Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 12:48 AM
20 online now:
DrJones*, Theodoric (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,153 Year: 15,189/19,786 Month: 1,912/3,058 Week: 286/404 Day: 4/96 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
222324
25
2627Next
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 361 of 402 (474565)
07-09-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by John 10:10
07-09-2008 10:20 AM


I guess we will forever disagree on this matter of proof. Scientists know things are true by "proving" to a high degree of accuracy that things are as they are. This the ToE has not done nor ever will be be able to do.

I seem to remember telling you at the start of this thread that reciting dumb creationist lies like this won't convince us.

Listen carefully.

In principle, we could persuade you to study biology and find out that you're wrong. Because knowledge is communicable. OK, in practice this will never happen, 'cos you will in fact never ever study the subjects you like to prate about. But in principle you could find out something about science in general or biology in particular, and slap your forehead and say "Oh! Duh! Now I see why I was wrong!"

But ignorance is not communicable. Unless you kidnap me and literally cut out large chunks of my brain, you cannot make me forget the knowledge that I have acquired. You can rant, you can rave, you can scream, and you can tell me that the theory of evolution is "very bad", but all your nonsense will not drive a single particle of knowledge out of my head.

We evolutionists can (in principle) win. Because it is at least in principle possible that we can make you less dumb. We might educate you. It's not likely, but I maintain that it is possible. You, on the other hand, cannot win. You cannot make people be ignorant when they have knowledge. Even if I wished to be ignorant, I could not voluntarily forget what I have learned. No amount of argument on your part will ever make me ignorant. This is why you must always fail.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:20 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1223 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 362 of 402 (474566)
07-09-2008 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Rrhain
07-09-2008 4:13 AM


quote:
Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork.
Indeed it does. It is by studying the world we live in that we have come to the conclusion that the diversity of life we see on this planet is the result of evolution, not "intelligent design."

If you really believed this, you would also believe that He intelligently designed this universe and all life therein.

Huh? What part of "not 'intelligent design'" means "yes, 'intelligent design'"?

The part that said, "Indeed it does", referring to Psa 19:1.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 4:13 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 363 of 402 (474567)
07-09-2008 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by John 10:10
07-09-2008 10:40 AM


John 10:10 writes:

The biology that makes sense ...

While you're bloviating about "the biology that makes sense", would you please answer this simple yes-or-no question?

Dr Adequate writes:

I knew you'd run away from this one. I asked you for a yes-or-no answer, without any windy creationist rhetoric. You gave me windy creationist rhetoric without a yes or a no.

So let's do it again.

72 Nobel Prize winning scientists say that:

The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept.

So you know perfectly well what they think of evolution, don't play dumb.

Now, do they know what "true science is"?

Yes or no?

YES or NO?

Yes or no? Do they know what "the biology that makes sense" is?

YES or NO?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:40 AM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 8:48 PM Dr Adequate has responded

rueh
Member (Idle past 1889 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 364 of 402 (474569)
07-09-2008 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by John 10:10
07-09-2008 9:55 AM


Re: Observations
quote:
If the evolutionary model can be called "true science", which it is not, and taught in the classroom, then the belief that our Creator created the universe and all life therein should be given an equal opportunity. But the religion of the Theory of Evolutionists will not allow this.

If the creationist or IDists could show one scrap of evidence to support their hypothesis' than it would be given consideration by the scientific community and then the school system. Until than all you are doing is preaching religion. The Judaic creation story is on par with every other creation story. So their is no reason for why every creation story shouldn't be given equal time in the science class. And if we had all the myths permeating our science class when do we have the time to teach true science?
You are arguing against something that you haven't even bothered to study. Just show one single iota of evidence that creation is true.
quote:
The FACT that no one can duplicate the "time factor" long enough to prove the start-to-finish ToE model. True science actually proves to a high degree of accuracy that things are as they are within a certain time frame.

