Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 71 (9014 total)
32 online now:
DrJones*, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,090 Year: 13,838/23,288 Month: 30/326 Week: 50/92 Day: 3/10 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 10 of 785 (854657)
06-11-2019 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
06-11-2019 11:12 AM


This idea that mutations could bring about changes organized enough to produce a new species from an old is just a crock, pure fantasy.

Only a willfully stupid creationist would have a crazy idea like that. Or else somebody whose only knowledge of evolution comes from X-Men movies. Where did you get your crazy ideas from?

Yet again (not that you will ever allow yourself to learn), mutations increase genetic variation without any ability to organize the outcomes of those mutations. Natural selection provides that organizing by removing unbeneficial and deleterious traits and favoring beneficial traits. Evolution needs both.

Yet again the simple facts that willfully stupid creationists just cannot allow themselves to understand:

  • Evolution does not work by mutation (or other methods of increasing genetic variation) alone.
  • Evolution does not work by natural selection alone.
  • It is genetic variation and natural selection both working together that drives and enables evolution.

Learn something about evolution!

Ignorance is a common problem which is curable. Stupidity is a deliberate decision which can only be cured by deliberately deciding to stop being stupid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 06-11-2019 11:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 06-11-2019 1:31 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 72 of 785 (854793)
06-12-2019 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
06-12-2019 5:26 PM


What separates the human and chimp genomes is a different design altogether, using a lot of similar genetic information because of the similarities between the designs, llke the similarities between two car designs perhaps. There is no ACTUAL relation between the two, they just have similar design elements.

Yet again, absolute nonsense. You really must learn something about genetics as well as about evolution or else you will continue to post nonsense.

As has already been covered and presented to you so many times, many amino acids in a protein can be substituted with other amino acids without any effect on the functionality of that protein. An example of an active site on a protein (given by Thwaites and Awbrey in their two-model class) showed about half its loci to accept any amino acid -- that says nothing of the purely structural parts of that protein in which most loci should accept any amino acid.

While similar design requirements could result in similar results, there is no reason to expect similar features which have nothing to do with the design to be so strikingly similar.

Take a specific protein from a wide variety of species (ie, the same protein in different species) and compare them with each other. What do we expect?

  • According to your "similar design" idea, we should expect the important parts of the proteins (the parts that do the actual work of that protein) to be similar. That is reasonable, since those parts are what make that protein that protein. As for the rest of the amino acids, your idea offers no reason whatsoever to find similarities in which amino acid sequences show up.

  • According to the evolutionary idea of similarities due to descent from common ancestors, we would expect to find similarities not only in the important parts (for the same reason as your idea would) but also in the amino acids that make up the rest of the protein, namely the unimportant parts. And while we would expect mutations over time to result in differences arising in the unimportant part, we would also expect to find more differences in species that are more remotely related (ie, had diverged from their common ancestor longer ago) and few differences between more closely related species.
So what do we find? We find the pattern of differences that are predicted by the common-descent model of evolution and absolutely no support for your "similar designs" idea. The only way that your idea would work would be if your Creator were a Trickster God (eg, Loki) who deliberately planted the patterns of differences that would support common descent and no other explanation.

Another problem with your idea is that it fails to explain the inheritance of retro-virus DNA insertions with the exact same sequences in the exact same locations in the genomes of related species (eg, human and chimp) that are found in all species that diverged after the insertion of that viral sequence but not in the related species that had diverged before that insertion. They serve no functional purpose, so there is no design-based reason for them to have been copied so identically in multiple species. Again, your "similar design" idea completely fails to explain them whereas common descent explains them quite easily.

Faith, please learn how things work so that you can keep from making such nonsensical false statements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 06-12-2019 5:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 06-12-2019 10:47 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


(4)
Message 91 of 785 (854817)
06-13-2019 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dredge
06-13-2019 1:54 AM


Tanypteryx writes:

Dredge writes:


Yet humans remain humans … and dogs remain dogs, water rats remain water rats, E. coli remain E. coli ... funny that.


