|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9206 total) |
| |
Fyre1212 | |
Total: 919,412 Year: 6,669/9,624 Month: 9/238 Week: 9/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?” | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
* bumped to make derisive clucking noises *
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
* bumped to make derisive clucking noises *
I do not see this as being productive in this thread and is indeed off-topic, but if that is what you want then I suppose I can respond.
Next, of course would be ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Hello Bluegenes. Your response is thoughtful and appreciated.
My delay in response is intentional. I noted in Message 1 this process may take months or more. Time serves to:
The objective remains securing firm commitments for the most qualified team possible to present and defend the evidence for the viability of random mutations and natural selection as a mechanism to develop human progeny from a single-celled bacteria type creature. Bluegenes in Message 90 writes: Where did you get the post title (Re: Gallup Poll Reveals Only 16% Believe Unguided neo-Darwinism Works) from? I don't remember the phrase "neo-Darwinism" in the poll. Neo-Darwinism (random mutations and natural selection) is a necessary component of evolution theory. Random mutations are the only commonly inferred mechanism to develop novel genetic code for new biological functions; e.g. control systems for intercontinental navigation.To quote one of your peers at EvC Forum in Message 181 of another thread: PaulK in Message 181 of the Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating thread writes: But let us get to the point. Would you not agree that regardless of the definition used, evolutionists are overwhelmingly united behind neo-Darwinism? And here’s a reference from your peer Roxrkool from a post in another thread, (#4) listing The Fossil Museum website:
The Fossil Museum website writes:
You continue:
The modern theory of evolution is based on two primary tenets:
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
There is no other specific theory of evolution (void of random mutations and natural selection) unless you’re suggesting some believe in the theory of evolution called Lysenkoism — click link (heritability of acquired characteristics). The 16% believe in naturalistic evolution, but no specific theory was mentioned.The proponents of Lysenko evolution in the Soviet Union also inferred flaws upon those who didn’t ‘believe’ (as Dawkins is quoted in Message 1). Unbelievers of that science suffered up to and including death by execution. Wikipedia on Lysenkoism writes: From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's approval, many geneticists were executed (including Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii, Georgii Karpechenko and Georgii Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943.[8] Genetics was stigmatized as a 'bourgeois science' or 'fascist science' (because fascists particularly the Nazis in Germany embraced genetics and attempted to use it to justify their theories on eugenics and the master race, which culminated in Action T4 (click link). History reveals how misguided philosophical judgments have misrepresented and leveraged ‘science’ to justify intolerant judgment and elimination of others. Those Lysenko evolution scientists were evidently not fond of direct debate concerning evidence for some decades. It was apparently preferrable to attack the dissenters of Lysenkoism rather than boldly engage skeptics of the science and evidence skeptics who were judged skeptics who were dead right. Any naturalistic (unguided) theoretical mechanism must explain newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, sexual reproduction, intercontinental navigation, metamorphosis from a caterpillar to a Monarch, etc.) resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms within a population over time. If you’d rather not represent or defend neo-Darwinism in a publishable debate Bluegenes, then please explain why you decline, if you don’t mind.
Eye-Squared-R in Message 89 writes:
Yes Bluegenes, it is Correct. But virtually all Americans do not believe the Earth is flat - because they’ve been exposed to the abundant evidence. That is precisely the opportunity presented in this thread: to both present and defend the evidence for neo-Darwinism in a publishable venue that could help educate the masses.Bluegenes in Message 90 writes: Is it?Science gains credibility through confrontation and nullification of false hypotheses. According to your Gallup Poll reference, naturalistic (unguided) evolution lacks credibility with 84% of the people in the United States. Evoluton is a hot topic. Consequently, a quality result from a thorough written publishable debate of the evidence will likely be widely publicized.It could be an educational reference for mainy years a classic. The large majority of Americans who are neo-Darwin skeptics could be influenced by exposure to a widely publicized published view of the evidence — one way or the other. Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
It would help by leveraging your knowledge and understanding in presenting and defending the evidence and by nullifying alternative evidence or alternative interpretations of evidence. Regardless of belief or creed, most folks are rational to some degree and there would be much more interest in a professional publishable debate of neo-Darwinism than masses of published work by biologists. How would it help when masses of published work by biologists is already available to them?A quality result would be a much more interesting publication and could possibly be highly acclaimed with surprising influence. New York Times Best Seller? Maybe. Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
‘Not to any particular explanatory theory’ Bluegenes? And have you not yet understood that comments about people being ignorant, stupid or delusional relate to the denial of the fact of evolution, not to any particular explanatory theory? They apply largely to the 40% in the Gallup poll who believe that humans were created as we are.I may be misreading this but you seem to be backing away from neo-Darwinism. Is that correct? Neo-Darwinism (random mutations and natural selection) is the ONLY explanatory theoretical mechanism for newly developed fully functioning organs. Purely materialistic evolution believers have no other proposed mechanism to believe in, Bluegenes. Changes in frequencies of alleles are inadequate to generate human DNA without random mutations. Do you believe in random mutations and natural selection as the explanatory mechanisms for inferred universal common descent from a single bacteria type ancestor — or not? If you believe neo-Darwinism is the explanatory mechanism, can you present and defend the evidence in a written publishable format — or not Bluegenes? And I have understood the comments (judgments) about people with differing beliefs. It doesn’t help to muddle this proposal as detailed in Message 1 and subsequent posts. Concerning the term: ‘fact of evolution’ that is favored by folks here we’d like some clarification if you don’t mind.
Does the term ‘fact of evolution’ mean that you ‘know’ it is a fact that a bacteria type creature’s progeny randomly mutated enough successful iterations over time to become human beings? If you know that to be a fact, then you can surely meet the requirements of this invitation to a publishable debate. As Lee Corso might say on ESPN’s College Game Day program — Bring It Bluegenes! It would be helpful if you reviewed this thread before responding to avoid further redundancy. Concerning evolution and your inference to multiple explanatory theories - from Message 22 in response to RAZD: The term evolution is widely used to mean various things. Few people would claim not to believe Mendel’s Laws of heredity. Few people would claim not to believe ecological factors influence predominant traits in a population over time Dobzhansky authored Genetics and the Origin of Species in 1937 and established the idea that mutation, by creating genetic diversity, supplied ALL the raw material for Darwinian natural selection to produce newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, intercontinental navigation) resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms within a population over time — thereby explaining how all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor.This may not be the definition you prefer and that’s fine. If you don’t believe that definition to be easily defensible, then you would not be interested in debating for it. It is detailed in this thread for those who are. And you may have missed this in Message 88 to Taq concerning the details of evolution (with some edits):
Mendel’s Laws are taught in science classes and were discovered independent from any of Darwin’s work. Ecological and other factors can influence gene pools over time. But Mendel’s Laws and selection processes do not provide genetic code for newly functioning organs.
If you and others are unwilling or unable to debate the inferred mechanism for evolution (random mutation and natural selection) to generate all biological functions, then perhaps you could at least present and defend the evidence for the inferred results in a publishable format Neo-Darwinism necessarily begins with a self-sustaining, self-replicating cell deploying at least some (if not most) of the functions described in the Harvard cell animation below. According to neo-Darwinism, random (unguided) mutations are the exclusive source for all genetic variation to generate the complete functional controls for the cell, and ultimately all biological functions in all life forms. This inferred random iteration (as the sole source for selection to eventually generate human DNA) is likely the issue of contention for most neo-Darwinian unbelievers.
Harvard Cell Animation (Click link to view web page) or watch here (added by edit): My favorite is the Motor Proteins at 3:39 of the video. Clearly, what is needed to educate unbelievers concerning the validity of neo-Darwinism is unambiguous convincing evidence to demonstrate how random mutations and natural selection work to develop new organs, features, and capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, intercontinental navigation, etc.). Even direct observation of partially developed newly forming organs may be helpful evidence for some. You question what I have not yet understood Bluegenes.What I don’t understand is professed judgment by many here at EvC Forum upon those with differing beliefs — combined with an apparent reluctance to engage contrary beliefs (including evidence for those differing beliefs) in a professional publishable debate. It’s much better to engage vigorous publishable debate than debase ourselves imputing flaws upon those who believe differently. Much better than an EvC Forum members’s suggestion of eugenics (Message 116 of another thread) as a means of eliminating people with differing beliefs (hopefully in jest). We need science Ph.D. credentials marketable to publishers to lead the evolution team. Dr. Adequate has a Ph.D. in math (not science) has demonstrated inability to carry a debate forward in a professional manner (banned from debating Human Origins and Evolution at EvC Forum) and is not a candidate as the lead for a professional publishable debate (I will detail further in a later post). We need as many committed Ph.D.s in natural or applied science as possible to debate for neo-Darwinism for credibility to publishers. Would you please join the effort and help build the best team possible to present and defend the evidence for neo-Darwinism?
Eye-Squared-R in Message 89 writes:
They are interested in it Bluegenes — that same interest explains why you’re here on this forum along with many who have differing conclusions from yours. A professional publishable written debate is apparently not available today. You could help make it happen we have an opportunity to help a huge section of the population with knowledge and understanding.
According to your Gallup reference, only 16% believe human DNA developed without God's involvement. This poll indicates a larger opportunity for neo-Darwinian evolutionists to educate Americans than I had imagined. If there are 308 million people in the US, the 84% unbelievers or skeptics in neo-Darwinism (unguided Random Mutations and Natural Selection) that you could help educate would amount to over 258 million people!
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes: How?What information can I make available to religious Americans that is not already easily available to them if they were interested in it? Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
And what makes you think the 84% neo-Darwin skeptics in the Gallup Poll you provided are all constrained by religious beliefs Bluegenes? Only 40% reportedly believe humans were created as we are. In my experience, the 84% neo-Darwin ‘unbelievers’ are both non-religious and religious. And what makes you think that evidence ever had anything to do with their religious beliefs? The purpose of this thread is to advance knowledge and understanding; to invite you and others to engage debate in a publishable format so that you could demonstrate whether overwhelming skepticism of purely naturalistic neo-Darwin theory (reported by your Gallup reference) has anything to do with direct empirical evidence.
