ICR Sues Texas

archaeologist writes:

quote:

---

yet that does not mean that evolution is correct and creatism is wrong.

---

Indeed. What makes evolution correct and creationism wrong is the fact that all of the evidence supports evolution while none of it supports creationism. You see, evolution is a conclusion based upon the evidence. You don't start with the idea of evolution and then go looking for evidence to justify it. Instead, you start with the evidence and then analyze it to see where it leads you, which is to evolution.Instead, what it means is that your claim that one cannot believe in god and also recognize the fact of evolution is false. Clearly you can or those believers wouldn't be saying what they did.

quote:

---

all that shows is that 12,665 clergy do not believe the God they claim to serve and it is a sad day for the world that it is so.

---

Logical error: "No True Scotsman" fallacy.Who are you to tell them that they "do not believe the god they claim to serve"? The fact that you don't understand how one can reconcile god and evolution doesn't mean nobody else can.Have you considered the possibility that god does exist, just not in the way you think? Who are you to tell god what he can and cannot do, what he did and did not do, what he can and cannot be?

quote:

---

being founded by does not mean they have to accept all results

---

Actually, it does. You see, science is all interconnected. You cannot accept a process for one conclusion simply because you like it and then deny it as accurate when it reaches a conclusion you don't like. The process is the same so if you can accept the method by which we establish paternity, then you must also accept it when it establishes evolutionary lineages. It's the exact same thing. You don't get to dismiss it simply because you don't like the way it denies your preconceived notion of how things are supposed to be.

quote:

---

nor that those results are consistant with the founding fathers beliefs

---

Of course not. People are free to by hypocritical such as accepting science when they like the results and then denying the very same science when they don't.They just need to be honest about it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

archaeologist responds to Percy:

quote:

---

quote:

---

There's this great website called Google, I don't know if youve heard of it.

---

​

i avoid using it if possible

---

If you aren't going to do your homework, what makes you think you have anything useful to contribute?

quote:

---

but if someone is going to quote an article, it is up to them to post the link.

---

To a point. If you are going to engage in a conversation while displaying a profound lack of foundational information, it is your job to get yourself up to speed. We are not here to do your homework for you.

quote:

---

i am not going to do their work for them.

---

Nor are we to do your work for you. You need to start getting your nose out of web sites and into the library to read the actual journal articles. When was the last time you were in a science library reading journal articles? For that matter, when was the last time you were in a library, period?

quote:

---

quote:

---

fact that all of the evidence supports evolution while none of it supports creationism. You see, evolution is a conclusion based upon the evidence

---

​

no that is backwards and even many scientists have found this to be not true.

---

Incorrect. Methinks you may be referring to the supposed "list" that Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute claim to have regarding hundreds of "scientists" who "doubt evolution."There is, of course, a massive problem with the list: Many of the people on the list aren't biologists or even scientists. Too, the "dissent statement" that AiG asked people to sign was so vague that many of the people on the list, upon hearing that they were listed as "dissenters" demanded that they be removed from the list. The DI's statement was: Some people signed the statement on the idea that they while they were strong supporters of evolutionary theory, more work needed to be done since they were certain that "random mutation and natural selection" are not the sole actors in evolution. And indeed, you would be hard-pressed to find any evolutionary biologist who thought that those two things were the only things involved in evolution. There's neutral drift, founder effects, epigenetics, etc. This insistence upon only "random mutation and natural selection" is a caricature of evolutionary theory that no actual biologist adheres to.Thus, when they found out that they were being put forward as scientists who "dissent" from evolution, they were quite shocked and demanded to be deleted from the list. Of course, the DI took their sweet time in doing so. Given that some of the people on their list never signed it in the first place, we are not surprised to find their continued fraudulent actions in their attempt to prop up their false claim that evolution is a "theory in crisis."Then there's the flip side: In response to this "list," the National Center for Science Education decided, in honor of Stephen Jay Gould, to compile a list of scientists named "Steve" (or variants such as Stefan, Stephanie, Esteban, etc.) that supported evolutionary theory.It turns out that there are many times more scientists simply named "Steve" that support evolution than there are all scientists who "dissent." Given that "Steve" represents only a fraction of all scientists, it is clear that this "theory in crisis" claim of yours simply isn't supported.There aren't that many scientists who deny the evidence. That's the entire point behind science: You go where the evidence takes you. Since all the evidence points toward evolution, that's where the scientists go.

quote:

---

read 'the slaughter of the dissidents' to get an idea of how many really do not accept this line of thinking or evolution.

