|
Post by Gene on Nov 21, 2019 19:17:54 GMT -5
So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling, simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific method has anything to do with ‘science’. Again, you and the people at the creationist sites you quote are incorrect. Controlled physical experiments are not a requirement of the scientific method. This is an often used tactic by creationists to try to support their claim that there is no way to subject the theory of evolution to the scientific method. The seven steps are: 1 - Question. The question you want to answer. 2 - Research. Conduct research. 3 - Hypothesis. Develop a working hypothesis. 4 - Experiment. Test the hypothesis. 5 - Observations. Data you collect during the investigation. 6 - Results/Conclusion. 7 - Communicate. Present/share your results. Replicate the process. Some evolutionary detailsThere you go again, babbling on about the so-called "Scientific Method." I'll bet you never knew that if you rearrange the letters in "Scientific Method" you get "Satan-Made Fiction."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 21, 2019 19:42:20 GMT -5
Again, you and the people at the creationist sites you quote are incorrect. Controlled physical experiments are not a requirement of the scientific method. This is an often used tactic by creationists to try to support their claim that there is no way to subject the theory of evolution to the scientific method. The seven steps are: 1 - Question. The question you want to answer. 2 - Research. Conduct research. 3 - Hypothesis. Develop a working hypothesis. 4 - Experiment. Test the hypothesis. 5 - Observations. Data you collect during the investigation. 6 - Results/Conclusion. 7 - Communicate. Present/share your results. Replicate the process. Some evolutionary detailsThere you go again, babbling on about the so-called "Scientific Method." I'll bet you never knew that if you rearrange the letters in "Scientific Method" you get "Satan-Made Fiction." I didn't know that. Being in an atavistic mood I was going with midsection fetich. I must admit I had never considered modifying the glyphs to get the desired output!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 21, 2019 19:44:19 GMT -5
There you go again, babbling on about the so-called "Scientific Method." I'll bet you never knew that if you rearrange the letters in "Scientific Method" you get "Satan-Made Fiction." I didn't know that. Being in an atavistic mood I was going with midsection fetich.I must admit I had never considered modifying the glyphs to get the desired output!is that like a foot fetich except, you know, higher up?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 21, 2019 19:58:12 GMT -5
I didn't know that. Being in an atavistic mood I was going with midsection fetich.I must admit I had never considered modifying the glyphs to get the desired output!is that like a foot fetich except, you know, higher up? By George, I think SHE’S HE'S got it”. Some credit to Shaw... (and perhaps Oscar Wilde!)
|
|
|
Post by benar on Nov 22, 2019 0:06:30 GMT -5
Awww I nowww - but it does put the thread back on topic after a lengthy hiatus in "changing the subject." And it also offered rational another op to blow his anti-creationist sites horn like a busted record. And IMMEDIATELY he and the other take the thread right back off topic - as if THAT act will bury the fact that evolution is pseudoscience that practices good old 2x2 style pot calling the kettle black on this board full of former 2x2s - surprise, surprise - huh. And on the linked article it is clear to see that evolution meets nine out of ten of the Skeptic Dictionary's own analysis of what constitutes "pseudoscience."(Final comp. "19 minutes ago") @gratu, evolution has a hypothesis (that populations of organisms change over time due to pressure from natural selection). This hypothesis has been validated to the point that evolution is now considered a scientific theory. Would you please educate your readers of the hypothesis proposed by creationism and give a summary of the evidence for this hypothesis. I'm hoping you can discuss why you think creationism is correct, rather than why you think evolution is not.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 22, 2019 0:40:46 GMT -5
@gratu , evolution has a hypothesis (that populations of organisms change over time due to pressure from natural selection). This hypothesis has been validated to the point that evolution is now considered a scientific theory. Would you please educate your readers of the hypothesis proposed by creationism and give a summary of the evidence for this hypothesis. I'm hoping you can discuss why you think creationism is correct, rather than why you think evolution is not. My readers are already educated - your claimed "hypothesis" is shared by creation scientist under a different and old word, namely "Adaptation." And that has been agreed upon by both evolution scientists and creation scientists for ages. But adaptation does not change one kind into a different kind and that is where evolution science becomes pseudoscience by asserting that by natural selection all "species" have evolved fro one living cell - in a mud puddle. There are othe more scientific words used for Adaptation, but I like to use words that grade one students will understand and "hypothesis" doesn't fit that level of communications, nor does it fit the FACT of Apaptation as the def from Miriam Webster will show: Definition of hypothesis 1a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action 2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences 3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement(Final comp. "a few seconds ago") Can you tell me how much oxygen you have taken up in the last 24 hours and thereby deprived deserving people of the oxygen?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 22, 2019 2:09:57 GMT -5
@gratu , evolution has a hypothesis (that populations of organisms change over time due to pressure from natural selection). This hypothesis has been validated to the point that evolution is now considered a scientific theory. Would you please educate your readers of the hypothesis proposed by creationism and give a summary of the evidence for this hypothesis. I'm hoping you can discuss why you think creationism is correct, rather than why you think evolution is not. My readers are already educated - your claimed "hypothesis" is shared by creation scientist under a different and old word, namely "Adaptation." And that has been agreed upon by both evolution scientists and creation scientists for ages. But adaptation does not change one kind into a different kind and that is where evolution science becomes pseudoscience by asserting that by natural selection all "species" have evolved fro one living cell - in a mud puddle. There are othe more scientific words used for Adaptation, but I like to use words that grade one students will understand and "hypothesis" doesn't fit that level of communications, nor does it fit the FACT of Apaptation as the def from Miriam Webster will show: Definition of hypothesis 1a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action 2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences 3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement(Final comp. "a few seconds ago") As per usual you are taking things out of context, -again. Probably pulled it off a creationist site.