If there is actually no direct empirical evidence for an alternative conclusion as many on this forum often claim a written debate involving real science should be a walk in the park for you and your evolution team. If you could, Bluegenes, please firmly engage a publishable commitment to validate your claim that neo-Darwin skeptics (both non-religious and religious) have no evidence for believing differently than you. The potential risk (to both sides) is a highly popular and broadly published debate with an embarrassing performance similar to your condescendingly confident peers in this thread concerning basic science. They’re referred to as the Aspirants to Sophisticated Science #1 and #2, as noted in the green and red sectioned exercises in Message 71.And toward the bottom of that message: In this particular case, I’ve devised a new acronym to describe the behavior and language of Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 while flaming out in Message 56 — I shall refer to this type response by either an evolutionist or a creationist as a GNAW: (Gets Nasty At Will) Surely you’d agree gnawing doesn’t lend credibility in a professional setting. If we bantered these assertions (described in the Message 71 exercises) concerning Ohm’s Law and the nature of Real Power back and forth many times, they could eventually qualify as PRATTs (evolutionist term for Points Refuted A Thousand Times) In any case, I’ve penned a new acronym to describe these types of banter when a highly confident Adherent to Sophisticated Science apparently doesn’t understand everything he knows - PR-NUT: (Points Refuted — Not Understood Totally)! And for the Flame-Out (Message 56) types, we could add the acronym JOB: (Just Obnoxious Behavior). Not a single scientist at EvC Forum is willing and/or able to determine whether these exercises in basic physical science (in Message 71) constitute PRATTs, PR-NUTs, PR-NUTGNAWs or PR-NUTJOBs. Perhaps it’s not pleasant to observe or acknowledge condescendingly confident evolutionist peers failing basic science.It’s OK to be wrong (I know from plenty of personal experience). But arrogant persistence in error can have significant consequences. The potential risk may be high, but I believe the potential benefit is much greater. A quality performance could possibly garner mass media attention in the United Kingdom and you, Bluegenes, could be helping at least some of your fellow Brits, friends and neighbors who may be neo-Darwin ‘unbelievers’ but could be persuaded! You (and your evolution team) could possibly be widely acclaimed. Who knows, Rachel Maddow may feature you on her Geek Week special on MSNBC! The potential influence of your knowledge and intelligence could be significant, but only if you’re willing to firmly commit. Here’s what really matters: your confidence and willingness to present and defend evidence for neo-Darwinism in a publishable debate. You may not have seen this so I’ll repeat it. In my opinion, this offer serves to indicate:1) Strength of Belief in evidence for your position, and 2) Importance You Attribute to influencing and educating society (outside EVC Forum) with your evidence. Regardless of how you judge religious folks, you could at least extend a platform of knowledge and understanding to the non-religious neo-Darwin skeptics by debating evidence for and against neo-Darwinism. I trust you’ll do your own risk/benefit analysis Bluegenes. Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
The philosophy that nothing exists beyond the physical realm has been around for millennia. Gallup polling was not available centuries ago, but your opinion may have some merit and is acknowledged.
The 84% are believing what 90% believed a few decades ago, what more than 90% would have probably believed 100 years ago, and what nearly 100% would have believed 200 years ago. Bluegenes in Message 90 writes: The origin of the belief is cultural, it is passed down generations, and isn't built on evidence. For clarity Bluegenes, please indicate which best describes your position that folks who have beliefs different from your beliefs (specifically neo-Darwin unbelievers) are not based on evidence:
And here is an example of folks here at EvC Forum whose skepticism of neo-Darwinism is apparently not ‘cultural’ or ‘passed down generations.’See Message 5 of another thread: EvC Forum evolutionist writes: I don't like neo-Darwinism, and I have made no secret of that. See the earlier thread Criticizing neo-Darwinism. Berlinski is correct that many mathematicians and physicists have doubts about it. I think a report from that Wistar symposium is online, or was at one time. I seem to recall reading it. I personally do not have any doubts about evolution itself. However, I see the neo-Darwinian account as too easily leading to the kind of straw-man version of evolution that creationists keep refuting. So I would prefer an account that is not so easily misunderstood. Many mathematicians and physicists have doubts about evolution while creationists keep refuting some supposed straw-man version. And this evolutionist does not have any doubts about evolution but he presents no proposed mechanism to explain evolution for which he ‘likes’ or expresses any confidence strange how that works. Whatever the reasons for all the neo-Darwin skeptics Bluegenes, just firmly commit to a publishable debate and help build the strongest committed and credentialed evolution team possible to represent your views. When the strongest team possible is committed, we’ll then advance to step two and eventual contractual arrangements. Your debate opponent(s) will present evidence against neo-Darwinism and evidence for an alternative interpretation of the data. Your task will then be to scientifically defend your belief — and scientifically nullify evidence against neo-Darwinism (evidence that you state does not exist).A firm commitment would exclude extraneous or weak excuses to withdraw from the debate by either side. If you judge flaws (ignorance, stupidity, delusion) upon others while insisting there is no evidence for their lack of belief in neo-Darwinism and you refuse to engage debate of the evidence in a written publishable format — then interested observers may consider your conviction to be less than persuasive (or worse). If you would make a firm commitment (including at least one Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences, competent and marketable for publisher credentials) Bluegenes, you could ‘Bring It’ to a written publishable debate. You could possibly demonstrate lack of evidence for skepticism of neo-Darwinism (the belief that humans descended from an asexual worm type creature via random mutation and natural selection). This is clearly a tremendous opportunity for you and others. Let’s get it out there for the sake of truth in science Bluegenes!
Eye-Squared-R in Message 89 writes: The point is the vast majority of Americans are evidently either not aware of the evidence or not persuaded by the evidence for neo-Darwinism (purely naturalistic view) as they are the evidence for a spherical Earth.Would you please help educate these folks by committing to present and defend the evidence in a broad publishable format Bluegenes? Bluegenes in Message 90 writes: Again, if you think that a lack of published information on biology is the reason 84% of Americans believe a god was involved in their creation, you are wrong. The topic is neo-Darwinism, not ‘published information on biology’. The biology of meiosis, mitosis, immunology, Mendel’s Laws, etcetera, are adequately evidenced with few or no skeptics. If you can leverage those subjects or any others in biology to demonstrate evidence for a working mechanism to develop humans from an asexual worm type creature, then please make a firm commitment to a publishable debate. Incidentally, I don’t believe a ‘lack of published information on biology’ is the reason 84% of Americans are neo-Darwin skeptics.Only one other broadly publicized theory has nearly as many skeptics as neo-Darwinism — and that’s Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW). As I discussed in Message 156 of the (Inconvenient Truth or lie (click link)) thread, religion likely has minimal influence on people’s beliefs concerning AGW. The more direct correlation is likely conservative versus liberal political viewsRegardless, Mr. Gore and his team are evidently doing well financially with the gig. So the AGW ‘Den-eye-yers’ (as Al Gore would condescendingly say with furled eyebrows), including many scientists and engineers, evidently have their reasons for skepticism that are based upon knowledge and understanding related to evidence. An interesting exercise would be to compare and contrast - why both fields have many ‘non-religious’ skeptics. One consideration may be that Mr. Gore will not engage in a debate concerning the evidence (click link). Rather than boldly engaging debate, laying all the evidence out there and defending it It’s conveniently preferable for Mr. Gore and his well-funded scientists to judge those who are AGW skeptics as ignorant and claim the ‘debate is over’ before it has occurred. A professional written debate of the evidence could possibly ‘light up’ both AGW and neo-Darwin theories Please help those you believe are afflicted with ignorance, stupidity, or delusion. Many are open minded and will hear you out — but you’ll need to ‘Bring It’ with confidence Bo vigorous direct publishable engagement of the science.
The science. The whole science. And nothing but the science, Bluegenes, if you please. Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
Little children are inclined to believe what they are told; e.g. Santa Claus and Tooth Fairies. Many children are not taught or significantly exposed to any particular religion in a secular society. But virtually all children are taught evolution theory (random mutation and natural selection generating all life forms from a common single-cell ancestor) exclusively in the USA’s public schools — (except maybe in Texas (click link)). They are inclined to believe what they heard repeatedly as little children. The reality is people often change their beliefs with acquired knowledge and experience. Many abandon their parent’s beliefs, including the traditional religious and the secular atheist philosophies. According to your Gallup Poll reference, 84% are either skeptical or flatly reject neo-Darwinism — (which they learned as school children) to be the explanation of the origin of the species. Apparently, the majority of those who do not believe humans were specially created (in present form) also do not believe neo-Darwinism is an adequately evidenced mechanism. Unlike history, math, chemistry, or physics, neo-Darwinism has evidently not been convincing, even to many secularists.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
Perhaps there’s merit to what you say but you’re making some broad generalizations - with lots of exceptions. Children taught to believe the Koran in some Middle East cultures don’t enjoy freedom of conscience or freedom of expression. Their parents also don’t enjoy freedom of association. They are naturally hesitant to express any other view after seeing folks publicly judged for their unbelief.