---

That piece of fraud? Why would we accept a false description of events? For example, Richard Sternberg claims that he was fired from the Smithsonian but nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, his wasn't fired from the NIH. Too, his position at the Smithsonian was extended. Far from the severity of his claim that his life was "nearly ruined" because of his paper, he didn't suffer any consequences at all.But Ben Stein and the rest of the Expelled crowd fell for his lies.So why should we expect this extension of the fraud to be of any use?

quote:

---

this is one thing that secularists need to understand about religion, they cannot go around lumping everyone into one category, to be part of the Bible one has to follow God's rules and instructions and if they deviate from and change them then they are not par tof God's kingdom nor christian.

---

Logical error: "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Once again, you seem to think that you have the lock on what it means to be "part of god's kingdom" or what it means to be a "Christian."Are you saying the Catholics don't believe in god or aren't Christian? Because the official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is the only scientific explanation we have to explain the diversity of life.If you don't think so, what is your justification for saying that your interpretation is the only legitimate one? Remember, every other believer has just as much evidence as you. Why is your claim to be accepted over everybody else?

quote:

---

yes we still can investigate how solar systems work, how plants grow, , how earthquakes and thunder are produced and so on but we do not have to question origins.

---

Huh? You mean there are subjects that we aren't allowed to investigate? What sort of nonsense is that? No scientist would ever declare something off limits. Everything is subject to question and investigation. Anybody who says otherwise isn't actually interested in reality but wants to wallow in their fantasy.

quote:

---

i am in line with God's word and that is the only thing i have to be in line with.

---

Strange...I don't recall "god's word" saying anything about how life diversified. It simply states that it happened. If I told you that I put dinner on the table, would that mean that I cooked it or would it mean that somebody else did and I just served it?Once again, you need to consider the possibility that god does exist, but not in the way you think. That you do not get to tell god what he did or what he is.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

archaeologist responds to me:

quote:

---

scientists, especially secular ones, need to learn that there are boundaries and morals they can't not violate.

---

What are these "boundaries" and what makes you think morality has anything to do with physical reality?On top of that, what makes you think that there is no such thing as ethics in science?

quote:

---

i have done my homework that is why i do not use google

---

Who said anything about Google? I know I didn't. My question to you is what was the last science journal that you read: Title, volume, and issue, please. What was the article you read in it: Title, author, and subject, please.

quote:

---

i only use AIG when i have to, usually i seek out other sources first.

---

Then since it is clear that I don't know what you're referring to, I respectfully ask you to guide me in finding your source. Who are these "many scientists" you claim think evolution isn't the sole conclusion from the available evidence and where did you find that information?So far, given a search of PubMed, I can't find a single paper that comes to the conclusion that evolutionary theory is in trouble. Now, PubMed isn't the end-all/be-all of journal repositories, but it's a good place to start for the biological sciences. Would you be so kind as to let us know who these "many scientists" are?

quote:

---

so? this doesn't mean a thing nor proves evolution true or that it actually exists.

---

I never said it did. Instead, I brought it up to make a point about your own reasoning. You said: Your justification relies upon these "many scientists." Well, there are many more who disagree with your "many." So if you're going to justify your claim with argumentum ad populum, then your argument falls when there are more against your claim than for it.Thus, it is insufficient to simply point out that there are those that disagree. You need to explain why they disagree...and even more importantly, why they are incapable of providing the evidence for their claims. Again, I can't find a single journal article that concludes that evolutionary theory is in trouble. Why is it that these "many scientists" can't seem to get published?Take Michael Behe, for example. He is an actual biochemist. He's had many papers published, but none of them regarding evolution. He has tried to get his "irreducible complexity" through peer review, but he has been unable to do so. In response, he avoided the entire process in order to publish a popular-press book, Darwin's Black Box, wherein he claimed that there had been absolutely no studies on evolutionary methods of biochemical pathways.Of course, he was wrong. A simple search of PubMed showed that there were more than 1000 papers published on the very subject he claimed didn't exist.The problem is not any conspiracy against him but simply that his work cannot survive scrutiny.

quote:

---

it jst means that these people decided to follow a different path than the Biblical one.

---

Huh? Where in the Bible does it say that evolution isn't the method by which life diversified? I don't seem to be able to find any verse anywhere that explains how life diversified. It simply states that there is a great diversity of life.Perhaps you will be kind enough to quote the chapter and verse that you think describes how god did it.As I asked you: If I told you that I put dinner on the table, would that mean that I cooked it or would it mean that somebody else did and I just served it? How does the fact that knowing that I put it on the table tell you anything about how I did it.

quote:

---

links?