The time factor that you demand is that life go from single cell to human in the span of a lifetime? This is a statement that you have made earlier in this thread. You know that this is impossible, you know that nowhere does the theory of evolution claim this to be the method of opperation. So why do you make such a ridiculous statement? The only claim that is even remote to this, would be that coming from the creation camp. This type of evidence is not proof for the theory of evolution. It is proof of creation.

Edited by rueh, : So more ridiculous statements later in the thread. Had to answer


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:55 AM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:07 PM rueh has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 365 of 402 (474570)
07-09-2008 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by John 10:10
07-09-2008 9:55 AM


Re: Observations
If the evolutionary model can be called "true science", which it is not, and taught in the classroom, then the belief that our Creator created the universe and all life therein should be given an equal opportunity. But the religion of the Theory of Evolutionists will not allow this.

Oh, look, now he's pretending that the foundational theory of biology is a "religion".

Hello, John 10:10?

Hello-o?

We've heard a zillion creationist loons recite this stupid gibberish. Every person who's crazy in the head recites this trash. It's one of the more pathetic of your creationist rituals. You recite it over and over, and it doesn't change our minds. Because the gibberish recited by creationists is not evidence.

We've heard people bleat out this lie. And being lied to didn't change our opinion.

Once more, you fail.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:55 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 366 of 402 (474575)
07-09-2008 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Dr Adequate
07-09-2008 10:27 AM


Re: Scientist
Dr Adequate writes:

72 Nobel Prize winning scientists say that:

The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept.
So you know perfectly well what they think of evolution, don't play dumb.

Dr you first mentioned this in Message 57. And you gave no reference for the information.

In looking for your source I found this Here

EDWIN W. EDWARDS, in his official capacity
as Governor of Louisiana, et al.,
Appellants,
v.
DON AGUILLARD, et al.,
Appellees.
No. 85-1513
October Term, 1986
August 18, 1986
On Appeal From the United States Court of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS,
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES
ROBERT A. KLAYMAN, WALTER B. SLOCOMBE
  • , JEFFREY S. LEHMAN, BETH SHAPIRO KAUFMAN, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, One Thomas Circle, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 862-5000, Attorneys for Amici Curiae

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
    CASES:
    Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F.2d 1251 (5th Cir. 1985)
    Aguillard v. Treen, No. 81-4787, slip op., (E.D. La. Jan. 10, 1985)
    Trust of Bingham v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 325 U.S. 365 (1945)
    Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 (1976)
    Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, 472 U.S. 491, 105 S. Ct. 2794 (1985)
    Burns v. Alcala, 420 U.S. 575 (1975)
    Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
    Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306 (1983)
    Hendren v. Campbell (Superior Court No. 5, Marion County, Indiana) (April 14, 1977), reprinted in National Association of Biology Teachers, A Compendium of Information on the Theory of Evolution and the Evolution-Creationism Controversy 31 (rev. ed. 1978)
    IIT Research Institute v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 13 (1985)
    Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
    Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)
    McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (E.D. Ark. 1982)
    George Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose, 289 U.S. 373 (1933)
    Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (1979)
    Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)
    Propper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472 (1949)
    Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1 (1962)
    Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 377 (1977)
    United States v. Durham Lumber, 363 U.S. 522 (1960)
    United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 105 S. Ct. 1785 (1985)
    Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
    STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS:
    Louisiana Civil Code:
    La. Civ. Code art. 14
    La. Civ. Code art. 15
    La. Rev. Stat. Ann. @ 17.286.4
    S.B. 86 @ 3704(1)
    MISCELLANEOUS:
    Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity (J. Moore & H. Slusher eds. 1970)
    R. Bliss, Origins: Two Models (1978)
    R. Bliss & G. Parker, Origin of Life (1979)
    R. Clouse & R. Pierard, Streams of Civilization (Vol. 2, 1980)
    Cole, Misquoted Scientists Respond, 6 Creation/Evolution 34 (Fall 1981)
    Distinction Between Scientific Creationism and Biblical Creationism, Acts & Facts 4 (December 1978)
    Dobzhansky, Nothing in Science Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, 35 American Biology Teacher 125 (1973)
    K. Ernst, Fossils, Frogs, Fish and Friends (1984)
    Freske, Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, 6 Creation/Evolution 8 (Spring 1981)
    D. Gish, Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985)
    D. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (3d ed. 1979)
    S. Gould, The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change, in The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections on Natural History 179 (1980)
    A. Hyma & M. Stanton, Streams of Civilization (Vol. 1, 1978)
    P. Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (1983)
    Z. Levitt, Creation: A Scientist's Choice (1976)
    E. Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (1970)
    J. Moore, How to Teach Origins (Without ACLU Interference) (1983)
    Morris, The Tenets of Creationism, Impact (July 1980)
    H. Morris, Evolution in Turmoil (1982)
    H. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972)
    H. Morris, The Scientific Case for Creationism (1977)
    H. Morris, Scientific Creationism (pub. sch. ed. 1974)
    H. Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution (2d ed. 1982)
    H. Morris, The Twilight of Evolution (2d ed. 1982)
    H. Morris & G. Parker, What Is Creation Science? (pub. sch. ed. 1982)
    National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism (1984)
    G. Parker, Creation -- The Facts of Life (1980)
    G. Parker, Dry Bones . . . and Other Fossils (1979)
    H. Rue, Bomby the Bombardier Beetle (1984)
    W. Rusch, The Argument: Creationism vs. Evolutionism (1984)
    A. Snelling, et al., Casebook I: The Case Against Evolution, the Case for Creation (1984)
    Stebbins & Ayala, The Evolution of Darwinism, 253 Sci. Am. 72 (July 1985)
    Webster's Third International Dictionary (1966)
    R. L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1984)
    INTEREST OF AMICI CURAE
    Amici curiae are individual scientists, state academies of science, and other scientific organizations. Each of the 72 individual amici has received the Nobel Prize in Physics[1], in Chemistry[2], or in Physiology or Medicine[3].