Kids brought up in traditional non-theistic religions don't believe in creator gods, and kids brought up to believe that the Koran is the word of god are much more likely to believe that than you or I. Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
Yet, the majority of your British folks, and evidently a higher percentage than in the USA, reportedly believe some form of ‘design’ should be taught in your schools
The purely naturalistic view is more prevalent in Europe because of a significantly greater decline in religious belief, and lower general intensity of the indoctrination of children with religious belief, not because of a difference in the scientific information available. Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons (click link)
You stated that a lower percentage in Britain (relative to the USA) are affected by ‘religious indoctrination’ Bluegenes, but The Guardian News reports a higher percentage support teaching an alternative to evolution. If ‘religious indoctrination’ doesn’t correlate with the higher percentage, then the majority may not be very knowledgeable - or — must not be much persuaded by the veracity of the evidence for evolution (or lack thereof). Rather than judging your British folks as stupid or delusional, perhaps you could help them with your knowledge and understanding. The Guardian News in Britain writes:
More than half of British adults think that intelligent design and creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school science lessons — a proportion higher than in the US. An Ipsos Mori survey questioned 11,768 adults from 10 countries on how the theory of evolution should be taught in school science lessons. About 54% of the 973 polled Britons agreed with the view: "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism." In the US, of 991 adults responding to the survey, which was organised by the British Council, 51% agreed that evolution should be on the curriculum alongside other theories, like intelligent design. Across the 10 countries, 43% agreed with this statement. It was found that Britons were almost three times more likely than Egyptians to want creationism and intelligent design to be included in the teaching of evolution Speaking in a personal capacity, Andy McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at Leeds University, said: "There is room for any scientific position which isn't necessarily from an evolutionary base. We need to follow where the evidence leads and we shouldn't presuppose that the evidence will necessary lead to a naturalistic or materialistic explanation. We must be open to the possibility that information can come from a higher intelligence, but we mustn't assume that." Fern Elsdon-Baker, head of the British Council's Darwin Now programme, which celebrates the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birthday this year, said the poll raised a debate about how effectively evolutionary science was communicated both inside and outside the classroom. She said: "Overall these results may reflect the need for a more sophisticated approach to teaching and communicating how science works as a process." Doing nothing more than disparaging alternatives to neo-Darwinism is less than optimal. A quality written publishable debate restricted to the scientific evidence could provide Ms. Elsdon-Baker in the article above with a more ‘sophisticated approach’ for education on the origins issue. Concerning your contrast of European culture regarding less indoctrination of children with religious belief, the predominant history in Europe has not been a beacon of freedom, tolerance, or civility either from religious bone-heads centuries ago or from some more secular oppressive regimes more recently. During the last century in Europe, it’s been too many misguided socialist or communist (Eastern Europe) totalitarians, sometimes leveraging misguided ‘science’ to judge and punish people who looked differently or believed differently than prescribed. Hundreds of thousands of American men sacrificed their lives during the last century to save Europeans from their own intolerance and oppression where too many people in European sub-cultures naively placed their unconditional allegiance to the teaching and policies of their government (click link) — as the highest authority above all other sources of discernment between right and wrong.
Wikipedia concerning Fhrerprinzip writes:
The Fhrerprinzip was not invented by the National Socialists. Hermann Graf Keyserling, a German philosopher, was the first to use the term "Fhrerprinzip". One of Keyserling's central claims was that certain 'gifted individuals' were "born to rule" on the basis of Social Darwinism. The ideology of the Fhrerprinzip sees each organization as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader (Fhrer, in German) has absolute responsibility in his own area, demands absolute obedience from those below him and answers only to his superiors. This required obedience and loyalty even over concerns of right and wrong. (Bold emphasis mine) Apparently, there has been ‘indoctrination’ of a different sort in recent decades, at least in some European sub-cultures.
Regardless, similar features are found in living relatives just as a wide range of skull sizes and shapes exist within other species such as the dog (genus canis) family. The failures and suffering of Europeans during recent centuries are failures of culture, including both religious and atheist philosophies — public judgment of others who didn’t ‘believe’ as prescribed.
Here, at EvC Forum, we have folks in this other thread repeating the pattern of pronouncing judgments (including wickedness) upon those with differing conclusions and beliefs related to human origins, the significance of the shape of a skull, etc. However ignorant or deluded by ‘indoctrination’ you may believe Americans to be Bluegenes, much misery and death in Europe may have been prevented during the past century if enough Europeans had embraced the uniquely American Declaration (click link) that they were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Three specific rights that must not be subjugated to any government. This declaration and the American culture sprang largely from European oppression. The predominant American culture is historically more independent, questioning, and challenging toward authority. There is the ‘Show Me State’ (Missouri), the ‘Lone Star State’ (Don’t mess with Texas), and other states with certain persistent sub-cultures. Of course the United States’ culture isn’t perfect either and dealt with its own institutionalized racist hypocrisy about 150 years ago, but bloodily settled it internally and eventually got it right. If you believe most Americans are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked regarding neo-Darwin skepticism, please commit to a professional publishable debate and help them get this right also, Bluegenes!
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
Projects like the one I am proposing are a formal structured written exchange and critique of evidence that would be published and potentially have a much broader audience and influence than EVC Forum.
Projects like the one you claim to be proposing make no difference.If you believe that comprehensive written debate makes no difference Bluegenes, then it’s unclear why you have expended hundreds or thousands of hours posting over 2,000 messages at this Evolution versus Creation Forum, averaging more than one post per day for over four years. Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
One potential factor involved in cultural change could be a widely popular published debate directly addressing evidence (and alternative interpretations of evidence) that may explain why there are relatively few believers in neo-Darwinism after all these years of exclusive neo-Darwinism instruction in public schools. The 16% of naturalists will grow over time, but not rapidly, and there are many complex factors involved in cultural change. Poll results do not determine truth in science. But since you presented actual poll results in this thread, the fact remains that almost the same percent of the population (as the 16% naturalist neo-Darwin believers) reportedly believe they (or someone they know) have had a close encounter with extra-terrestrial aliens (as noted in Message 89). Apparently, the evidence for Close Encounters with Aliens, as with neo-Darwinism, has either not been convincing to most Americans — or it has not been presented and defended adequately. This is your invitation to rectify that for neo-Darwinism. We prefer to leave the extra-terrestrial aliens issue with Art Bell or George Noory on Coast-to-Coast late night AM radio.
Eye-Squared-R in Message 89 writes:
You think I’m bluffing? (Tilting head downward and peering out from dark shades - with raised right eyebrow) And if you are unable to make a firm commitment to a professional publishable debate in any of the disciplines listed in prior posts, please share with us your reason for declining - if you don’t mind.Bluegenes in Message 90 writes: Reason? Apart from having no evidence that an anonymous poster on the Internet is actually arranging such a thing?Go ahead Bluegenes Make a FIRM commitment to engage a written publishable debate - free of extraneous excuses to withdraw. We need a Firm commitment from at least one Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences (preferably employed in their area of expertise, presenting credentials for a publisher’s interest) to lead the evolution team. However, it’s my goal to secure firm commitments from at least several confident judgmental folks from EvC Forum - because it’s my desire to see the best possible performance in presenting and defending the evidence for neo-Darwinism. I’d also like to see EvC Forum folks recruit and secure firm commitments from the best available world-wide resources outside EvC Forum. I have a big vision that could have a significant impact.Will you help? Bluegenes in Message 90 writes: Here's a reason. If I'm debating with people who are proposing non-living intelligent beings as a mechanism in biology, I consider the debate to be won if they cannot establish the existence of non-living intelligent beings as a genre. That has never been done. That has never been done would include demonstrated mechanisms for the origin of life itself. It’s a two-edged sword. A reasonable scientific methodology for the random assembly of chemicals into the first living cell has never been done, Bluegenes. The simplest living cell is analogous to a factory (click link). Without belaboring details unnecessarily, factories have moving parts with meshed mechanical components, switches, analog sensors, motors, actuators, energy regulation, waste disposal, and other functions with control algorithms to process inputs to outputs, all contained in a functionally protective shell.
Intelligent and rational observers, unconstrained by personal bias or philosophy, may conclude it is not necessary to establish that an engineer exists as a genre — as you put it - before debating evidence whether a factory occurred via random processes or was designed and built with purpose. Now, if you determine not to acknowledge the possibility that intelligent engineers exist as a genre, then you must be able to demonstrate how a fully functioning factory is assembled by random processes. Never mind a self-sustaining, self-reproducing factory. For anyone who is skeptical whether random processes are adequate to produce a fully functioning factory and claims evidence of design you could:
A review of how science works is appropriate.Science advances by falsification Bluegenes and cannot prove any theory to be unconditionally true. Here’s an illustration by Dr. Robert Peterson from Montana State University as reported by the University of Nebraska (Click Link to Source). Dr. Robert K. D. Peterson concerning how science works writes: Many people who object to biotech crops argue that the crops should not be allowed to grow in the environment until science proves that they are safe. Others who support biotech crops argue that science has proven that they are indeed safe. However, the concept of proof has no place in science. Many people who do not actively practice science do not understand that science is structured so that scientists can never prove anything. Hypotheses and theories can never be proven true using the scientific method. Therefore, science advances only through disproof. This is a critical and often misunderstood point. To be scientific, theories can never be proven true, but all theories must be refutable. Therefore, all theories, and by extension all of science, are tentative. What is important to recognize here is that none of the results from the studies alone or in combination prove anything. In particular, they do not prove that human health risks from biotech crops are acceptable or that they are safe. Each study tests a hypothesis. For example, the acute oral toxicity in mice study is centered around the initial hypothesis that the dose or doses of protein administered to the mice will not result in mortality or any signs of toxicity. The results from all of the studies are evaluated by the FDA regulator, who makes a decision about the food safety of the biotech crop. The regulator, therefore, utilizes a weight-of-evidence approach when making his decision. The results either provide a weight-of-evidence that the protein is safe to consume or that it is not safe to consume. Alternative interpretations of evidence can reasonably be falsified if they are flawed, and that is the opportunity presented for you and others in this thread. Also, it’s unclear how a proposed active intelligent being can be non-living as you say; i.e. dead.Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy comes to mind. Reminds me of graffiti I saw years ago: God is Dead NietzscheNietzsche is Dead God Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
That’s excellent Bluegenes — your ability to demonstrate the existence of those things would be very helpful in a written publishable debate. I can demonstrate the existence of my mechanisms, like chemical reactions, mutation, natural selection, drift etc., and I expect the same standards of the opposition. After contractual agreements are signed, you will encounter chemistry, physics, and other direct empirical evidence regarding the assumptions and reliability of essential requirements for neo-Darwinism. Your assumptions and mechanisms will be examined for evidence and viability to generate the DNA for all biological functions via random mutations and natural selection. Your potential debate opponent(s) will analyze evidence and mechanisms spanning several scientific disciplines related to neo-Darwinism and alternative conclusions. It would be your task to defend your mechanisms while dismantling and falsifying evidence presented by your opponent(s). The results will likely be either PRATTs or PR-NUTs (as defined earlier). PR-NUTGNAWS and PR-NUTJOBS will be excluded in a professional publishable setting. Direct confrontation. That’s how real science works when science practitioners are willing and able to engage skeptics. If you’re willing to present and defend evidence for neo-Darwinism as well as nullify evidence for alternative views, we’ll be patient. We’ll wait as long as necessary to secure firm commitments from the best possible neo-Darwin defense team.
