Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 5:11 PM
30 online now:
1.61803, AZPaul3, dwise1, Faith, JonF, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (10 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,032 Year: 15,068/19,786 Month: 1,791/3,058 Week: 165/404 Day: 52/113 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 120 of 173 (537120)
11-27-2009 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by traste
11-26-2009 2:19 AM


Re: Scientific laws
The journal new scientist in reported that " an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argued that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials"

Yeah, of course it did Traste - I cannot believe the endless stream of crap you produce. Do you have a reference to this at all???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by traste, posted 11-26-2009 2:19 AM traste has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 5:05 AM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 121 of 173 (537121)
11-27-2009 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by traste
11-26-2009 1:45 AM


Re: Scientific laws
So you are referring to the RNA world theory.

No, he was talking about uracil - can you not read?

this theory as one scientist puts it" is fatally flawed because it failed to explained where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecule."

Who was this scientist? Please provide his name and where he made the quote.

n addition RNA cannot function independently without the help from the 2 macromolecules the protein and DNA

Really? Please provide evidence of this. Given the RNA Hypothesis, you might have thought that there would be an idea that this is not true... but that would have required 'thought' and I don't see a lot of that in these posts...

I hope I educate you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by traste, posted 11-26-2009 1:45 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by traste, posted 12-24-2009 12:29 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 124 of 173 (537302)
11-28-2009 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Peg
11-28-2009 5:05 AM


Re: Scientific laws
the quote comes from the British 'New Scientist' journal in an article entitled "Darwins Theory: An Exercise in Science" June 25th 1981 by Michael Ruse.

Ah, I see. So it wasn't New Scientist stating this - it was made within an article - do we have a full, none-quote-mined copy of what Ruse said? Or are the creationists all just copying each other's quote-mine yet again?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 5:05 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:30 AM cavediver has responded
 Message 139 by traste, posted 12-24-2009 12:55 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 125 of 173 (537303)
11-28-2009 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Peg
11-28-2009 4:33 AM


Re: you are ignorant
look here

Peg, one guy from a plant institute publishing in what must be the most obscure journal unknown to man, and declaring that he has a "law" is not really how 'laws' come in to being in science...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 4:33 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:33 AM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 126 of 173 (537306)
11-28-2009 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Peg
11-28-2009 5:05 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Here is Michael Ruse's reply concerning the quote-mine:

No reputable biologist has any doubts about evolution -- it is so easy to quote people out of context.

I wonder how much Jesus loves the limitless lying and deception perpetrated by his followers... What do you think, Peg?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 5:05 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:38 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 135 of 173 (537382)
11-28-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Peg
11-28-2009 9:30 AM


Re: Scientific laws
but im sure a copy could be got from New Scientist

I may even have a copy in my archive - but it would take some climbing and searching

But the point is - Michael Ruse who is being quoted as saying

" an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argued that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials"

when questioned on this, replied

"No reputable biologist has any doubts about evolution -- it is so easy to quote people out of context."

so I don't think we even need to look for the article, when the author in question is giving us his own view...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:30 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by hooah212002, posted 11-28-2009 9:44 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 137 of 173 (537384)
11-28-2009 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Peg
11-28-2009 9:33 AM


Re: you are ignorant
i dont know how science officiates such ideas/theories/laws

how did Newtons/Gallileo or Eisteins laws become official?

Well, don't forget that a 'law' is merely a concensus on observation, and is considerably below a theory in terms of scientific standing. Laws become widely accepted by those scientists widely accepting the underlying observations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:33 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1870 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 152 of 173 (548378)
02-27-2010 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Granny Magda
02-27-2010 7:05 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Tellingly, you missed this bit.

Actually, he didn't - we're so used to it being missed, that we don't see it when it is there

You may want to correct that...

HOWEVER, Traste's post is a minimal re-write of this page:

Did eyes evolve by Darwinian mechanisms?

But did you notice this?

Traste (copying from the above link) writes:

Others are not so confident. Melnick concluded that the eye is a marvel and that ‘its immense complexity and diversity in nature, as well as its beauty and perfection in so many different creatures of the world, defies explanation even by macroevolution’s most ardent supporters.’8

Melnick? Who the f'ck is Melnick??? And where did he say this? Notice the '8' at the end of Traste's text? That's the reference included on that webage He definitely needs lessons in plagerism. That reference gives us:

quote:
Melnick, J., Vision: an evolutionary enigma, Christian Citizen 1(9):26,1981

Hell, I'm convinced

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2010 7:05 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2010 8:42 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 157 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 9:55 PM cavediver 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 © 2019