And humans remain mammals and humans remain vertebrates. What's your point?

{ clipped standard Dredge BS blathered in order to dodge a simple direct question }

Why did you avoid answering his question?

What is your point? Other than demonstrating how much you misunderstand evolution.

According to evolution, all of an ancestral species' descendant species will still be what that ancestral species is. Future species descended from humans will still be humans. Future species descended from dogs will still be dogs.

Therefore, humans are still Homo, also still Hominini, also still Homininae, also still Hominidae, also still Hominoidea, also still Catarrhini, also still Simiiformes, also still Haplorhini, also still Primates, also still Mammalia, also still Amniota, also still Mammaliaformes, also still Synapsida, also still Amniota, also still Reptiliomorpha, also still Tetrapoda, also still Stegocephalia, also still Elpistostegalia, also still Eotetrapodiformes, also still Tetrapodomorpha, also still Rhipidistia, also still Sarcopterygii, also still Euteleostomi, also still Teleostomi, also still Eugnathostomata, also still Vertebrata, also still Olfactores, also still Chordates, also still Deuterostomes, also still Nephrozoa, also still Bilateria, also still Eumetazoa, and also still Animalia. And all future descendant species of humans will still be humans and also all of the above. That is what evolution says.

Your expectation that evolution says that should not be the case only demonstrates that you do not understand even basic evolution. Furthermore, you persist in that misunderstanding despite the truth about what evolution says having been explained to you repeatedly.

So answer Tanypteryx' question: What's your point?

Edited by dwise1, : Added qs blocks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dredge, posted 06-13-2019 1:54 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 102 of 785 (854833)
06-13-2019 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dredge
06-13-2019 1:35 AM


Dog breeders use inbreeding to induce unnatural mutations, ...

What the hell are you talking about?

Breeding does not involve inducing any mutations. Obviously, we need to add mutation, breeding, and genetics to the long list of things that you have no clue about.

What kind of blithering idiot are you? Oh yeah, you're a creationist. Your only true statement is that you are an extremely low-grade moron with an IQ of 9, though even that is obviously an exaggeration (ie, it's obviously much lower).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dredge, posted 06-13-2019 1:35 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 152 of 785 (854919)
06-14-2019 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by PaulK
06-14-2019 12:21 AM


Re: Tracking the route of macroevolution
And if mutations are random the only thing stopping them from creating “healthy alleles” is probability. Thus it is at least possible in principle - unless you assume a non-random mechanism that prevents it - and even to say it is too unlikely requires evidence.

Plus it is important to use the applicable probability model.

I'm more than a few decades rusty on proper terminology. Most of us are familiar with the problem of finding the probability, P(), of multiple independent events all succeeding:

P(A and B and C and D) = P(A)×P(B)×P(C)×P(D)

A classic example is a coin toss (P = 0.5) in which you figure the probability of tossing 5 heads in a row:
P(5 heads in a row) = P(heads)5 = (0.5)5 = 0.03125
P(10 heads in a row) = (0.5)10 = 0.0009765625

But that does not model this problem. You have a population all mutating simultaneously and in parallel with each other and all you need is for one, just one, of them to succeed; ie, P(A or B or C or D). How would you do that?

I encountered that problem when calculating the probabilities for my version of Dawkins' WEASEL, which I named MONKEY -- read my MONKEY PROBABILITIES (MPROBS) page for that analysis. I ended up applying De Morgan's Theorem from Boolean Algebra (streamlining it a bit here):

P = Probability of success
Q = Probability of failure = (1 - P)
P = P(A or B or C or D)
By De Morgan, Q = Q(A)×Q(B)×Q(C)×Q(D)
Ergo: P(A or B or C or D) = (1 - Q) = (1 - (Q(A)×Q(B)×Q(C)×Q(D)))

Now for example, let's assume that the probability of each event is one in 10, 0.1. And let's assume 4 events:
Q = (1 - 0.1)4 = (0.9)4 = 0.6561
P = (1 - Q) = (1 - 0.6561) = 0.3439

Notice that it is more likely, 3.5 times more likely, for at least one event to succeed than for any single event to succeed. Now let's test for 100 events:
Q = (1 - 0.1)100 = (0.9)100 = 2.65614e-5
P = (1 - Q) = (1 - 2.65614e-5) = 0.9999734

Now that rather low individual probability yields virtual certainty that at least one of 100 unlikely events will succeed.