Bluegenes in Message 90 writes:
That’s a convenient requirement for you to make Bluegenes. It allows you to continue judging others as ignorant, stupid, or delusional - without presenting or defending your evidence for your judgments. So, if you find a creationist who can actually demonstrate the existence of the genre (non-living intelligent beings) then I will happily participate in a debate as to whether or not one or more such beings is doing or has done some designing in the biosphere and is responsible for life. Some may conclude you would not apply the same standards to yourself. You would likely scoff at someone who required demonstration of a self-sustaining, self-replicating living cell spontaneously forming from random non-living chemical elements before they would happily participate in a debate of the evidence for neo-Darwinism. Yes, we know abiogenesis (click link) is not neo-Darwinism. However, the spontaneous (unguided) generation of a self-sustaining, self-replicating cell that has neither been observed nor replicated is a necessary conjecture as truth in a strictly materialistic philosophy. A philosophy that requires common elements found in mud, clay, and earth to randomly form the first living cell and mutate enough successful iterations to become the most amazing creature in the known universe (a woman) over time. If, as you seem to express above, you wish to debate theology or philosophy (concerning the existence of a non-living intelligent being) rather than debate science and empirical evidence, then you’ll be counted out for being unwilling and/or unable to commit to a publishable debate restricted exclusively to the scientific evidence.
If you should reach a point where you are confidently able to engage the science in a professional publishable manner Bluegenes please make a firm commitment to an effort that could influence the lives of millions that you describe as ignorant, stupid, or delusional.Evidence may include the scientific disciplines (detailed in Message 72) and repeated here. These are specific disciplines for which not one evolutionist from EvC Forum has yet committed to engage: Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34): Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: We look forward to your thoughtful response.All the Best, Eye-Squared-R Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Fixed Harvard Cell Animation Links. Due to Harvard Copyright claim - YouTube links had been disabled. Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Hello Jar — and welcome!
Jar in Message 91 writes: Why would anyone care about some marketplace of ideas? Since Bluegenes introduced Gallup polling in this thread, below is evidence of a huge audience for a professional publishable debate that should answer your question:Most Americans Engaged in Debate About Evolution, Creation (click link) Majorities have thought about it and care which explanation is correct. (October 13, 2005) The debate about how human beings came to exist on Earth has simmered in American public discourse for a long time. Most Americans are engaged in the debate to some degree, according to a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll -- three-quarters say they have thought at least a moderate amount about the origin of human beings, and two-thirds say it matters to them which theory about how human beings came to exist is correct. Americans are more likely to endorse a purely creationist view of the origin of humans than a purely evolutionary view or a view involving elements of both. Majorities of the public say evolution and creationism should be taught in public school science classes, while fewer believe intelligent design should be taught. The topic of evolution has been discussed among presidential candidates in the US. The folks at the cable opinion channel, MSNBC, apparently disagree with you about the importance of the topic — they discuss it quite often. History reveals how prevalent ideas often determine outcomes — lots of examples. The marketplace of ideas can determine what type of future a culture will experience. Polls can be useful in determining the opportunity to change public perception concerning science and how science is used. Public perception can have a bearing on which legislators and executives are elected to office. Legislators and executives have a bearing on legislation. Legislation has a bearing on well, you get the idea. As Nuggin states in Message 93 of another thread:
Nuggin writes: Evolution vs Creationism - theory.Evolution vs Creationism in any given state or school - politics. Or maybe you prefer a ‘concrete’ assessment by Taz in Message 21 of another thread. Taz cares about the marketplace of ideas and the potential actions to be taken by government. He apparently understands minds of ‘morons’ and recognizes the need to educate folks and prevent ‘dumbass’ (click link) people from believing concrete engineers are quietly poisoning people with flyash for profit:
Taz stressing in Message 64 of another thread writes: Again, there's a reason why concrete engineers have been somewhat quietly using flyash in concrete mixesPeople are stupid morons. I honestly believe this. That's why the majority still don't believe in evolution. And that's why most of them still don't believe in climate change even though the issue has been settled years ago in the scientific community. In fact, people get elected by saying they don't believe in evolution or they don't believe in climate change. (bold emphasis mine) Who knew? Concrete engineers quietly using flyash and now ‘the cat is out of the bag’First, Man-Made Global Warming (largely from big corporations) is supposedly approaching the ‘tipping point’ toward inevitable runaway destruction of Earth’s ecosystem and now we learn big corporations and concrete engineers have made lots of money for ninety years while ‘somewhat quietly’ mixing ‘hazardous’ flyash in concrete - right under our feet. The irony is the same folks who rarely question the evidence behind inferences of AGW runaway eco-system destruction probably wouldn’t question sensationalized flyash conspiracies either. The Occupy Wall Street crowd might riot about an inferred hazardous corporate flyash proliferation against the 99% but those occupiers probably have enough on their plate for now. There’s likely little evidence for nefarious control of flyash by rich Jewish folks anyway. Regardless, similar to the concern Taz has for public perception of flyash in concrete, a published debate could help all the millions of Taz’ inferred ‘stupid morons’ with knowledge and understanding of neo-Darwinism! How could you resist Jar Most folks recognize the intrinsic value of distinguishing truth from fiction which is wholly worth the effort.Beyond the topic of neo-Darwinism, bloody revolutions have been instigated or avoided by competition in the marketplace of ideas. The meaning of the word Bolshevik was majority. Jar in Message 91 writes: Such polls have nothing to do with anything other than showing that in particular, people in the US are ignorant. If you’re pronouncing your judgment, Jar, of ignorance upon roughly 258 million Americans who believe differently than you do, then Dr. Adequate’s comment seems to fit here: Where it starts to go horribly wrong, of course, is when they start trying to communicate their ignorance, misconceptions and confusion to others, or offer aid and support to those who do. I think that this is somewhat immoral. If someone's going to teach their opinions to others, they have an ethical duty to try to speak the truth. If neo-Darwin skepticism is due primarily to ignorance - and you have research or evidence that is compelling, why not firmly commit to presenting it in a professional written publishable debate and then defending it for all to see Jar? In Message 61 of the Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) (click link) topic, you expressed a strong opinion that we’d like to see you justify and defend in a professional publishable debate, if you’re willing and able to firmly commit (obviating extraneous excuses to withdraw):
Jar in Message 61 of the ‘Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, or Wicked’ thread writes: That Evolution happened is more than a theory, it is as close to fact as science can ever come.The Theory of Evolution is the ONLY model that has been presented that explain what is seen. There is no model of "Creation" that has been presented that explains anything. There simply is no "Creation Science". It is an oxymoron. As close to fact as science can ever come Jar?That would put evolution (including neo-Darwinism) at the same confidence level as Ohm’s Law and the Law of gravity. If you’re proposing Darwin’s ‘Law,’ you must surely have abundant, unequivocal, and repeatable demonstrations of random (unguided) mutations and natural selection developing newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, sexual reproduction, intercontinental navigation, metamorphosis from a caterpillar to a Monarch, etc.) resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms within a population over time. If that’s true and you’re confident in your knowledge and understanding, a written publishable debate should be a Slam Dunk for you Jar! Or a Grand Slam out of the park! If, on the other hand, you’re unwilling and/or unable to publicly and firmly commit to engage in a professional written publishable debate concerning your strong opinion above and the judgments you pronounce upon others If you’re unwilling and/or unable to publicly and firmly commit to engage in a professional publishable debate on the various scientific topics that you’ve discussed at EvC Forum among over 20,000 posts spanning seven years Then that’s fine it is only requested that you state your unwillingness and/or inability to present the evidence and justify your claim concerning evolution above and explain your reason for declining, if you don’t mind. If you choose to ignore or decline the invitation, then the veracity of your judgments and opinions will remain hidden by you from a potential audience of millions of people outside EvC Forum. If you decline the invitation concerning evolution in a publishable debate Jar, at least you could help advance understanding of science in this thread, if you don’t mind A couple of your highly confident peers have, like you, judged someone who differs with their scientific understanding to be ignorant or foolishconcerning basic science. Now, we need your expert judgment of ignorance, Jar, to determine who is actually ignorant concerning science that is, as you say, as close to fact as science can ever come. The following is from Message 79 and essentially adapted here for your convenience.____________________ Exercise #1 following Dr. Adequate’s suggested debate format: Statement by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 4:
I am inclined to think that your proposed debate is a non-starter, because it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of a theory such as neo-Darwinism.
__________ Presumed Error of Fact #1 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 10:
While theories are never proven with a 100% confidence level, some have been demonstrated to consistently be true and scientifically validated at such a high confidence level — they’re essentially codified into law. An example is Ohm’s Law (V=IR) continuously applied without a known failure in trillions of applications.
__________ Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 16:
The interesting thing about your example, is that it is wrong
__________Taken as saying that current is proportional to voltage, Ohm's law is false and well known to be false Defense of presumed Error of Fact #1 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:
You’ll be wasting your time and you will further discredit your level of knowledge and understanding if you persist with the claim Ohm’s law is false and well known to be false
__________Until it is ever nullified (a condition for a theory), the equation V=IR is an observed and predictable relationship between three phenomena so consistent as to be considered Law. Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 58:
In Message 23 you wrote " Ohm’s law applies to both constant and variable current where ever the medium includes any resistance " and that is quite wrong. The relation between current and voltage is actually expressed by a more complex equation involving an integral (for the effect of capacitance) and a derivative (for the effect of inductance) in addition to the linear term due to resistance. Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used. (Bold emphasis mine) Now, Jar, and anyone at EVC Forum, the topic is the reliability of Ohm’s Law in the context of scientific theory. What will you submit regarding your position on the validity of Ohm’s Law (when alternating current is being applied) for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Are you submitting (and claiming for publication) the assertion from your EVC Forum peer (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1) that Reactance is defined precisely to take care of the deviation from Ohm's law when alternating current is being used?