    COMPLETE LIST OF REPRESENTED AMICI
    Nobel Laureates: Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.

  • I did not find where any of them said this:

    The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept.

    Could you please point it out to me.

    Thanks,

    God Bless,


    "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 357 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2008 10:27 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 368 by Rahvin, posted 07-09-2008 12:52 PM ICANT has responded

      
    Larni
    Member
    Posts: 3990
    From: Liverpool
    Joined: 09-16-2005
    Member Rating: 5.5


    Message 367 of 402 (474580)
    07-09-2008 12:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 311 by John 10:10
    07-08-2008 4:59 PM


    Re: More nonsense
    John 10:10 writes:

    Most scientists who work in valuable scientific research are able to:
    (1) prove how gravity works.....snip

    So you are saying that true scientist can prove how gravity works?

    Could you support your assertation that scientist have proved how it works?

    Bet you can't.

    You should already be able to see the error you have made.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 311 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:59 PM John 10:10 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 382 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:14 PM Larni has not yet responded

      
    Rahvin
    Member
    Posts: 3964
    Joined: 07-01-2005


    Message 368 of 402 (474581)
    07-09-2008 12:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 366 by ICANT
    07-09-2008 12:10 PM


    Re: Scientist
    Read further down, ICANT. It's right here.

    With a bit more context:

    The case is regarding:

    quote:
    The Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act (the "Act") violates the Establishment Clause, as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Act's illegitimate bias toward the outlook of a particular religious sect is reflected in two separate provisions. One calls for the presentation of the religious tenets of "creation-science" in public-school science classes. The other singles out the domain of evolutionary science for special pejorative treatment.

    And the quote Dr. A provided, in context, is:

    quote:
    The Act's false dichotomy between "origins" and all other scientific concepts not only invites students to mistake all those other concepts for "proven facts"; it actively deprecates evolution. By so doing, the Act grossly misrepresents the status of evolutionary theory within the universe of scientific theories. The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept. E.g., E. Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution 1 (1970) ("The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology."); National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism 14-22 (1984); P. Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism 54 (1983); Dobzhansky, Nothing in Science Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, 35 American Biology Teacher 125 (1973).