In my MONKEY, to probability for a single individual mutated string to advance towards the target is rather low. But since I was working with a population of 100 strings, the probability of at least one of them advancing is high. To put it in other words, the only way for the system to fail to advance would be if every single string were to fail every single time and that event was so unlikely as to be virtually impossible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2019 12:21 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 505 of 785 (856039)
06-25-2019 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by Faith
06-25-2019 5:31 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
I wonder why I keep hoping that it will eventually get through when it never does? There are other places I can take the argument. But it would be nice if diehard believers in the ToE would open their eyes.

Your actual problem is that our eyes are indeed open and what you are saying is getting through. That is why we keep trying to explain to you why what you are saying is wrong. But your own eyes are closed, so the truth cannot reach you.

So unless I get a second wind there's no point in continuing with this predictable futility.

Your persistent refusal to learn from your mistakes and misconceptions, augmented by your all too frequent refusal to even read responses, is the source of that predictability.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Faith, posted 06-25-2019 5:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 663 of 785 (856840)
07-03-2019 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 661 by Taq
07-03-2019 11:03 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
That's because we present facts and creationists are not swayed by facts.

No, not quite. It isn't that creationists are not swayed by facts, but rather that they abhor facts.

No, that's not quite it either. It's more that creationists are terrified of facts.

They have contrived a false theology that is not only contrary-to-fact, but then it goes even further to preach that if its contrary-to-fact claims and pronouncements are indeed found to be contrary to fact (which they most assuredly and demonstrably are), then God either does not exist or should not be worshipped, they should throw their Bibles into the trash, and become hedonistic atheists (over the decades, far too many creationists have vehemently insisted to me that that is the case).

They fear and know that if they ever do look at the facts honestly, then that would destroy their false theology and that consequence of their false beliefs terrifies them. That is why they are terrified of the facts. Which is why they abhor the facts. Which is why they ignore the facts to the point of denying that the facts even exist. Which is why they are not swayed by facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by Taq, posted 07-03-2019 11:03 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 666 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 7:00 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 667 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 7:44 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 668 of 785 (856887)
07-03-2019 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 666 by Faith
07-03-2019 7:00 PM


Re: Creationist mindset
I have to rush to dance classes, so this must be very short for now.

I don't expect to be able to grasp the totality of all the fields that relate to these questions.

You don't have to grasp the totality of all the fields, but understanding even just the very basics would help immensely. Not only don't you, but you refuse to, which is why I call your particular brand of willful ignorance, "willful *********."

Ironically, it is creationists who demand that their opponents be expert in many different fields by shotgunning ignorant and false claims from all fields. For example, in the creationist debate format the professional creationist will refuse to debate on a specific topic, but rather insist that the subject being debated be as broad as possible. That way, he can jump around from topic to topic making one false claim after another for which his opponent must be expert in all those topics in order to respond effectively -- of course, his opponent will also need far more time to refute the multiple false claims that the creationist can fire off in bursts of 10 to 20 per minute; that is called the "Gish Gallop" after its infamous practitioner Dr Duane Gish (an actual PhD, a rarity among creationists). The opponent is constrained by the requirement to be as accurate and truthful as possible whereas the creationist can just make up any old lie he wants to, the facts be damned.

