Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   $50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 305 (79836)
01-21-2004 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by NosyNed
01-21-2004 1:25 PM


Re: Your epistemological strategy, please?
Nosyned,
No, no replication yet. Probably won't be one for many years. Too few real scientists out there. Too much "sneer" review. It's a fallen world.
But you don't have to suffer, waiting! You can do your own experiments! What's your choice?
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 1:25 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 2:10 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 243 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2004 2:17 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 242 of 305 (79839)
01-21-2004 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-21-2004 2:02 PM


Re: Your epistemological strategy, please?
Actually an organization here tried to replicate another experiment that Wirth was involved with. However, he was very difficult to contact to get details to execute the replication. When he finally responded it was to threaten to sue if someone tried to.
The prayer experiment doesn't sound all that expensive to perform. I would think that the ICR, for example, would be anxious to see it replicated by completely independent organizations. They could fund it and have input on the controls put in place. Why isn't that done?
It isn't that there is a lack of real scientists, Stephen. It is that the only time this sort of thing produces positive results and someone looks closly problems with the study show up. Sometimes very suspicious ones. Why would someone want to involve themselves with such things? There are lots of things to do with ones time that have a much greater chance of success.
After all, as someone else has noted, if prayer worked the average life span of the priests etc. would be greater than the average life span of the members of the AAAS. Has someone run the statistics?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 2:02 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 3:41 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 289 by JonF, posted 06-06-2004 5:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 305 (79841)
01-21-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-21-2004 2:02 PM


Re: Your epistemological strategy, please?
quote:
But you don't have to suffer, waiting! You can do your own experiments! What's your choice?
Indeed, why don't you do it Stephen? I think it would be an interesting study and would like to look over a proposed methodology. Perhaps start a new thread on methodology for such a study that we can all have input on? Avoid the "sneer" review and try and iron out a proposed study with us here on EvC, I think quite a few of us could contribute good ideas. The next hurdle would be funding, but I think there could be ways around that as well. Human subjects approval could be acquired gratis through a non-profit review board, as well as doctor participation. All thats left is time to crunch the numbers and a congregation willing to participate (gratis as well, I am guessing). I would start the thread personally, but want to make sure you would participate. Otherwise, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 2:02 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 3:43 PM Loudmouth has replied

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 305 (79852)
01-21-2004 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by NosyNed
01-21-2004 2:10 PM


Re: Your epistemological strategy, please?
Nosyned,
You keep acting like creationists of the Christian ilk are somehow interested in the truth. They're far worse than evolutionists! God Himself calls them all liars, while He gives you guys a break. The ICR is hopeless! But you ask,
Why would someone want to involve themselves with such things?
Eternal life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 2:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 305 (79853)
01-21-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Loudmouth
01-21-2004 2:17 PM


Re: Your epistemological strategy, please?
Loudmouth,
Good idea. I'm in. But I'll want to start with praying for germinating plants, since those studies were so easily replicable. (Frank Loehr, before he lost it!)
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2004 2:17 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2004 5:00 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 305 (79862)
01-21-2004 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-21-2004 3:43 PM


Re: Your epistemological strategy, please?
Go ahead and start a new thread. It would be best for you to start out with a rough idea of the design and subjects of the experiment, be they human or plant. Plants don't require animal/human protocol review by a scientific review board, so maybe that would be best. Anyway, the ball is in your court.
PS: Just as a note, as you already know there is a wide breadth of religious views here at EvC so it may be tough to find people to actually participate, but a lot of people would probably be happy to help design the protocol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 3:43 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-24-2004 11:13 AM Loudmouth has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 247 of 305 (79865)
01-21-2004 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Chiroptera
01-21-2004 2:01 PM


Chiroptera, I agree Walts qualifications are impressive, probably why the evolutionists don't agree to Walts debating contract, however,
the lead evolutionists must have a doctorate in applied or basic sciences, what is interesting, Walt is willing at debate the sciences, but the evolutionists appear not interested in debating the sciences unless they are able to bring religion into it, etc...
P.S. If evolution is not a religion, then why do the evolutionists want to bring religion into a scientific debate, etc...
Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Written Debate The issue is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? Dr. Brown’s standing offer for a strictly scientific, written, and publishable debate is on page 328. Please read the entire passage and note that a few initially agreed to a strictly scientific debate, but later changed their minds, insisting they would only take part if the exchange included religion. One evolutionist is so upset that a written debate will not include religion that he now misleads by saying that Walt Brown has refused to debate him. (Correspondence in our files shows how he no longer wanted a strictly scientific debate after reading the 6th edition of this book.) Dr. Brown has consistently maintained his position for 23 years: the debate should be limited to scientific evidence.
If someone says, Walt Brown has refused to debate, we suggest you ask to see that person’s signed debate agreement. (Walt Brown has published his on pages 328-330.)
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Chiroptera, posted 01-21-2004 2:01 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2004 5:50 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 248 of 305 (79872)
01-21-2004 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by JonF
01-21-2004 1:27 PM


