Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
23 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 19 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,209 Year: 22,245/19,786 Month: 808/1,834 Week: 308/500 Day: 7/64 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 160 (517467)
08-01-2009 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by DrJones*
08-01-2009 3:36 AM


Re: Analogy fails
Dr writes:

Recheck your math, 3% of 3 x 109 is 9 x 107


Thanks Dr. your right, sorry 'bout my quick unthoughthrough calculations. So instead of 109 we have 108
changes. Doesn't really change anything.


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by DrJones*, posted 08-01-2009 3:36 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 4:14 AM LucyTheApe has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 107 of 160 (517471)
08-01-2009 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Alan Clarke
07-31-2009 5:42 PM


This thread seems to be turning into a mere wastepaper basket for creationist nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Alan Clarke, posted 07-31-2009 5:42 PM Alan Clarke has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 108 of 160 (517472)
08-01-2009 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by LucyTheApe
08-01-2009 3:57 AM


Re: Analogy fails
Thanks Dr. your right, sorry 'bout my quick unthoughthrough calculations. So instead of 109 we have 108
changes. Doesn't really change anything.

The fact that your figures are wrong doesn't affect the validity of an argument supposedly based on those figures?

Hey, you want to see some real math?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-01-2009 3:57 AM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-01-2009 4:36 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 160 (517473)
08-01-2009 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Coyote
08-01-2009 3:48 AM


Re: Analogy fails
Coyote writes:

Re: Analogy fails
Lucy, there just isn't anything in your post worthy of a response.

You say Coyote, that you have bones of people antediluvian. Then you say that you have can relate these to contemporary tribes. Please show me the evidence. I was brought up a scientist, still am. But things these days don't seem to add up.


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2009 3:48 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2009 6:46 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
Alan Clarke
Junior Member (Idle past 3695 days)
Posts: 4
From: Evansville, IN, USA
Joined: 07-31-2009


Message 110 of 160 (517474)
08-01-2009 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coyote
07-31-2009 11:25 PM


Re: Analogy fails
Coyote wrote:
Macro-evolution is denied by fundamentalists on religious grounds, but accepted by biologists and other scientists most familiar with the field.

For me, the rejection of macro-evolution has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with science. First of all, the majority of macro-evolution proponents also believe life formed spontaneously in a primordial soup. Some try to dress it up and say on a crystalline substrate. This belief provides insight into the failed foundational mindset which extends beyond the origins of life and into the origins of species. There is a continuum in the philosophy which stretches in all directions to include star and planet formation. (i.e. hydrogen gas “evolves” into heavier elements which “evolve” into stars and planets) All of the mechanisms of evolution, whether they are chemical, biological, or cosmological, have the same foundation:

time + chance = increase in order

But “science” tells us just the opposite:

time + chance = decrease in order

The DNA inside of a cell is “information”. Such an occurrence begs the question, “What is the source of this information?” Energy from the Sun is not information nor is gravity. The Earth is virtually a closed system, so what do you attribute to the source for this highly complex information? Natural selection reduces information. Every time something is “picked”, that selection process narrows the field of variability. Another way of looking at it is like a quality-control worker on an assembly-line who inspects transistor radios. If a radio has a resistor that deviates too much from a particular value, the radio will not play and be rejected. By some chance, an out-of-tolerance resistor may cause the radio to play louder or quieter than normal, but this attribute is not an increase in information, but a difference in magnitude. If the worker retains such a unit, the variability increases in the radio population, but the “complexity” is not changed. For “macro-evolution” to work, the radio must gain a new feature that is useful to the consumer like a headphone jack or a digital tuner instead of a manual dial. I contend that without a deliberate, focused, and inventive engineering department, these features will never be realized by the quality-control worker. If you think they can, then perhaps your idea may find usefulness in the real world where corporations can increase their competiveness by eliminating their engineering departments.

As you can see, I’ve not resorted to “religion” in articulating my response. Why should I? Your idea is destined to fail because it violates what we see in the natural world.

If fundamentalists want to show that micro-evolution can't add up, over time, to macro-evolution they need to show a mechanism that prevents such change. I have yet to see such a mechanism proposed and withstand scientific testing.

How about the mechanism in a cell that corrects copy errors? This will resist your mechanism.

But what’s worse, you have a more fundamental problem: studies on human mtDNA and mutation rates indicate that the first man lived about 6000 years ago. You simply don’t have enough time for your mechanism to perform its magic.

And your analogy, like the tornado in a junkyard, fails because living organisms don't react in the same way as do manufactured items.

Living organisms DO react in many ways as manufactured items. Living cells react adversely to too much heat just as does a spring which looses its temper to too much heat. Light can burn the phosphorous on a CRT screen just like it can destroy a retina. Water can reverse the compaction of beach sand just like it can reverse the formation of proteins. Gravity can wear out the shock absorbers and rubber tires on a car just as it does the knee joints and skin on the feet. Those who have studied “physical chemistry” know that there is an inextricable link between “living organisms” and physical components such as atoms, molecules, compounds, and “manufactured items”. Your “living organism” will have to overcome the ill effects of entropy just as will your automobile if you want to continue driving it. You’ll have to take your automobile to a knowledgeable repairman unless of course some genius designed it to repair itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 07-31-2009 11:25 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 4:45 AM Alan Clarke has not yet responded
 Message 135 by subbie, posted 08-01-2009 4:25 PM Alan Clarke has not yet responded

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 160 (517475)
08-01-2009 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2009 4:14 AM


Re: Analogy fails
DrA. writes:

The fact that your figures are wrong doesn't affect the validity of an argument supposedly based on those figures?

work it out yourself Dick.