Since the facts work against the creationist, he must avoid them at all costs. Since the facts reveal that his beliefs are false, the creationist must deny them in any way possible. Because his faith is so important to him, the creationist fears the facts.

However, I've discovered from being at EvC that most creationists who come here have a completely different point of view, something unique to themselves that I often can't even follow. I don't understand this but it means there's no way for any of us to build on each other's thoughts.

The reason for that is that the only thing that creationists can agree on is that they must oppose and "disprove" evolution and any and all science that expose their false beliefs for what they are. But with nothing else in common, their attempts to hand-wave the facts away are all different, very often based on entirely different misunderstandings of science. Even a single individual creationist can end up contradicting himself. That is the chaos that comes from denying the facts.

The reason why creationists' opponents are able to keep everything straight and to build on each other's thoughts is because we use the facts. That makes all the difference.

.make the facts appear to be either wrong or non-existent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 7:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 670 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 9:35 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 710 of 785 (857129)
07-05-2019 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 670 by Faith
07-03-2019 9:35 PM


Re: Creationist mindset
How can I be expected to take seriously the constant refrain about how I don't understand this, that or the other when nobody ever even gives an example of what that means?

Completely and utterly false! We, the majority of us, have repeatedly for years pointed out to you what you repeatedly demonstrate that you do not understand and we have explained over and over again what you are getting wrong, how you are getting it wrong, and what it actually is and how it actually works.

Your "response" is to ignore our attempts, misconstrue them, or just plain refuse to even read them. IOW, your persistent practice of "willful stoopidity."

To explain that term, there is the question of ignorance. That is a condition of which everybody suffers -- everybody, regardless of how intelligent and knowledgeable they are, is ignorant about something. The solution to ignorance is learning about that of which we are ignorant. That is a life-long endeavor that never ends and can never fully succeed, since there will still be things of which we will still remain ignorant, but the benefits of trying to eliminate our ignorance are so great that the attempt, however futile ultimately, is still worthwhile.

There is a saying that ignorance can be cured, but stoopidity cannot. Personally, my definition of stoopidity includes the refusal to attempt to cure oneself of ignorance. It is from my personal opinion about the stubborn refusal to learn anything that I coined my term for your extreme willful ignorance, "willful stoopidity" (especially because of your practice of stubbornly choosing to not even read our attempts to help you alleviate your ignorance which is the source of your incredibly wrong ideas about just about everything).

Mostly it amounts to saying my argument is wrong because it contradicts the establishment argument, really no more than that.

Yet again, completely and utterly false!

Your "arguments" are wrong because they conflict with all known facts, including the most basic facts of how things work. Our positions and arguments are based on the facts, on the evidence, and on our understanding of how things actually work. Your "arguments" are not based on any facts, ignores the evidence, and are based on gross ignorance of how things actually work.

As long as you stubbornly refuse to learn anything and persist in your willful stoopidity, your blatherings will be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 9:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by Faith, posted 07-06-2019 7:28 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 712 of 785 (857235)
07-06-2019 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by Faith
07-06-2019 7:28 PM


Re: Creationist mindset
I'm sorry, but just exactly what god are you supposed to be serving? A god of trolls, of liars, of hypocrites? That is what your "Christian witness" tells us clearly and in no uncertain terms. Certainly, your twisted little god bears no resemblance to the Christian God I was taught about.

How dare you put on your hypocritical little "[voice=up a few octaves to sound like a typical whiny little b####]oh poor little stoopid me, I have no idea what everybody is talking about! Why is everybody so angry with me when all I'm doing is lie about everything to the faces of those who know full well what perversions I am committing?[/voice]" act. That is pure bullshirt and you know it!

I'm not the only one to reply to your Message 670. Reread JonF's reply Message 686 which you have not replied to! Reread Percy's reply Message 691 which you have not replied to! Just ignoring the facts does not make them go away.

