-2004 3:55 AM


quote:
I DID used to be an evolutionist, and I understand thoroughly what Darwin's viewpoint is.
Well, aside from the fact that you should really be referring to The Modern Synthesis WRT modern Evolutionary Biology, rather than "what Darwin's viewpoint is", it is not clear from your posts that you understand Evolutionary Biology at all.
You can proclaim that you do, but so far you have not demonstrated much understanding at all.
In fact, you have demonstrated much misunderstanding.
quote:
Well now, the idea that life can arise from nonliving matter is VERY important to the theory of evolution (afterall, if it can in any way be utterly proven that spontaneous generation of life is scientifically impossible, then isn't the entire theory of the evolution of life at stake?) Correct me if I'm wrong, but life arising from nonliving matter is the foundation of the origin of life on earth, according to the radical Darwinist. Therefore, biogenesis (the origin of life) is crucial in determing whether or not evolution is a valid theory.
No.
Aliens could have seeded life here, and the ToE would be unaffected.
Infinite numbers of supernatural entities could have poofed the first replicating molecules/life into existence, alone or in concert, and it would not invalidate the ToE one bit.
The ToE deals with life once it got here, and not before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-06-2004 3:55 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 73 (90918)
03-07-2004 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Servant2thecause
03-06-2004 6:02 AM


Re: Matter is matter
quote:
I understand that there is much turmoil among creationists and evolutionists (I only hope that you could humble yourselves as I have made a prevailing effort to do and discuss this topic without the unnecessary "you don't know this" ... "do your research" ... "give me quotes" attitude).
"Unnecessary attitude?"
"You don't know this", "do your research", give me references", is not "unnecessary attitude"!!!
It is how good informed debate is undertaken.
Otherwise, we are just arguing personal opinions, which is completely uninteresting and fruitless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-06-2004 6:02 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 73 (91019)
03-07-2004 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Servant2thecause
03-07-2004 6:25 PM


Hi there Servant, and welcome to the forum.
I'd sure apperciate a reply to my messages to you; I think they start at #46 in this thread and there are about 4 of them.
I understand that you have several opponents at the moment, which will make replying to everyone take longer, so take your time. However, I just wanted to let you know that I'm interested in your replies and look forward to reading them.
Now, on to my next reply to you!
quote:
Constitutionally, there is nothing wrong with teaching creationism.
It is illegal to teach Creationism as valid science in publically-funded schools. It is fine to teach it in comparative world religion classes, however.
Creationism fails to meet all requirements for scientific endeavors, so it isn't valid to teach it as if it were.
quote:
And if you are worried about the funding of education, how do you think the millions of American Christians out there are feeling about THEIR tax dollars supporting evolution, which is an unproven--and unprovable--theory that destroys the faith of children and collegiates who are not being educated on how to think, but rather on WHAT to think.
Can you please explain to me why any religious group should be given any consideration at all in what is taught in public science classrooms?
What a weak faith all of these children must get from their parents and churches if they lose their faith when they study scientific theories.
Perhaps you would like to discuss some specific evidences regarding the ToE that you think completely invalidates it.
Furthermore, if the last 150 years of Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, Genetics, etc. are all completely wrong, what better scientific theory do you propose to replace them which explains the observed and inferred evidence better?
Oh, and I thought I told you that no scientific theory is ever "proven" or "provable".
quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..."
The amendment states, plain and simple, that there will never be a law that ESTABLISHES religion. in other words, the government promises not to REQUIRE religion to be taught in schools by law, but then again Congress promises that the free excercise of religion shall not be abridged. therefore, as long as teachers do not determine a student's grade based on their beliefs, and as long as a teacher does not force a specific religious opinion into a student's mind, then the teacher has no legal fault in providing equal time in class for the discussion of creation AS WELL AS evolution.
Of course, Creationism can in no way be considered scientific, so it should not be taught as science.
Additionally, even if we were to teach Creationism alongside science in a science classroom, wouldn't you be establishing a state religion by teaching only the Christian version of Creationism? Why not the Native American version, or the Hindu version, or the Shinto version?
quote:
Furthermore, there exists a great lack of evidence supporting speciation and spontaneous generation, which you have yet to answer to.
There are plenty of instances of observed speciation, especially in plants, and of course in bacteria and other organisms that have rapid gererational turnover. Read about it here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Observed Instances of Speciation
An example:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
quote:
YES, I HAVE read the articles and arguments of evolutionists who claim to prove beneficial mutations as leading to speciation, but there lies the problem: no new species has been observed in the making since science has been in practice
Completely incorrect!
Read the above links and example.
Are you SURE you have studied Biology at all?
quote:
AND there exists no rational reason why life would appear spontaneously--at random--within a mix of chemicals...
We've been through this, Servant.
Abiogenesis theories have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER upon the Theory of Evolution.
The ToE applies once life appeared, not before.
Please stop repeating the strawman that the theories are related or codependant because they are not.
quote:
IT does not make sense statistically OR evidently.
Can you explain the statistics you are talking about?
Show your work, please.
quote:
Also, if life ever is created in the laboratory (which it hasn't even come close to yet) then that would only further promote my point--IT REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND PLANNING TO CREATE LIFE!!!
No, it would only mean that, in that particular experiment, a certain kind of life was created under certain conditions. Extrapolation to the rest of the universe would be unwarranted.
quote:
Now, go ahead and ease your conscience by degrading my post... I figure I have it comming to me...
You show a strange need to project some kind of heavy emotion into the way you imagine your opponents' state of mind to be.
Nobody is interested in degrading you, nor have we degraded you, and why would you think you deserve it if we did?
This is an intellectual debate, concerning facts, evidence, and logic.