    The Act thus singles out evolutionary theory for more disparaging treatment than other scientific theories that are actually no more robust and reliable. It encourages teachers to erroneously label the proposition that tides are caused by the gravitational attractions of the sun and moon, for example, a "proven scientific fact," while labeling the proposition that species evolve through time a mere "theory." The reason for this scientifically indefensible legislative posture is clear: Whereas the reason for tides is not an issue of significance to adherents of certain religions, evolution is.


    Emphasis obviously mine.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 366 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 12:10 PM ICANT has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 372 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 4:08 PM Rahvin has responded

    deerbreh
    Member (Idle past 1121 days)
    Posts: 882
    Joined: 06-22-2005


    Message 369 of 402 (474585)
    07-09-2008 1:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 360 by John 10:10
    07-09-2008 10:40 AM


    quote:
    The biology that makes sense is the biology that truly understands how the human body works and how to help fix it when something goes wrong, not a theory about how life evolved.

    So you trust the biologists when they help solve medical problems but you don't trust them when they tell you something that goes against your religious beliefs? What is it that suddenly made them untrustworthy? This is one of the things that never ceases to amaze me. Creationists think science is great as long as it is solving their medical problems but as soon as it steps on their cherished sectarian beliefs about evolution they get all bent out of shape. Yet it is the study of evolutionary biology, comparative vertebrate anatomy, genetics, molecular biology, etc., that has played an indispensible role in advancing medical science. Why use modern medicine at all if God is all knowing and all powerful? Just let God heal you then.

    Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

    Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 360 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:40 AM John 10:10 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 383 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:26 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

    Coyote
    Member (Idle past 334 days)
    Posts: 6117
    Joined: 01-12-2008


    Message 370 of 402 (474592)
    07-09-2008 2:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 351 by John 10:10
    07-09-2008 9:37 AM


    This is the Science Forum; do science
    I simply said the "revelation" that our Creator has given us says He created every creature after their own "kind." Yes, this is my religious belief as well.

    This is the science forum. In order to keep from violating forum guidelines, aren't you supposed to back up your assertions with science, not religious belief? "Kinds" is strictly a religious term, and has no relevance in science.

    Your religious belief is in the speculations of the ToE.

    You have no idea what my religious beliefs, if any, might be. You should avoid making a fool of yourself speculating.

    If the ToE can be proven to a high degree of accuracy within the time frame in which we live, as are most other scientific proofs, then then you would have a proven evolutionary model that should be taught in every biology classroom.

    The same nonsense you have been posting for many pages. It is still wrong.

    Of course you "claim" the speculative evolutionary model is a proven scientific model to begin with.

    False. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. That has been explained to you a dozen or more times on this thread. You have shown yourself unwilling to learn anything about the science you criticize; one can only conclude that you are here to preach, rather than to engage in a conversation.

    So it's the evolutionist who starts with a conclusion, and then works backward to a model that can never be fully proven to any reasonable degree of accuracy.

    False again. At least twice. (See tagline.)


    Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 351 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:37 AM John 10:10 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 384 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:35 PM Coyote has not yet responded
     Message 398 by John 10:10, posted 07-10-2008 12:01 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 3642
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 3.8


    Message 371 of 402 (474599)
    07-09-2008 3:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 357 by Dr Adequate
    07-09-2008 10:27 AM


    Re: John You Have Convinced Me
    72 Nobel Prize winning scientists say that:

    The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept.

    So you know perfectly well what they think of evolution, don't play dumb.

    Now, do they know what "true science is"?

    Yes or no?

    Since we now know that those 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists were amici curiae in the Edwards v. Aguillard case (the Louisiana "balanced-treatment" law case that in 1987 exposed to all the courts in the land that "creation science" is a religious fraud and deception), we also know that they do know what "true science" is, even if not by that specific term.

    Not to be confused with real science (ie, science as it's actually practiced by scientists), "true science" is a deceptive term coined by fundamentalists. While somewhat akin to that other deceptive term, "creation science", it seems to have been created more in order to deceive fellow fundamentalists in order to assuage their fears of science, whereas "creation science" was created to deceive the courts and the general public.