Here again is what Percy wrote in his Message 691:

quote:
I really wish you wouldn't make yourself the topic of discussion, but if you insist on making false claims about yourself then others will be forced to correct you.
How can I be expected to take seriously the constant refrain about how I don't understand this, that or the other when nobody ever even gives an example of what that means?

It is the rare message from you that doesn't contain multiple factual errors, and people have corrected you many, many times. You have no excuse for understanding biology and geology as poorly today as when you joined nearly 18 years ago.

You don't, JonF doesn't, but it's said all the time.

Everyone has provided a multitude of examples over many years of what you don't understand, often providing the factual basis.

If an example IS ever given then I can answer it, because it never really amounts to much and doesn't threaten anything I've been arguing though that's of course what the accusation implies. Mostly it amounts to saying my argument is wrong because it contradicts the establishment argument, really no more than that. So I just shrug off these endless empty accusations.

You are as delusional about the quality of your views as you are about the degree of your scientific understanding.

--Percy


Why haven't you replied to his message? Because you know that he is absolutely correct in his assessment of you? Because even you cannot possibly maintain the extreme levels of delusion that your mission from your perverted little god (not to be confused with the Christian God) requires of you?

What are your god's names? The Troll God? The Lord of Lies? It is through your perverted witness that we know your god and your religion and we know how thoroughly false and perverted they are. The sooner that they perish from this earth, the better off all of humanity will be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Faith, posted 07-06-2019 7:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by Faith, posted 07-07-2019 3:00 AM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 714 of 785 (857291)
07-07-2019 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 713 by Faith
07-07-2019 3:00 AM


Re: Creationist mindset
You are far from innocent. You deliberately troll us. Why? So you can manufacture fake excuses to ignore the truth even more?

We have your "Christian witness". We know exactly what you are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by Faith, posted 07-07-2019 3:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 715 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2019 12:10 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 716 of 785 (857295)
07-07-2019 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 715 by RAZD
07-07-2019 12:10 PM


Re: Creationist mindset
Read Message 712 again.

Faith was yet again playing her fake innocence game that nobody ever tells her why she's wrong. You've been on the receiving end of that yourself over the years. But this time both JonF (Message 686) and Percy (Message 691) had already replied to her detailing (Percy especially) her transgressions. She did not reply to either message, but instead repeated her same tired old lie.

She's lying to us, to our faces. I guess you're cool with that, but I respect the truth too much.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2019 12:10 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 718 by NosyNed, posted 07-07-2019 1:05 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 721 by AZPaul3, posted 07-07-2019 1:14 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 754 of 785 (857437)
07-08-2019 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 750 by JonF
07-08-2019 12:32 PM


Re: Creationist mindset
Do you remember your reaction? I do.

She should, since I pointed it to her and then again to Thuggee. She completely ignored your message, along with Percy's more detailed reply.

She falsely claims innocence. There are a great many ways that we could describe her, but "innocent" is something that she is the furthest from being. Especially considering her highly deliberate trolling of PaulK yesterday in this topic.

Her "Christian witness" speaks volumes about why her particular religion (not to be confused with actual Christian doctrine) is so evil and needs to die out as soon as possible for the good of Mankind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by JonF, posted 07-08-2019 12:32 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 776 of 785 (857717)
07-10-2019 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 764 by Faith
07-08-2019 5:50 PM


Re: Creationist mindset
There are YECs who have academic degrees though if that's what's required.

First, a degree just indicates that you should have studied the subject enough to understand it, but not necessarily that you use that understanding or that you do not misapply it in order to deceive.

Second, there is a long history concerning YECs and academics degrees.