JonF, William R. Farrand didn't include all the evidence, like Sir Henry Howorth, check this site out, etc...
P.S. The bible says all the creatures on land died, perhaps we should change the name the pleistocene fossils, and call it all, the fossils evidences of the biblical flood, etc...
The Last Extinction Event | Physics Forums
http://custance.org/...y/Volume4/Part_I/chapter10.html#Page5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 1:27 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 6:35 PM johnfolton has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 249 of 305 (79873)
01-21-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by johnfolton
01-21-2004 5:13 PM


Walt Brown DOES refuse to debate.
Joe Meert sent in a signed copy of Walt Brown's form and Walt Brown refused to follow the procedures as written at the time.
Walt Brown's staff have acknowledged that the form was received.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 5:13 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 6:17 PM PaulK has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 250 of 305 (79879)
01-21-2004 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by PaulK
01-21-2004 5:50 PM


PaulK, Joe never signed Walts agreement, Joe changed the agreement to include religion, etc...
P.S. Walts appears to be more than willing to debate the science of it all, without dragging in religion, etc...Its interesting that Joe wasn't willing to debate Walt unless it included religion, etc...
http://www.trueorigin.org/Meert1.pdf.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2004 5:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2004 6:41 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 253 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 6:41 PM johnfolton has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 251 of 305 (79881)
01-21-2004 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by johnfolton
01-21-2004 5:47 PM


OK, so some site says that an unobtainable book written in 1887 contains descriptions of evidence that would support your claim? Pu-leaze!
Since the Pleistocene extinctions, plural, fell far far short of wiping out all creatures on land, by your own words the Pleistocene extinctions can't correspond to your flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 5:47 PM johnfolton has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 252 of 305 (79883)
01-21-2004 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by johnfolton
01-21-2004 6:17 PM


No, Joe signed the agreement - AS THE PAGE YOU LINK TO EXPLICITLY SAYS, invoking the clause that allowed amendments to be made if the chosen editor for the debate agreed.
Joe Meert agreed to abide by the editor's decision. Walt Brown refused to even consider submitting it to the editor.
The only question is whether the editor was purely limited to procedural matters. No such limit was present in the document signed by Joe Meert which stated :
" [INITIAL IF APPROPRIATE] I wish to propose a modification to the above conditions. However, I am willing to have the editor decide the matter after my opponent and I have presented our positions. I will abide by this ruling and participate in the written debate. My suggested changes and their justification are listed below."
Just to be clear Condition 4 stated :
"The debate will consist of scientific evidence and the logical inferences from that evidence. Religious ideas and beliefs, while possibly correct, will not be allowed. The editor will strike such ideas from the record..."
There is nothing in the clause invoked by Joe Meert which states that condition 4 may not be modified.
Walt Brown
The debate agreement as it was when Joe Meert accepted is at:
http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/debate.html
I can personally verify that the relevant sections are correct since I checked when I first found the page, before Walt Brown changed the agreement

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 6:17 PM johnfolton has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 253 of 305 (79884)
01-21-2004 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by johnfolton
01-21-2004 6:17 PM


Its interesting that Joe wasn't willing to debate Walt unless it included religion,p
Yes, isn't it?
The reason is obvious; since Walt's ideas are founded on religion rather than evidence and science, it's impossible to discuss his ideas without including religion.
Perhaps Joe will amplify; but Walt Brown seems pretty clear to me. Joe sent a signed contract to Walt asking him to live up to his contract as he wrote it, and Walt refused.
The letter from the creationist lawyer is especially interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 6:17 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 7:25 PM JonF has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 254 of 305 (79898)
01-21-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by JonF
01-21-2004 6:41 PM


JonF, I find it interesting what it all comes down to, is Joe didn't want to debate the sciences, wanted to debate religion, change the topic, of the debate, etc...
P.S. Walts standing offer for over 20 years still is out there, no one is willing to debate the topic Walt's chosen. You all get upset when someone goes off topic, would think you all would be more sympathetic, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 6:41 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 7:30 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 256 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 7:56 PM johnfolton has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 255 of 305 (79900)
01-21-2004 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by johnfolton
01-21-2004 7:25 PM


Debating religion with Walt is on-topic. There's no science or evidence of facts in his theory to be debated ... just religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 7:25 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 8:04 PM JonF has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024