    I first encountered the term circa 1970, at the height of the "Jesus Freak" era (when 1960's hippies started converting to Christian fundamentalism and became a scourge upon the earth, proselytizing at everyone in sight), when a friend's "Jesus Freak" brother-in-law used it. At least he had the common courtesy (or was it naïvité?) to explain what it meant: that science which agrees "with the Bible". I put that in quotes, because in reality he was saying that "true science" is that part of science which agrees with his theology's particular interpretation of the Bible.

    So the main difference between real science and "true science" is that while real science is based on the evidence and driven by the desire to discover new things and to solve mysteries, "true science" is based on fundamentalist dogma and is driven by the desire to prevent mysteries from being solved (since their God-of-the-Gaps mentality equates mysteries with their god) and hence the desire to keep anything new from being discovered (unless it can be turned into useful technology; giving them flush toilets was a very slippery slope indeed).

    So, since those 72 Nobel Prize laureates all signed up to knowing "creation science" for the fraud that it is, I'm sure that upon inspection they would also know "true science" for the fraud that it is.


    {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
    ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

    Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
    (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

    Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
    (Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

    Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
    ("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

    It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
    Robert Colbert on NPR


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 357 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2008 10:27 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

      
    ICANT
    Member
    Posts: 6187
    From: SSC
    Joined: 03-12-2007


    Message 372 of 402 (474606)
    07-09-2008 4:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 368 by Rahvin
    07-09-2008 12:52 PM


    Re: Scientist
    Hi, Rahvin,

    Thanks for the info, I couldn't see the trees for the forest.

    But can that quote be attributed to those 70 Scientist?

    Or was it something that had been put in the brief that their names are attached to?

    Just wondering.

    God Bless,


    "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 368 by Rahvin, posted 07-09-2008 12:52 PM Rahvin has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 373 by Rahvin, posted 07-09-2008 5:14 PM ICANT has responded

      
    Rahvin
    Member
    Posts: 3964
    Joined: 07-01-2005


    Message 373 of 402 (474611)
    07-09-2008 5:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 372 by ICANT
    07-09-2008 4:08 PM


    Re: Scientist
    Hi, Rahvin,

    Thanks for the info, I couldn't see the trees for the forest.

    But can that quote be attributed to those 70 Scientist?

    Or was it something that had been put in the brief that their names are attached to?

    Just wondering.

    God Bless,

    Seriously?

    I don't know, ICANT. Was the Declaration of Independence something that can be attributed to all of the signatories, or is it something all of their names are "attached to?"

    From what I can tell, the brief was filed by the 72 Nobel Prize winners as a clear statement of the opinion of actual scientists on the matter being discussed. They were demonstrating to the judge that the "controversy" and doubt contained in the law regarding the Theory of Evolution does not actually exist among actual scientists, and that to teach evolution as some sort of halfassed "it probably isn't true" hypothesis that many scientists disagree with is completely dishonest and inaccurate.

    And what do you mean by "their names are attached to" anyway? Do you really think some lawyer wrote up the brief and then just randomly chose the names of 72 Nobel Prize winners to "attach?" Do YOU sign documents related to court trials that you don't agree with? I know I certainly wouldn't.

    It's amusing that your question seems intended to cast doubt on the veracity and the support of the Nobel Prize winners of this document, in much the same way the law they were fighting intended specifically to cast doubt on the Theory of Evolution. The fact is that this was a legal brief filed witht he support (and likely authorship) of those Nobel Prize winners specifically to affirm that the Theory of Evolution is one of the strongest theories in all of science, on par with any other biological theory, and that attempts to cast doubt specifically on the Theory of Evolution because it is (in part) a theory of human origins but not on any other theory demonstrates a clear religious motivation.