---

I am not here to do your homework. This is common knowledge. If you don't know who Richard Sternberg is, why did you reference a source that talks about him? If you don't know the actual specifics regarding his relationship with the Smithsonian and the National Institutes of Health, why did you reference a source that talks about him?It would seem that all you did was find a website that had information that coincided with your preconceived views of how the world is supposed to be and then parroted it here.Go look it up and come back when you've done your homework. We'll still be here.

quote:

---

i think you are confusing the facts

---

How would you know if you haven't done your homework? Rather than remembering the actual results of Sternberg's relationship with the Smithsonian and the NIH, you are asking for more information, so clearly you do not know the facts.We are not here to do your homework for you. Why don't you look for the Smithsonian's and the NIH's official statements regarding what happened.

quote:

---

but i saw that movie and thought it was great.

---

Even though most everything in it was false? It portrayed Sternberg as having been fired for his beliefs when that is factually incorrect. He wasn't fired but instead had his contract extended.

quote:

---

one thing is the man they highlighted about the smithsonian or whoever that were upset by the publication

---

"Upset"? I do not think that word means what you think it means. He wasn't fired and had his contract extended. How is that indicative of them being "upset"? If continuing to be gainfully employed is an example of my employers being "upset" with me, perhaps I should make them "upset" with me more. Who knows...maybe I can piss them off so much they'll give me a raise.

quote:

---

i do not respond to these or logical fallacies as they are worthless and written by those who do not believe.

---

In other words, you've been caught and rather than admitting your error, you're going to ignore all commentary regarding it and will no doubt repeat it in your next post.Are you saying the Catholics don't believe in god or aren't Christian? Because the official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is the only scientific explanation we have to explain the diversity of life.If you don't think so, what is your justification for saying that your interpretation is the only legitimate one? Remember, every other believer has just as much evidence as you. Why is your claim to be accepted over everybody else?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Dawn Bertot responds to Taq:

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Please show how order, rules, and laws leads to the conclusion of a designer."

---

​

Because it has orders, rules and laws.

---

Logical error: Circular reasoning.Suppose there is a piece of paper that is lying between two uprights such that it forms a U-shape between them. Some marbles fall into the U made by the paper.You'll notice that the marbles will soon show order: They're all in a line. Are you saying that a designer came down and personally, deliberately, and consciously put those marbles in a straight line?Time for the question nobody ever answers. Well, Taz has, but I have yet to hear anybody who advocates for creationism answer it:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?It is not "self-demonstrating" that "order, rules, and laws lead to the conclusion of a designer." Instead, we see that order, rules, and laws quite often appear all on their own.So, since we know that order, rules, and laws can and do appear all on their own, why is this specific instance any different?Or is there nothing that happens on its own? Is god required for everything?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Dawn Bertot responds to me:

quote:

---

Yes you are correct, it is circular reasoning AND IT CAN AND ONLY WILL EVER BE circular reasoning., on atleast this question.

---

Then your argument fails. Circular reasoning is a logical error.

quote:

---

It does not matter whether I can GO from order to design, it only matters that that is what the available evidence SUGGEST as does your position.

---

Except it doesn't. The available evidence suggests there is no designer. The marbles are ordered by rules and laws without any designer taking part.Therefore, since we know that order, rules, and laws can and do appear all on their own, why is this specific instance any different?Or is there nothing that happens on its own? Is god required for everything?

quote:

---

You are concluding what you assume

---

Incorrect. I am concluding based upon direct observation. No designer was involved in the marbles coming into order. They got that way on their own.Unless you are suggesting that god came down and deliberately, purposefully, and consciously placed those marbles in the line. Is that what you are suggesting?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

As far as I can see order and complex intricate laws are sufficient to point or suggest design, but I have no way of demonstrating this other than the same way you suggest these things are a product of themselves

---

But I can demonstrate it. I just did. The marbles are in a line even though no designer was involved. Are you suggesting there was? That the invisible hand of god came down and deliberately, purposefully, and consciously put those marbles in a line? Is that what you are suggesting?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

Unless you can prove things are a source of thier own self absolutley

---

Huh? Are you saying that there was something else involved? That it wasn't the marbles organizing themselves on their own but rather the hand of god acting deliberately, purposefully, and consciously to place the marbles into a line? Is that what you are suggesting?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

All you have is observation from a very limited perspective

---

I never said otherwise. But do you have any evidence that the observations are insufficient? Why do you insist upon the addition of chocolate sprinkles?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Off topic content hidden. --AdminEdited by Admin, : Add hide.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.