Or will you determine that Ohm’s Law is evidenced to be unconditionally true in the real world of physics? I suggest you recruit and collaborate with at least one FIRM commitment by someone you consider a reliable authority in fundamental physics - and then post your response for us with an explanation and example (if appropriate) as you would in a professional publishable debate. More scienceExercise #2 Presumed Error of Fact #2 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 23:
I2R can also be viewed as Heat.
__________ Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 in Message 28:
what you wrote can be viewed as bullshit
__________No offense Eye-Squared-R, but I know far more about the physics of electricity than you are even capable of knowing... If you had half a clue on what you are talking about, you would not have said anything so foolish as: I2R can also be viewed as Heat. Presumed Statement of Fact by EVC Forum Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 in Message 30:
You would do well to remember that EvC is home to far more than its fair share of professionals, and please remember the important difference between experts and "experts".
__________ And from Message 40:
Power is not heat, is not like heat, cannot be thought of as heat.To confuse the two is to fail high-school physics. Defense of presumed Error of Fact #2 by Eye-Squared-R in Message 48:
(After presenting equations)if you don’t mind (Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2), please answer the question below to help us gain insight into your level of knowledge and understanding:
__________
Here are the examples proposed by your peers where Real Power (I2R in kilo-Watts) is supposedly not totally and continuously manifest in heat at any time:
Now Jar, and anyone at EVC Forum, the topic for your submission is whether Real power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as Heat. These gentlemen have clearly proclaimed their intellectual superiority and confidence in these matters of science.And they’ve judged one who disagrees to be stupid, foolish, etc. Now that should have a familiar ring (click link) But they’re so condescendingly confident! Could they be wrong? What’s your position Jar? It’s straightforward science. Who is actually ignorant? Are you prepared to submit and defend these examples (asserting exception) offered from your peers for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Incidentally, I’ve done some homework for you in Message 48 (derivations), Message 60, and other messages in this thread. You must determine whether I2R (power) is always manifest completely as Heat or whether it is partially manifest as potential energy or electromagnetic energy as your condescendingly confident EvC Forum peers claim above. And please note I have not "equated" power to heat in units - that poor strawman has been beaten to death. My position is that whenever you are viewing "Real" Power (I2R), you are necessarily viewing all that power manifest exclusively and totally as heat. You may need a trusted expert in physics to aid and assist you in affirming or negating the responses from your peers for your hypothetical professional written submission. This stuff isn’t subjective or beholden to one’s personal philosophy. It’s either right or wrong. I’m sure you’ll desire the utmost accuracy since your name will be associated with your analysis and response. If you will not respond Jar, could you at least recommend someone, anyone at EvC Forum, who can assist with this basic science?Dr. Adequate has not demonstrated any ability to discern truth in these exercises of science for over ten months now Shania Twain offers free assessment and advice in the first stanza of her popular old tune (click link). Incidentally Jar, you should know the science in these two exercises may be leveraged by your eventual debate opponent(s) within the context of the scientific disciplines below in a publishable debate concerning neo-Darwinism. If you don’t understand how, just make a firm commitment to a professional publishable debate — and we’ll see. Assuming we can gain firm commitments from qualified, capable, and marketable evolutionists, a professional publishable debate will require much more rigor than these brief little exercises
List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to debate in a professional written publishable format concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of: Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34): Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: Now Jar, please select a discipline and list your name. Make a firm commitment (free of extraneous excuses to withdraw) to debate the evidence and actually demonstrate the ignorance of those whose beliefs differ from yours. Otherwise, please explain your reason for declining, if you don’t mind.____________________ We appreciate your brief thoughts Jar and look forward to your thoughtful and considered response.All the Best, Eye-Squared-R Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Hello again Bluegenes,
Bluegenes in Message 92 writes:
I believe the correct statement is ‘time doesn’t go backwards’. It's inevitable. History doesn't go backwards. History repeats itself for those who don’t learn from it. The history of mankind’s success and failures in science includes episodes of long persistent periods of error.As noted by Coyote in Message 31 this history of science was required for a theory class in her graduate school curriculum. Thomas S. Kuhn in his book (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Edition, Page 75) writes:
The novel theory seems a direct response to crisis. Note also, though this may not be quite so typical, that the problems with respect to which breakdown occurred were all of a type that had long been recognized. Previous practice of normal science had given every reason to consider them solved or all but solved, which helps to explain why the sense of failure, when it came, could be so acute. It is often said that if Greek science had been less deductive and less ridden by dogma, heliocentric astronomy might have begun its development eighteen centuries earlier than it did When Aristarchus’ suggestion was made, the vastly more reasonable geocentric system had no needs that a heliocentric system might even conceivably have fulfilled. The whole development of Ptolemaic astronomy, both its triumphs and its breakdown, falls in the centuries after Aristarchus’ proposal. There are many examples of long term error in science but both Ptolemaic and phlogiston theories could be adjusted and adapted to explain observations for an extended period of time. They did not have valid working mechanisms. Evidently, the millions of skeptics concerning neo-Darwinism (random mutations and natural selection developed all life from a common single-celled ancestor) consider it in a similar category — perhaps they’re wrong and you can help them. Thorough examination of the evidence (and validity of inferred mechanisms) is always good science.It’s what motivated this thread - along with gauging the confidence and ability of those passing judgments on others with differing beliefs as noted in Message 1. In a publishable debate, you’ll be presented evidence that neo-Darwinism is not a valid mechanism as well as evidence for an alternative explanation of what we observe. If you are unwilling or unable to make a firm commitment, please state your reason for declining a written publishable debate (limited strictly to the scientific evidence), if you don’t mind. We look forward to your thoughtful response Bluegenes.All the Best, Eye-Squared-R Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Hello ICANT and welcome.
ICANT in Message 94 writes:
There are some genuine Golden Nuggets to be found in this thread — for anyone interested.
I have found this thread quite amusing. ICANT in Message 94 writes:
My goal is to secure firm commitments toward promoting knowledge and understanding concerning science in a format that could have a much more broad audience than EvC Forum. I do hope you live long enough to see the results if we’re able to secure firm commitments from a qualified and marketable team to represent neo-Darwinism for publishers.
I would love to see such a debate as you have proposed.But I am afraid that it will not take place in my lifetime I've got my 3 score and ten + in already and don't know if I will live long enough to see this debate take place. ICANT in Message 94 writes:
That’s fine. Those types of responses are often a reflection of the author’s lack of knowledge, lack of ability, or philosophical constraints on debatable evidence as with Lysenko adherents of the past noted in Message 123. It has been my experience here that when confronted with questions or evidence contrary to beliefs held by most here at EvC, that they have no answer for, the personal attacks begin. The Golden Nuggets is this thread are when folks like the Aspirants to Sophisticated Science quoted in Message 71 (green and red sectioned exercises) openly ridicule someone with a correct understanding of fundamental science as stupid and foolish with dumfounding condescension. Ignorance in basic science has a remedy.There’s no remedy for ignorant intolerance bolstered by imprudent pride. But arrogant and persistent judgmental ignorance should cause one to wince with introspection. Unfortunately, persistent judgmental ignorance such as has been institutionalized in both theocracies and totalitarian secular regimes through history often runs rampant. These are potential learning points for those willing to humble themselves with civility toward knowledge and understanding, owning error when revealed. For all the inferred flaws judged upon neo-Darwin skeptics in this forum that motivated Message 1, there is surprisingly little interest for firm commitments to a professional publishable debate. Regardless, I believe there are some genuine sincere folks here at EvC Forum who could help advance knowledge and understanding in a written publishable debate.
ICANT in Message 94 writes:
That’s OK. I’m patient and allowing plenty of time between posts for folks to consider the invitation and make a firm commitment to a publishable debate.
But I really don't believe I have encountered anyone here that could take part in a real debate. They have a good sermon they can preach. They can argue. They can insult. They can ignore anything you present. ICANT in Message 94 writes:
(Grinning) That was cojones pronounced kuh-hoh-neys mentioned by Dr. Adequate in Message 59 and Message 68. It ’s a reference to testicles and intended to mean courage. I love the idea of a real debate in a formal format but I am afraid you will not get these guys to commit to such a firm commitment because they don't have big enough of whatever that was that Dr. was talking about. However, Dr. Adequate has been suspended repeatedly by EvC Forum moderators and ultimately banned from posting in the Human Origins and Evolution science forum (click link) for his persistent inability to move the debate forward while debating with a lady!Therefore, we may safely conclude that constructive debate in science requires much more than doc’s inferred cojones. Regardless, we can’t tell if doc has an athletic bone in his body but I’m an old linebacker for a large school that played in a state championship. That head-banging was good preparation for this thread. For all doc’s obsession with ‘cojones,’ I’d like to see him suit up, buckle his chinstrap, and help me garner firm commitments toward the best qualified debate team possible for neo-Darwinism.
ICANT in Message 94 writes:
The outcome of the proposed publishable debate concerning the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinism is yet unknown. BTW I just don't think any of them have the guts to accept the challenge to back up what they preach by walking the walk instead of talking the talk. I think they are all talk. What if somebody showed them how little they know and blew up their pipe dream?Dr. Adquate is clearly not qualified to lead the debate team as I will further detail in a response to him. Despite repeated requests, doc has made no apparent effort to gain commitments for a qualified team that publishers would be interested in. However, in the case of our Aspirants to Sophisticated Science concerning their demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding of fundamental science detailed in this message (click link), their response has been silence with no retraction of arrogant error. It’s unclear whether they learned anything regarding either science or humility.