    The truth is, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be as reliable in the accuracy of its predictions as the Theory of Gravity - both are theories backed by mountains of evidence, and yet no reasonable person would question the Theory of Gravity. Questions pertaining to the Theory of Evolution are solely the purview of those whose religious beliefs run counter to the predictions of the Theory of Evolution, in exactly the same way that the Heliocentric model of the solar system was once persecuted by religious authorities.

    The questions asked of the Theory of Evolution in this thread have been mindbogglingly idiotic and inconsistent, so much so that I've avoided the thread until now. Our "friend" John has run nearly the full circuit of dishonest and ignorant arguments commonly used by Creationists who argue against evolution, not because they comprehend it and have found some legitimate flaw, but rather because they don't like it.

    Shifting the goalposts to insist that biologists be prepared to demonstrate the evolution of not only a new species (which has been done and examples given in this thread), but completely new classifications even above families and genera within the lifespan of human beings is something that any scientist or even moderately educated layman would disregard with prejudice. Applying a double-standard by accepting other scientific theories supported by similar amounts of evidence and held with exactly the same tentativity as the Theory of Evolution simply because John disagrees with evolution on religious grounds is the mark of extreme bias, and demonstrates his complete and utter lack of objectivity.

    The phrase "true science" is his worst addition, however. That phrase has been brought up by nutjobs and idiots before in many places, and its actual meaning is painfully clear: "true science" refers to anything a scientist says that John agrees with. Anything not in that category, including the Theory of Evolution (and likely all of geology cosmology, astronomy, and most of physics to name a few) is not "true science.[/i] This is the argument of someone completely ignorant of science in general and the topic in particular. Agreement is a subjective, emotional response that can be affected by predetermined worldviews such as those of Creationists as well as personal incredulity.

    Whether John agrees or not, the Earth orbits the Sun, water is wet, and the Theory of Evolution is an extremely accurate explanatory framework derived from the factual direct observation of real-world populations evolving over generations. Extrapolating the predictions of the Theory of Evolution backwards in time predicts a fossil record exactly like the one we observe in reality. Johns equivocation over "true science," his insistence on shifting the goalposts, applying double-standards, arguing from ignorance and incredulity, arguing against insipidly constructed strawmen, and his complete and utter lack of objective reasoning as it pertains to science and the Theory of Evolution are completely irrelevant to the fact that the Theory of Evolution accurately fits the evidence to an extremely high degree.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 372 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 4:08 PM ICANT has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 375 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 5:36 PM Rahvin has responded
     Message 389 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 10:28 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    ICANT
    Member
    Posts: 6187
    From: SSC
    Joined: 03-12-2007


    Message 374 of 402 (474616)
    07-09-2008 5:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 350 by mark24
    07-09-2008 8:04 AM


    Re: Re-Horses
    mark24 writes:

    The phylogeny is based on many morphological characters. I'm not even sure it's based on absolute size at all.

    I was referring to the small 14" beginning animal to the large horse we have today. There was for many years a picture of horses in a stepladder style showing the evolution of horses.

    How they had come from having many toes to the hoof.

    But they found that it did not work that way and that some of the smaller animals came after the larger and three toes came after two toes. So it kinda messed up the picture. No problem though that is just evolution jumping back and forth rather than the slow steady progression predicted.

    God Bless,


    "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 350 by mark24, posted 07-09-2008 8:04 AM mark24 has not yet responded

      
    ICANT
    Member
    Posts: 6187
    From: SSC
    Joined: 03-12-2007


    Message 375 of 402 (474617)
    07-09-2008 5:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 373 by Rahvin
    07-09-2008 5:14 PM


    Re: Scientist
    Rahvin writes:

    Whether John agrees or not, the Earth orbits the Sun,

    The sun also orbits the earth. It just takes 200 million years to make the trip. If I am wrong feel free to correct me.

    God Bless,


    "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 373 by Rahvin, posted 07-09-2008 5:14 PM Rahvin has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 376 by Rahvin, posted 07-09-2008 5:42 PM ICANT has not yet responded
     Message 379 by Organicmachination, posted 07-09-2008 8:02 PM ICANT has responded

      
    RewPrev1
    ...
    222324
    25
    2627Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019