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 4:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 4:40 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 112 of 160 (517476)
08-01-2009 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by LucyTheApe
08-01-2009 4:36 AM


Re: Analogy fails
work it out yourself Dick.

I have. I gave you the link. You notice how I used real figures?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-01-2009 4:36 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 113 of 160 (517477)
08-01-2009 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Alan Clarke
08-01-2009 4:35 AM


Gish Gallop
Again you appear to be reciting creationist rubbish almost at random --- the "Gish Gallop" as it is sometimes called.

Here's something to think about. If your nonsense has "everything to do with science", why do scientists (who know about science, which you do not) reject it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Alan Clarke, posted 08-01-2009 4:35 AM Alan Clarke has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 5:22 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2983 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 114 of 160 (517478)
08-01-2009 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2009 3:44 AM


Re: Analogy fails
You gotta love Dr.Adequate's arrogance and how he never was told even once (since I'm here) to be more respectful by the admins ...

I know this is some sort of highway of dicussion where some people don't put their flasher, but come on you won't have more incendiary comments than some of the ones Dr.Adequate is saying sometimes ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 3:44 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 5:50 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 134 by lyx2no, posted 08-01-2009 9:22 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2983 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 115 of 160 (517479)
08-01-2009 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2009 4:45 AM


Re: Gish Gallop
I would like for you to tell me what defines a scientist please ... (and no: a scientist is someone who does science plz)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 4:45 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 5:39 AM slevesque has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 116 of 160 (517480)
08-01-2009 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by slevesque
08-01-2009 5:22 AM


Re: Gish Gallop
I would like for you to tell me what defines a scientist please ... (and no: a scientist is someone who does science plz)

Isn't that rather like asking me what defines a cobbler --- but with none of that talk about mending shoes?

Surely doing science is pretty much the sine qua non of being a scientist. Perhaps we might add the qualification that this should be their profession (as indeed with the definition of cobbler).

I don't quite see what you're asking of me here. But consider, for example, the following:

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision.

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

Now, is there any definition of "scientist" by which these bodies do not consist of scientists? Otherwise my point stands whatever the exact definition should be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 5:22 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 5:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2983 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 117 of 160 (517482)
08-01-2009 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2009 5:39 AM


Re: Gish Gallop
Ok, just wanted to be sure before I started naming scientists who accepts the idea of special creation ...

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK)
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, PhD Marine Biology
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Steven Hayes, Nuclear Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Larry Helmick, Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr Johan Kruger, Zoology
Dr Wolfgang Kuhn, biologist and lecturer
Dr Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jean Lightner, Agriculture, Veterinary science
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Raúl E López, meteorologist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry
Dr Mark McClain, Inorganic Chemistry, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John McEwan, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Douglas Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Robert T. Mitchell, specialist in Internal Medicine and active speaker on creation
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical Engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Mathew Piercy, anaesthetist
Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Ron Samec, Astronomy
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and Archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

Those are only the ones who are alive today. Meaning they have access to all the present-day advancements in Evolution.

This is in response to your allegation that scientists reject creation. This list also does not count the scientists who do not believe in Neo-Darwinist evolution, such as Dr. Lee Spetner for example. It also does not include scientists who do not have a doctorate (which would surely triple that list)

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 5:39 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 6:02 AM slevesque has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 118 of 160 (517483)
08-01-2009 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by slevesque
08-01-2009 5:18 AM


Arrogance
You gotta love Dr.Adequate's arrogance ...

Yeah, I'm adorable.

We seem to have different ideas about what constitutes arrogance.

I think it's arrogant to lecture people on what "science tells us" without (obviously) having studied science, and when he must be more or less aware that people who have devoted their adult lifetimes to studying science disagree with him completely.

You seem to think it arrogant of me to point this out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 5:18 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 5:56 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2983 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 119 of 160 (517485)
08-01-2009 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2009 5:50 AM


Re: Arrogance
I would think that his little 'math error' wasn't because he was 'mathematically illeterate' as you called him, but rather a simple mental calculation error in my opinion.

Even if it was not, I would suggest that the dictionnary definition of arrogance would apply to your comment:

What you have written is indeed ridiculous. I'm going to guess either that you're mathematically illiterate or that you don't know the difference between the word "similarity" and the word "difference".

Biologists, who suffer from neither of these deficiencies, have done the actual math. It's not difficult.

I mean, come on, how low-ball of a comment was that, seriously ?

Oh yeah, and before I forget it, Biologists haven't done the math, population geneticists have ... (Unless of course, you don't know the difference between biology and genetics, in which case I will forgive your ignorance)

See how easy it is to be arrogant ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 5:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 6:14 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 133 by NosyNed, posted 08-01-2009 9:02 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 120 of 160 (517486)
08-01-2009 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by slevesque
08-01-2009 5:47 AM


Re: Gish Gallop
I am aware that a tiny minority of scientists are wrong. Heck, even some that have qualifications in relevant fields. And statistically, they must be fewer than the proportion of scientists who hear voices talking in their heads.

Let me know if any of them ever come up with any valid arguments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 5:47 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 6:11 AM Dr Adequate has 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