ICANT in Message 94 writes:
It could be very significant I remain optimistic. I view this thread more as an invitation to advance knowledge and understanding in science rather than a challenge. The only hope I see would be for someone to convince somebody to take your challenge. I have malice toward no one. However, when science becomes a pretense for judging the character of other people, it’s appropriate to turn over some big rocks and turn on the floodlights to examine what lies underneath. When it begins to get nasty and personal, what lies underneath is often not sound science. When those at EvC Forum are confident enough to infer personal flaws upon millions of people who believe differently (as referenced in Message 1), it’s appropriate to extend the invitation for a professional written publishable debate.I request help from everyone reading this thread to build the absolute best qualified and committed team possible to present and defend neo-Darwinism. Wishing you long life and prosperity ICANT!All the Best, Eye-Squared-R Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2337 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.8 |
while debating with a lady!
What does the sex of his opponent have to do with anything?God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177 It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in mindssoon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Hello Taq and welcome back,
ICANT in Message 94 writes: I love the idea of a real debate in a formal format but I am afraid you will not get these guys to commit to such a firm commitment
Taq responding to ICANT in Message 96 writes: I will have a debate with you if you want. All that I ask is that any claim you make has to be backed by experiments and data from those experiments as they are found in the scientific peer reviewed journals. Are you in? First, neither I nor ICANT are inviting you to a publishable debate with ourselves.Please review the thread before responding further. Second, perhaps you’re not aware that professional peers confronted with novel insights from empirical evidence are not a historically reliable harbinger of truth in science. There are plenty of examples but a good study is Alfred Wegener (click link), an outsider who was vilified for about fifty years (long after his death) by the professional peers in geology. Google for more extensive criticisms of Wegener as a novice in geology. Criticism by the ‘professional’ community in geology, those who stubbornly resisted evidence nullifying their Earth Expansion/Contraction research careers.
USGS commenting on geological pioneer Alfred Wegener writes: Despite overwhelming criticism from most leading geologists, who regarded him as a mere meteorologist and outsider meddling in their field, Wegener did not back down but worked even harder to strengthen his theory. And here at EvC Forum, we have this type of intolerant judgmental Golden Nugget of science from Message 42 of another thread:
Pressie (a geologist who is fortunately not a ‘Science Czar’ or any form of Government Potentate) writes: Sorry about over-reacting to Robert. I tend to overreact to novices who think they know everything and also think that all those hundreds and thousands of real geologists all are wrong. To me this is a sign of complete delusion and it would be safer for humanity if such a person is treated at some mental institution. Still too many sky-scrapers and planes around to feel safe with so many deluded people walking the streets. (bold emphasis mine) So Alfred Wegener’s contributions as a ‘novice’ in geology may have ended in a mental institution by Pressie’s expressed wisdom. Now, concerning your own preferred restriction to debating only peer reviewed journals, TaqIf there are certain scientific neo-Darwin critiques or alternative interpretations with evidence that you feel unable to refute, please note the specific topics and we could hopefully find you a teammate to handle those. I’ll work to accommodate your concerns in any way possible if you’re willing to make a firm commitment to a professional written publishable debate of the scientific evidence. In Message 5 you relayed an absolute confidence level in some statements:
Taq in Message 5 writes:
I explained in Message 10 how the word impossible is not proper considering the tentative nature of real science. To quote Dobzhansky, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. It is impossible to tie together disparate facts without the theory of evolution. It is impossible to explain why everything with fur also has three middle ear bones. It is impossible to explain why there were no endemic placental mammals in Australia. It is impossible to explain why hox genes are so important in fetal development amongst all metazoans. There are possible alternative explanations to tie together disparate facts — and folks who disagree with you and Dobzhansky claim to have evidence, Taq. However, as with Wegener’s peers concerning his continental movement proposal, you may choose to observe from a safe distance behind peer reviewed journals. Sound science is bold and confident — or at least sound science should be bold and confident when its aspirants jovially judge those who believe differently.The best confidence in truth and fulfillment are attained with confrontation only after thoroughly examining and nullifying proposed alternatives. Can you help locate anyone anywhere who is willing to make a firm commitment to any one of the scientific disciplines listed in a previous post for a publishable written debate of neo-Darwinism? Please clarify your status and any potential alternative explanations of the evidence that you are not confidently able to refute.If you are unwilling to make a firm commitment toward a professional publishable written debate, please share with us your reason for declining, if you don’t mind. If your sole reason for declining is that you restrict your debates to only peer reviewed material, then it’s unclear why you’ve averaged about three posts a day here, every day, for over two years Taq. We look forward to your thoughtful response Taq.All the Best, Eye-Squared-R Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Hello Dr. Adequate,
Dr Adequate responding to ICANT in Message 104 writes:
Competent, qualified, and professional married individuals are also welcome to firmly commit to engage in a publishable debate for neo-Darwinism.
The OP writes: The proposal for this thread is to establish who among the intelligent and educated EVC proponents of universal common descent (neo-Darwinism) would represent evolution in a formal written debate exclusively regarding the scientific evidence. The debate would occur outside the confines of EVC Forum and would be publishable.
A single individual or an entire team of EVC folks could participate and collaborate in written responses on behalf of evolution - but at least one team member should be qualified with a Ph. D. in a technical field (to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers). I am a "single individual" (is there another kind of individual?) Dr Adequate in Message 104 to ICANT writes: I have a Ph.D. in a technical field. I am ready whenever he is. I’ve researched the interest of publishers in a mathematics degree for debating science. For example, Anglagaard in Message 39 graciously offered a link to the Opposing Viewpoints series from Greenhaven Press. When I was hopeful we could secure firm commitments here from many qualified experts, I inquired concerning Greenhaven Press’ interest in a professional debate for publication. The Managing Editor was Elizabeth (Betz) Des Chenes and here is her reply (pertaining to folks such as you doc): Greenhaven Press does not accept unsolicited manuscripts; if you wish to submit an e-resume, however, we would be happy to consider you for future projects (in your area of expertise, if at all possible) (bold emphasis mine). Of the hundreds of ‘opposing viewpoints’ topics on the website, you might guess that none of them are debates concerning opposing viewpoints in math. If you are sincere Dr. Adequate, you may request the email address of Ms. Des Chenes, the managing editor, from me and I will gladly provide it (it’s not on the web site). You could submit your e-resume to validate your lack of professional credentials (with a Liberal Arts Mathematics degree) to Greenhaven Press (or any other publishers) for the debate topic concerning the science of neo-Darwinism. You declined to acknowledge any of the concerns detailed in Message 86, repeated here (with some additional comments) for your convenience.
Referencing part of Message 86:
You have adequately detailed your lack of marketability as a qualified leader of a debate team for neo-Darwinism in a professional written publishable format, Dr. Adequate. Further, your demonstrated debate skills at EvC Forum are primarily sarcasm and insults. Your argument is not with me whether you’re a viable candidate to lead a professional debate team with credentials and competencies attractive to publishers. Your argument is with yourself doc. But you’re not alone arguing with yourself your Administrators here at EvC Forum have repeatedly suspended you and ultimately banned you from participating in the Human Origins and Evolution forum.
Honest self-assessment is appropriate in a professional setting doc. You were not repeatedly suspended and finally banned by your home team moderators because you were ‘asking for evidence’. You could gain credibility by taking ownership and responsibility for your behavior. And you continue in Message 101 and Message 104
Dr. Adequate in Message 101 to ICANT writes: I am not walking away. I am standing here asking him to bring it on. And every time I do so the coward runs away and hides, usually for weeks at a time.Dr. Adequate in Message 104 to ICANT writes:
My delays are intentional doc. I give you and others plenty of time between posts to respond to my requests and to build a strong firmly committed professional debate team for evolution. I also observe styles, competencies, and character of folks posting here over time. Beyond that, we’ve had two weddings with extensive travel, including my lovely daughter’s wedding, dealt with the terminal illness and death of my father-in-law (an exemplary Viet Nam veteran who enlisted as a private and retired a Full Colonel), and more recently the recovery after heart surgery and subsequent untimely death of my cherished father.
I have made a firm commitment to debate, from which the coward has run like a frightened little bunny-rabbit Read this carefully doc and remember itQualifications and character are key requirements for most publishers. Your steadfast decision ‘to ignore’ and keep dodging the science and the requests (click link) in this thread has demonstrated absolutely no reason for anyone to ‘run’ from you doc. I’ve stated repeatedly there is no rush in this process. We’re not interested in who can hurl the most macho sarcastic insults. Dr. Adequate in Message 104 to ICANT writes:
Your public demeanor degrades under stress Dr. Adequate. I am rather more like a 36-year-old not standing on a soapbox and saying to a halfwitted poltroon: "Bring it on you sniveling little coward --- you're full of shit."Your responses appeal to emotions of the ignoble sort rather than to rational observers. Interested folks will note your inability to address the exercises in science detailed in the examples listed in Message 71 and additional requests in Message 72 where your earlier baseless claims were dealt with. Your typical response to ignore multiple requests (as in Message 81) is not exemplary. Anyone can do that. You’ve struggled to engage in constructive dialogue (click link) in this thread as well as others. It’s unclear how you could imagine that your performance in this thread makes folks afraid of you The best we can say at this time is your behavior is consistently derisive and unprofessional (click link). Considering your suspensions, recent banning from discussing evolution at EvC Forum, sensitivity to unspecified ‘snipped’ offenses (click link) in response to Message 86, preoccupation with ‘cojones’ in Message 59 and Message 68, combined with other attributes including your plea for help finding employment, and your overall behavioral tendencies in this threadyou may find this link helpful Dr. Adequate. I’m not a doctor but the description and symptoms are clearly found throughout this thread.I offer this sincerely and I hope you’ll give it careful consideration. We can’t determine whether this is a general pattern in your life but your friends care Dr. Adequate. This isn’t personal and you shouldn’t take it that way. Beyond the fact that you’re banned from debating evolution here at EvC Forum due to your inability to move a debate forward, I take full responsibility that the wording in the Opening Post was such that a Ph.D. in the deductive field of math would consider himself qualified to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers concerning the natural and applied sciences. The scientific method draws inductive conclusions (or generalizations) from a finite set of observable data and environments. Those conclusions are falsifiable by definition of the method. Inductive generalizations are often falsified with additional observations and/or other environments.Science is different from the deductive practice in math — where relationships are proven and final (unequivocal fact). Unfortunately, you have no credentials in the inductive field of science utilizing the scientific method Dr. Adequate. Therefore, since the primary objective of this thread is a publishable debate and qualifications are tantamount to quality for publishers, I will revise the OP to indicate a Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences where the inductive reasoning of the scientific method is applied. I will also include in the revision a requirement for demonstrated ability to function in a professional constructive manner — since this will be a requirement for publishers. The overriding objective for this thread is to assemble the best possible team for a publishable debate. I wish you were a viable candidate as the Leader of a professional evolution debate team in a publishable format Dr. Adequate. But you’re not for all the reasons mentioned.