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-07-2004 6:25 PM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 73 (91022)
03-07-2004 7:20 PM


Servant, before I forget, I'd also be delighted to have replies to messages #42-#45 in this thread. Don't worry, most of them are not long posts.
Remember, I do not expect quick replies at all, but if you think you are going to take more than a week or so, a note to let me know would be great.
Thanks!

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-08-2004 1:55 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 73 (91109)
03-08-2004 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Servant2thecause
03-08-2004 1:55 AM


quote:
because these religious groups that you speak of pay taxes as well... the same taxes that support the ToE being taught in schools.
So what?
There are hundreds of religious groups in the US, and they all pay taxes.
(Correction of myself through edit: While individuals, regardless of religion, pay taxes, religious groups do NOT pay any taxes at all. So, can you please explain why tax-paying individuals who happen to hold certain religious beliefs, should have any influence over what is taught in science classrooms?)
There are also white supremacist groups in the US who's members pay taxes; should we allow them to influence the teaching of science so that Biology teachers can teach that whites are superior to all other races?
quote:
Furthermore, as i have said before, evolution is not a proven theory. There may exist all the world's best intentions in solving the idea that life originated from a common ancestor, but it stll is not proven.
Look, I am begining to think you do not read our messages, or that you have a reading comprehension problem.
Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Nothing.
A "Theory" is as confirmed as anything gets in science. Some theories are particularly well-supported, and some are less-supported.
The Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory of Matter, and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System are all "theories", just like the Theory of Evolution. A;ll are very well-supported.
This is a great short essay on what science is and what it isn't. Please read it:
science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
"Non-scientists commonly use the term 'theory' to refer to a speculation or guess based on limited information or knowledge. However, when we refer to a scientific theory, we are not referring to a speculation or guess, but to a systematic explanation of some range of empirical phenomena."
There's also this on "scientific" Creationism.
creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
"What makes scientific creationism a pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing. Creation science will remain forever unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions that can be used to test the theory. It is taken to be irrefutable. And it assumes a priori that there can be no evidence that will ever falsify it."
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-08-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-08-2004 1:55 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 73 (91231)
03-08-2004 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Saviourmachine
03-08-2004 5:12 PM


Re: 'just' a theory
A couple of comments on your post...
quote:
Evolution is a theory, yes. It can't be proven, but there is a pile of evidences that evolution occured in some cases.
In "some cases"?
Do you mean to imply that in some other cases, evolution doesn't apply to the origin of species?
If so, can you please give some examples of where evolution hasn't applied, and what your evidence is?
quote:
That are several reasons why I'm a degenerationist.
"degenerationist: a believer in the theory of degeneration, or hereditary degradation of type; as, the degenerationists hold that savagery is the result of degeneration from a superior state."
What, exactly, does "hereditary degredation of type" mean?
What is a "type" anyway? That's not a term used in Biology that I'm aware of.
Neither are the terms "savagery" or "superior" used in reference to behavior in Biology. Those words are heavily subjective and value-laden.
It seems to me that "degenerationism" is a purely philosophical stance and is not a valid comparison at all to the Theory of Evolution, a scientific theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-08-2004 5:12 PM Saviourmachine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-09-2004 1:12 AM nator has replied
 Message 70 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-09-2004 6:30 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 67 of 73 (91340)
03-09-2004 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Servant2thecause
03-09-2004 1:12 AM