Almost without fail, YECs will claim to have degrees, especially PhDs, in order to present themselves as authorities -- a lot of creationist claims are appeals to authortity, which is doubtless due to the fundamentalist mindset. This has led to many creationists touting false credentials, such as honorary degrees and degrees purchased from "diploma millsHarold Slusher, the source of a number of the ICR's young-earth claims including the moon dust argument. He has a MS in a physical science which I believe to be legitimate (his monograph on radioactive half-lives has been praised for clearly explaining half-lives even though his conclusions are wrong), but he would also claim the title of Dr. Slusher because of an honorary doctorate and a second doctorate from a diploma mill. When I first heard that he was part of the faculty at University of Texas at El Paso, I looked him up on the UTEP website, where he was listed as "Dr. Harold Slusher." For a while afterwards, that faculty list was no longer available and then when it came back up he was just "Harold Slusher". Over the years, I've received emails from his students complaining about him.

A much more infamous case is "Dr." Kent Hovind, who also illustrates another problem with "degreed creationists." He always insists on being addressed as "Dr. Hovind", even to the point of having had himself listed in the telephone book as such. He's yet another "diploma mill baby". After high school, he attended about one year of community college and then transferred to an unaccredited Baptist college for his bachelor's in Religion. Then he purchased his master's and doctorate from a diploma mill, both "degrees" in Religious Education. His devotees consider him a scientist because he makes "sciencey-sounding" claims and also mainly because of his title of "Dr. Hovind". But even his fake degrees have nothing to do with any field of science, but rather with religious education.

That's the other problem I mentioned: in many cases the creationist's degree, even when legitimate, has nothing to do with the subject. This becomes especially clear whenever creationists repost any of their "lists of creationists who are scientists". Well, very few of them have degrees in any field of science.
First, a great many of them have degrees in engineering and engineers are notoriously dismissive of science. Several of them have degrees in theology and religious studies. In one list there two with doctorates in "food science" (a legitimate field, but how could that be pertinent?). And others had doctorates in fields that were even less pertinent.

Then there are properly degreed creationists who misuse their knowledge. In order to join most creationist organizations, you must effectively swear an oath to firmly adhere to a fixed set of YEC beliefs, so when a degreed creationist speaks one must determine whether they are speaking or acting as a scientist or as a creationist.

In a local debate a decade ago, a local creationist quoted from Dr Georgia Purdom, PhD Molecular Genetics, in order to "refute" retroviruses. What he neglected to mention was that she is a professional creationist working with Answers in Genesis as one of their professional speakers. He later quoted from Dr. John C. Sanford, PhD plant breeding/plant genetics, again failing to mention that he is not only an anti-evolutionist but also a YEC. Both acts were deliberately intended to deceive his audience who, unlike me, did not have the benefit of a pause button so I could go look up those two references.

Dr. Steve Austin, PhD Sedimentary Geology, had his legitimate doctorate financed by the ICR who, in the wake of all the scandals about fake creationist degrees, was feeling a lot of pressure to have a geologist on their staff with a legitimate doctorate. While working on his degree, Austin wrote several articles for the ICR and the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) under that pseudonym "Stuart Nevins". I read some of his CRSQ articles and noted that he presented several misrepresentations about geology that he knew his creationist audience would eat up but which any geology student would know after the first semester or two were utterly false and misleading. At the ICR with his PhD, he has used his knowledge in the old YEC game of ordering radiometric dating on samples that they know will yield bad results.

BTW, when you were getting all bent out of shape over my suggestion that you talk to a geologist about your "lithification model" (squeezing the water out), I'm pretty sure that I mentioned Dr. Austin as a possible candidate so that at least you'd be getting corrected by a YEC. Sometimes a professional YEC will correct followers' really egregious mistakes, such as Dr. Gish on a radio show correcting a caller's use of the "why are there still monkeys?" claim (yes, that blatantly false claim does actually occur in the wild, albeit rarely).

Even more blatant is Dr. Jonathan Wells, a Moonie who decided that his mission was "destroying Darwinism", so he earned a PhD in molecular and cellular biology solely for that purpose.

So having a degree that is not in a pertinent field is meaningless. Having a fake degree is worse than meaningless. And having a pertinent, legitimate degree does nothing if you either fail to use it or use it for dishonest purposes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 764 by Faith, posted 07-08-2019 5:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020