Eye-Squared in Message 86 (with some edits added for clarity) writes: It’s really easy to make a FIRM commitment, doctor, if you have confidence in your beliefs and abilities.I’ll repeat the requirements for you:
Dr Adequate in Message 104 to ICANT Finally states a 'Firm Commitment’ and writes:
OK doc, please review items A, A1, A2, and A3 above from Message 86 (click link) and confirm that your words "FIRM COMMITMENT" are in agreement. If you ignore and refuse to respond to this request for confirmation as you have with all the other requests you’ve ignored in this thread, then you will not be considered seriously either by me or most interested observers. It is, however, a "FIRM COMMITMENT" The good news for you doc (if you’re sincere and follow through with the requests) is you could still participate in the proposed publishable debate if you were able to secure firm commitment from at least one marketable Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences — assuming they valued your ability for constructive dialogue and desired your contributions on the debate team. I’ve requested this of you repeatedly and you’ve evidently made no effort. I’ve suggested Cavediver as a possible leader of your team since he offered in Message 34 to debate cosmology. Unless I’m mistaken, I believe Cavediver has a Ph. D. in physics which could be marketable for publishers. There are also plenty of other marketable folks here at EvC Forum with Ph. D.s in the natural or applied sciences. Have you solicited anyone doc? Have you made any effort at all? Will you even acknowledge or answer these questions? Further, I will make every effort and take plenty of time to gain firm commitments in all the disciplines listed previously. If you’re sincere about a written publishable debate, I request — again — that you help in that effort. If you’re not sincere doc, you’ll likely persist with ignoring (or ducking - click here) and clucking (click here) posts of an ‘undesirable’ nature. If you’ve made no effort Dr. Adequate, then we can only conclude you’re more interested in personal puffery here than assembling the most qualified and marketable debate team possible to represent evolution (random mutations and natural selection).
After firm commitments are secured, and not before firm commitments are secured for the most qualified and capable team possible, then we’ll advance to Step 2 and get this debate train rolling down the tracks with formal contracts to begin the process. You probably don’t believe this but I’m trying to help you Dr. Adequate. I want you and the team representing evolution (random mutations and natural selection) to have every opportunity to be as successful as possible in a published presentation and defense of neo-Darwinism. Let me know if you’d like to discuss anything further in private, assuming you are interested in advancing this effort.Regardless, a thoughtful and professional response would be appreciated. All the Best, Eye-Squared-R Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1715 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Power isn't heat, though. Heat is the change in entropy times temperature; power is work over time. There's no equality where those things are the same.
Now Jar, and anyone at EVC Forum, the topic for your submission is whether Real power (I2R) is manifest totally, continually, and exclusively as Heat. Well, no, it's not. It's manifest as work. Not knowing the difference between work and heat is, as many have told you, a very elementary error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 68 Joined:
|
Hello ICANT and welcome again.
ICANT in Message 106 writes: Would you please explain to Dr Adequate what he must do to meet your SIGNED FIRM COMMITMENT in order for the debate to take place. Posting affirmation here at EvC Forum is sufficient to express firm commitment (clearly defined in this thread) as we attempt to build a qualified professional and marketable team to represent neo-Darwinism.I’ve stressed that quality is the most important goal and there is no need to rush this process. As explained in Message 86 and more recently, Dr. Adequate does not have the credentials that a publisher would reasonably consider to be marketable in this effort. Doc’s further inability to engage in constructive dialogue is documented in the most recent message to him above. The good news for doc, if his commitment is sincere, is this debate is still very possible.
When we have firm commitments from the most qualified team possible for evolution, and NOT before, we will proceed to Step 2. I will select and notify qualified debate opponent(s) whom I’ve already contacted and both sides will then sign a formal contractual agreement to begin a search for a mutually suitable and neutral moderator. I believe there are major publishers who would be interested in the potential publicity and would offer qualified neutral moderators for their mutual selection. The next step will be agreement on the format, procedures, time allotted for each phase of the debate, etc. All the Best,Eye-Squared-R
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 68 Joined:
|
Hello Coyote and welcome back.
Coyote in Message 114 writes:
Let’s review Coyote. Real science is bold and confrontational. This whole thread has been silly. In another post linked here, you didn’t think the proposed written format is silly.
Coyote in Message 12 (sub-titled Debating Creationists) of another thread writes:
So clarification would be helpful, if you don’t mind Coyote. Please specify precisely what is ‘silly’ to you Presentation and discussion of the evidence in written form is the best format.
Coyote in Message 114 writes:
Thank you for the suggestion. We do need to find a Ph. D. with marketable credentials to lead the effort. If you want a professional quality debate, just contact Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education.Or perhaps Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University. He did pretty well at Dover. In Message 13 and Message 22, I’ve stated that commitments from others (beyond EvC Forum) were welcome to represent neo-Darwinism. I’d like to see the absolute best possible team with the most likelihood of success. Unfortunately, there has been no indication that anyone at EvC Forum has made any effort to enlist anybody from anywhere at any time. So I contacted the following individuals at the National Center for Science Education:
Here is the text of the invitation:
Hello NCSE Staff, Thank you for the service you provide. I'm attempting to arrange a professional publishable written debate strictly regarding the scientific evidence for and against neo-Dawinism.Neo-Darwinism (random mutations and natural selection) is the topic since it's the foundation of modern evolutionary theory. The objective is to deal directly with the scientific evidence in a published format that could be widely publicised and help educate neo-Darwin skeptics.A recent Gallup poll indicated that only 16% of Americans believe in a purely naturalistic explanation for all the diverse forms of life on Earth. So this proposal appears to be a significant opportunity and could possibly be widely publicized. The debate would engage the creationist perspective but would only concern the observed evidence and interpretation of the evidence - excluding religion or philosophy.I'm trying to assemble the best team possible to represent neo-Darwinism and someone suggested I contact NCSE. This will likely take some time but this is the first step. Thank you in advance for your consideration.Let me know your thoughts please. Eugenie was gracious in response but declined the invitation on behalf of the National Center for Science Education. Kenneth R Miller declined to respond, unfortunately.
Coyote in Message 114 writes: Why are you trolling internet chat/debate rooms instead of seeking out organizations and individuals who have been dealing with this issue for years? (bold emphasis mine) You and many others here at EvC Forum are individuals who have been dealing with this issue for years. You’ve submitted over 3,000 posts spanning several years on these issues at EvC Forum. It’s my goal to advance knowledge and understanding in science. Zenmonkey’s thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?) referenced in Message 1 seemed a logical resource to solicit someone to directly engage the issues for the millions of inferred afflicted people. It seems reasonable that folks who judge flaws upon others with different beliefs would be willing and able to help educate and enlighten other people through genuine vigorous debate of the scientific evidence. Direct confrontation with a potential audience of millions of people would surely help minimize ignorance, stupidity, insanity, and wickedness. Why would you judge that to be silly Coyote? In the absence of a reasoned response, interested readers may draw their own conclusions. Also, Cavediver in Message 30 seemed to indicate the real professionals and experts are here at EvC Forum:
Cavediver in Message 30 writes: You would do well to remember that EvC is home to far more than its fair share of professionals, and please remember the important difference between experts and "experts". Perhaps you’re right Coyote. It’s possible I’ve overestimated all the confident judgments at here EvC Forum.
Coyote in Message 114 writes:
It has been really tough getting firm commitments for a publishable debate from qualified folks here a tougher struggle than I expected. Can't handle the big time? It takes good measures of humility, honesty, and discipline to challenge one’s own beliefs or to expose one’s inferences to vigorous examination and debate. Errors in basic science by condescendingly confident self-expressed experts have been exposed (click link) in this thread, apparently causing considerable pain. People make errors in science, politics, and religion. Folks often judge those who disagree to be ignorant, stupid, or worse. Sometimes folks realize they were confidently wrong, and (hopefully) we’re all better for it. The nature of real science is confrontational.That’s how science advances. We look forward to your thoughtful response Coyote.All the Best, Eye-Squared-R Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2864 days) Posts: 68 Joined:
|
Hello AZPaul3 and welcome!
AZPaul3 in Message 122 response to Dr. Adequate’s non-intuitive posting in Message 121 writes:
You’re quite resourceful in Message 122 finding a video of a clucking chicken. You’ve likely put forth more thought and effort in that single post than Dr. Adequate has expended in this entire thread. I do not see this as being productive in this thread and is indeed off-topic, but if that is what you want then I suppose I can respond. Now, we need your assistance AZPaul3 in some matters that doc has been unwilling and/or unable to even acknowledge in this threadPlease be resourceful and assist us in securing firm commitments from the most qualified team possible to represent evolution in a professional written publishable debate. You may note that not a single qualified person here at EvC Forum has stepped forward to make a firm commitment in any of these areas of science. The specific disciplines are listed below. List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to a professional written publishable debate concerning neo-Darwinism involving the scientific disciplines of: Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34): No One. Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One. Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One. Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One. Also, AZPaul3, not a single scientist at EvC Forum is willing or able to address the exercises in the green and red sections of Message 71 . These topics are salient as they could be leveraged in a publishable debate concerning neo-Darwinism. Would you please use your resourcefulness to locate at least one person, anyone, anywhere at EvC Forum, to determine who is actually ignorant in those exercises? Our friend Dr. Adequate has repeatedly ignored those exercises. This dereliction and subsequent puffery is yet another Golden Nugget in this thread a non-sequitur combination of Ducking and Clucking (click links). You presented your belief in Message 30 of the thread ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.