Re: 'just' a theory
quote:
In regards to "evolution is as proven as any other theory," you are wrong. Sorry, but no amount of arguing, essay-writing, quoting "famous scientists," field research, or laboratory observations are going to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is more than just another "what-if" of science.
So, in other words, you are completely closed to any evidence which contradicts what you have already decided you want to believe.
Why is it that you treat the Bible as a science textbook, and is your faith so weak that real science will destroy it?
You have only made proclamations of your personal opinion, unsupported by any facts or evidence, regarding the Theory of Evolution. Sorry, but "Evolution isn't true because I say so" is not a compelling argument.
I have tried to engage you in discussing specifics and evidence, but you seem to want to avoid that. You have even implied that providing evidence and doing research is uneccessary to the debate!?
I wonder if you know how very run-of-the-mill your tactics are? The Creationist arguments haven't changed for at least 50 years, and their unwillingness to discuss the details has also prevailed.
quote:
Also, schrafinator, the sites you quoted are extremely bias and their essays are not supported by scientific observation.
Really? Which sites, specifically are you talking about?
And please explain, in detail, how they are biased?
Remember, all bias is not bad. Bias in favor of the evidence is useful, scientific bias.
quote:
Secondly, crashfrog, you "peer-reviewed" magazines are equally bias. The mere fact that they are mainstream magazines based on scientific research does not exclude the fact that they exclude any form of research that conflicts with evolutionary theory.
First of all, they are not "magazines", and they are not "based on" scientific research.
Professional scientific journals are the medium through which scientists share their research with each other and the world.
Journal articles are the research!
How is it that you have studied the ToE and science "hard", and you do not know this?
Secondly, I assume you would never follow the advice of any medical doctors or government health agencies, am I correct?
If you disbelieve all scientific journals, then you obviously don't use any modern medical, health or nutrition information, because the research that makes it into the journals is what doctors and medical experts use to develop treatments and cure disease.
quote:
Did you know that the majority (meaning more than half) of all product-dates taken by radiometric dating are thrown out because they conflict with the geologic timescale of evolution?
Unsupported (dubious) assertion.
Please list your source.
You might want to read this excellent article entitled "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective":
Radiometric Dating
quote:
Did you also know that the ceolocanth (as well as other lobe-finned fish) were once the "index-fossil" of the 350-400 myo devonian layer in the geologic column, until a few years ago when the ceolocanth was discovered still alive.
Incorrect. Your sources have lied to you.
From:
CB930.1: Coelacanth: A living fossil
"The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimera has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."
Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically."
quote:
Rather than taking the scientific method of analyzing their findings (skepticism of their own theory by means of questioning the validity of the geologic timescale) they took the bias viewpoint of assuming that the ceolocanth had survived for 400 million years.
Like I said, your sources have blatantly lied to you. Are you this gullible in the rest of your life?
quote:
Furthermore, look up the meaning of the term "Bias" for me.
There's all sorts of biases; confimation bias, wishful thinking, communal reinforcement, experimenter bias, etc. Being biased is part of being human. However, it's a great thing that we have the scientific method to eliminate much of the biases we humans are prone to and leave us mainly with a bias in favor of the evidence. Peer-review also does this, as others replicate our observations and our experiments to see if they get the same results.
Much of this is explained in the essay on science I linked you to, as well as here, another essay regarding controlled experiments:
control group study - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
quote:
First of all, mainstream western science teaches that, in order to maintain empirical standing on controversial data, one must be drawn to UNbias reasoning and open questioning of all topics and evidences.
...as long as the reasoning and questioning are based upon sound science and logic, not religious dogma.
quote:
That goes for MUCH more than just the evolution aspect. Nevertheless, you need to understand that the arguments you are trying to bombard me with are not rational, scientifically-prove (as in, they do not provide empirical evidence for common ancestry), nor are they in any way openminded or unbias, and therefore the responses i'm getting here are in no way similar to the types of responses I would get if I were to confront a science educator with a degree from an acreditted university in a similar field.
Yes, you keep saying things like this, but you have not explained how our arguments are lacking.
Be specific.
quote:
And I would know: I have confronted many graduates with post-graduate degrees in sience and biology concentratiosn on the same issue of evolution as it pertains to chemistry AND biology and the true scientists out there who remain humble with integrity and unbias standpionts know how to talk about the subject with agendas OTHER THAN just trying to "Shoot down" the theory of creationism.
Look, why is it so strange that we would expect you to back up your assertions?
That's what science is all about.
Oh, and exactly which Theory of Creation are you talking about?
Be specific.
quote:
With that said, this post is a waste of time. This will be my LAST post because I feel honestly that I am not dealing with open-minded SCIENTISTS, but rather with tunnel-vision neo-darwinists who have nothing better to do than throw away any unbiased opinions and prepare for a day of "let's see how many creationists I can insult or 'shoot down' today."
Um, where has anyone insulted you?
All we have tried to do is engage you in a scientific discussion, and you refuse.
You have ignored most of my specific questions to you, and this is very telling and very typical.
quote:
Sorry if this upsets you, but it is truly a waste of both mine and your time to just continue with this back-and-forth nonsense.
LOL! I'm not upset in the least! Well, I am a bit disappointed that yet another Creationist has cut and run before the debate had really gotten started because they couldn't take the scrutiny of their claims.
quote:
If you would like to continue in a TRUE debate,
You mean the kind of "debate" where you don't respond to most of my questions, keep repeating the same unsupported assertions, and then run off when those tactics don't work?
LOL!
quote:
contact me when you think you're ready. (I do not doubt that you are ready intellectually, just not morally or open-mindedly yet).
Nice insult as a parting shot.
I'm certainly ready, man. Why don't you finish what you've started here by replying to the rest of my posts?

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-09-2004 1:12 AM Servant2thecause 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