AZPaul3 in Message 30 of Zenmonkey’s thread writes: There is nothing that negates modern microbes spawning an evolution resulting in some multi-cellular creature that may, in some aspects, resemble an elephant in the next billion years or so, is there? I will agree that it is not automatic but I would argue it is well within the realm of probability. So, yes, random mutation+inheritable traits+Natural Selection does indeed enable such a possibility, though the outcome will certainly not be elephants. That's already been done by some microbes from a billion years ago. The modern kind will have to go make something else. Inheritable traits are a given.To clarify, please indicate which best describes your belief that random mutations and natural selection develop newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, sexual reproduction, intercontinental navigation, metamorphosis from a caterpillar to a Monarch, etc.) resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms (including microbes to elephants) within a population over time.
We look forward to your thoughtful and resourceful response AZPaul3. It is also requested that interested observers take the time to review the previous posts above and the entire thread before responding to avoid unnecessary redundancy. All the Best,Eye-Squared-R Edited by Eye-Squared-R, : Format.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Inactive Administrator
|
lay off the nasty abnormal formatting.
It only enhances your looking like a raving idiot. AdminnemooseusPlease be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Hello Dr. Adequate,
Dr Adequate responding to ICANT in Message 104 writes:
Competent, qualified, and professional married individuals are also welcome to firmly commit to engage in a publishable debate for neo-Darwinism.
The OP writes: The proposal for this thread is to establish who among the intelligent and educated EVC proponents of universal common descent (neo-Darwinism) would represent evolution in a formal written debate exclusively regarding the scientific evidence. The debate would occur outside the confines of EVC Forum and would be publishable.
A single individual or an entire team of EVC folks could participate and collaborate in written responses on behalf of evolution - but at least one team member should be qualified with a Ph. D. in a technical field (to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers). I am a "single individual" (is there another kind of individual?) Dr Adequate in Message 104 to ICANT writes: I have a Ph.D. in a technical field. I am ready whenever he is. I’ve researched the interest of publishers in a mathematics degree for debating science. For example, Anglagaard in Message 39 graciously offered a link to the Opposing Viewpoints series from Greenhaven Press. When I was hopeful we could secure firm commitments here from many qualified experts, I inquired concerning Greenhaven Press’ interest in a professional debate for publication. The Managing Editor was Elizabeth (Betz) Des Chenes and here is her reply (pertaining to folks such as you doc): Greenhaven Press does not accept unsolicited manuscripts; if you wish to submit an e-resume, however, we would be happy to consider you for future projects (in your area of expertise, if at all possible) (bold emphasis mine). Of the hundreds of ‘opposing viewpoints’ topics on the website, you might guess that none of them are debates concerning opposing viewpoints in math. If you are sincere Dr. Adequate, you may request the email address of Ms. Des Chenes, the managing editor, from me and I will gladly provide it (it’s not on the web site). You could submit your e-resume to validate your lack of professional credentials (with a Liberal Arts Mathematics degree) to Greenhaven Press (or any other publishers) for the debate topic concerning the science of neo-Darwinism. You declined to acknowledge any of the concerns detailed in Message 86, repeated here (with some additional comments) for your convenience.
Referencing part of Message 86:
You have adequately detailed your lack of marketability as a qualified leader of a debate team for neo-Darwinism in a professional written publishable format, Dr. Adequate. Further, your demonstrated debate skills at EvC Forum are primarily sarcasm and insults. Your argument is not with me whether you’re a viable candidate to lead a professional debate team with credentials and competencies attractive to publishers. Your argument is with yourself doc. But you’re not alone arguing with yourself your Administrators here at EvC Forum have repeatedly suspended you and ultimately banned you from participating in the Human Origins and Evolution forum.
Honest self-assessment is appropriate in a professional setting doc. You were not repeatedly suspended and finally banned by your home team moderators because you were ‘asking for evidence’. You could gain credibility by taking ownership and responsibility for your behavior. And you continue in Message 101 and Message 104
Dr. Adequate in Message 101 to ICANT writes: I am not walking away. I am standing here asking him to bring it on. And every time I do so the coward runs away and hides, usually for weeks at a time.Dr. Adequate in Message 104 to ICANT writes:
My delays are intentional doc. I give you and others plenty of time between posts to respond to my requests and to build a strong firmly committed professional debate team for evolution. I also observe styles, competencies, and character of folks posting here over time. Beyond that, we’ve had two weddings with extensive travel, including my lovely daughter’s wedding, dealt with the terminal illness and death of my father-in-law (an exemplary Viet Nam veteran who enlisted as a private and retired a Full Colonel), and more recently the recovery after heart surgery and subsequent untimely death of my cherished father.
I have made a firm commitment to debate, from which the coward has run like a frightened little bunny-rabbit Read this carefully doc and remember itQualifications and character are key requirements for most publishers. Your steadfast decision ‘to ignore’ and keep dodging the science and the requests (click link) in this thread has demonstrated absolutely no reason for anyone to ‘run’ from you doc. I’ve stated repeatedly there is no rush in this process. We’re not interested in who can hurl the most macho sarcastic insults. Dr. Adequate in Message 104 to ICANT writes:
Your public demeanor degrades under stress Dr. Adequate. I am rather more like a 36-year-old not standing on a soapbox and saying to a halfwitted poltroon: "Bring it on you sniveling little coward --- you're full of shit."Your responses appeal to emotions of the ignoble sort rather than to rational observers. Interested folks will note your inability to address the exercises in science detailed in the examples listed in Message 71 and additional requests in Message 72 where your earlier baseless claims were dealt with. Your typical response to ignore multiple requests (as in Message 81) is not exemplary. Anyone can do that. You’ve struggled to engage in constructive dialogue (click link) in this thread as well as others. It’s unclear how you could imagine that your performance in this thread makes folks afraid of you The best we can say at this time is your behavior is consistently derisive and unprofessional (click link). Considering your suspensions, recent banning from discussing evolution at EvC Forum, sensitivity to unspecified ‘snipped’ offenses (click link) in response to Message 86, preoccupation with ‘cojones’ in Message 59 and Message 68, combined with other attributes including your plea for help finding employment, and your overall behavioral tendencies in this threadyou may find this link helpful Dr. Adequate. I’m not a doctor but the description and symptoms are clearly found throughout this thread.I offer this sincerely and I hope you’ll give it careful consideration. We can’t determine whether this is a general pattern in your life but your friends care Dr. Adequate. This isn’t personal and you shouldn’t take it that way. Beyond the fact that you’re banned from debating evolution here at EvC Forum due to your inability to move a debate forward, I take full responsibility that the wording in the Opening Post was such that a Ph.D. in the deductive field of math would consider himself qualified to offer bona-fide credibility for potential publishers concerning the natural and applied sciences. The scientific method draws inductive conclusions (or generalizations) from a finite set of observable data and environments. Those conclusions are falsifiable by definition of the method. Inductive generalizations are often falsified with additional observations and/or other environments.Science is different from the deductive practice in math — where relationships are proven and final (unequivocal fact). Unfortunately, you have no credentials in the inductive field of science utilizing the scientific method Dr. Adequate. Therefore, since the primary objective of this thread is a publishable debate and qualifications are tantamount to quality for publishers, I will revise the OP to indicate a Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences where the inductive reasoning of the scientific method is applied. I will also include in the revision a requirement for demonstrated ability to function in a professional constructive manner — since this will be a requirement for publishers. The overriding objective for this thread is to assemble the best possible team for a publishable debate. I wish you were a viable candidate as the Leader of a professional evolution debate team in a publishable format Dr. Adequate. But you’re not for all the reasons mentioned.
Eye-Squared in Message 86 (with some edits added for clarity) writes: It’s really easy to make a FIRM commitment, doctor, if you have confidence in your beliefs and abilities.I’ll repeat the requirements for you:
Dr Adequate in Message 104 to ICANT Finally states a 'Firm Commitment’ and writes:
OK doc, please review items A, A1, A2, and A3 above from Message 86 (click link) and confirm that your words "FIRM COMMITMENT" are in agreement. If you ignore and refuse to respond to this request for confirmation as you have with all the other requests you’ve ignored in this thread, then you will not be considered seriously either by me or most interested observers. It is, however, a "FIRM COMMITMENT" The good news for you doc (if you’re sincere and follow through with the requests) is you could still participate in the proposed publishable debate if you were able to secure firm commitment from at least one marketable Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences — assuming they valued your ability for constructive dialogue and desired your contributions on the debate team. I’ve requested this of you repeatedly and you’ve evidently made no effort. I’ve suggested Cavediver as a possible leader of your team since he offered in Message 34 to debate cosmology. Unless I’m mistaken, I believe Cavediver has a Ph. D. in physics which could be marketable for publishers. There are also plenty of other marketable folks here at EvC Forum with Ph. D.s in the natural or applied sciences. Have you solicited anyone doc? Have you made any effort at all? Will you even acknowledge or answer these questions? Further, I will make every effort and take plenty of time to gain firm commitments in all the disciplines listed previously. If you’re sincere about a written publishable debate, I request — again — that you help in that effort. If you’re not sincere doc, you’ll likely persist with ignoring (or ducking - click here) and clucking (click here) posts of an ‘undesirable’ nature. If you’ve made no effort Dr. Adequate, then we can only conclude you’re more interested in personal puffery here than assembling the most qualified and marketable debate team possible to represent evolution (random mutations and natural selection).
After firm commitments are secured, and not before firm commitments are secured for the most qualified and capable team possible, then we’ll advance to Step 2 and get this debate train rolling down the tracks with formal contracts to begin the process. You probably don’t believe this but I’m trying to help you Dr. Adequate. I want you and the team representing evolution (random mutations and natural selection) to have every opportunity to be as successful as possible in a published presentation and defense of neo-Darwinism. Let me know if you’d like to discuss anything further in private, assuming you are interested in advancing this effort.Regardless, a thoughtful and professional response would be appreciated. All the Best, Eye-Squared-R So, to summarize: you're still trying to wriggle your way out of it. You know, you could have said so much more concisely.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024