Further more you do The Skeptic's Dictionary a huge disservice. The Skeptic's Dictionary is a collection of cross-referenced skeptical essays by Robert Todd Carroll, published on his website skepdic.com and in a printed book.
The articles in the book are in several categories:
Alternative medicine Cryptozoology Extraterrestrials and UFOs Frauds and hoaxes Junk science and pseudoscience Logic and perception New Age beliefs The paranormal and the occult Science and philosophy The supernatural and the metaphysical Please note that last one: The supernatural and the metaphysical.
I'm sure Carroll would have a huge laugh over some of your "creationist" beliefs about "god."
Roy Herbert's review of the paperback version written for the New Scientist magazine commented that "it is an amazing assembly, elegantly written and level-headed, with a wry remark here and there", and that "this superb work is likely to be used so often that it is a pity it is a softback book.".
Skeptical Inquirer stated that it was "a book that should be a staple of everyone’s diet-part of the package we are given at birth to help us avoid the dangers and pitfalls of living in a world riddled with bad ideas and empty promises...".
It was also described by Gary Jason, a Philosophy professor at California State University as "... a good reference book for a critical thinking class."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 22, 2019 11:52:15 GMT -5
My readers are already educated - your claimed "hypothesis" is shared by creation scientist under a different and old word, namely "Adaptation." And that has been agreed upon by both evolution scientists and creation scientists for ages. But adaptation does not change one kind into a different kind and that is where evolution science becomes pseudoscience by asserting that by natural selection all "species" have evolved fro one living cell - in a mud puddle. There are othe more scientific words used for Adaptation, but I like to use words that grade one students will understand and "hypothesis" doesn't fit that level of communications, nor does it fit the FACT of Apaptation as the def from Miriam Webster will show: Definition of hypothesis 1a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action 2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences 3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement(Final comp. "a few seconds ago") The discussion was regarding scientific hypothesis. Hypothesis basics A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This is called falsifiability and testability, an idea that was advanced in the mid-20th century a British philosopher named Karl Popper, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. A key function in this step in the scientific method is deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, and then performing those experiments to see whether they support the predictions. A hypothesis is usually written in the form of an if/then statement, according to the University of California. This statement gives a possibility (if) and explains what may happen because of the possibility (then). The statement could also include "may." Here are some examples of hypothesis statements: If garlic repels fleas, then a dog that is given garlic every day will not get fleas. Bacterial growth may be affected by moisture levels in the air. If sugar causes cavities, then people who eat a lot of candy may be more prone to cavities. If UV light can damage the eyes, then maybe UV light is a cause of blindness.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 22, 2019 13:13:15 GMT -5
"The discussion was regarding scientific hypothesis." Read it again sam - My readers are already educated - your claimed "hypothesis" is shared by creation scientist under a different and old word, namely "Adaptation." And that has been agreed upon by both evolution scientists and creation scientists for ages. But adaptation does not change one kind into a different kind and that is where evolution science becomes pseudoscience by asserting that by natural selection all "species" have evolved fro one living cell - in a mud puddle. There are othe more scientific words used for Adaptation, but I like to use words that grade one students will understand and "hypothesis" doesn't fit that level of communications, nor does it fit the FACT of Apaptation as the def from Miriam Webster will show: So you made "hypothesis" into the discussion and said nada about the discussion. The discussion is that creationists can only defend their position by using their own definitions of the ideas being discussed. You may continue to repeat the false claim but it won't make it true. "A new species exists when individuals from diverging populations no longer recognize one another as potential mates, or opportunities for mating become limited by differences in habitat use or reproductive schedules." This has been observed many times. You could read all about it here but I doubt you will. Creationists will say in is not a new species because the dog did not turn into a cat.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 22, 2019 14:11:37 GMT -5
Again, you and the people at the creationist sites you quote are incorrect. Controlled physical experiments are not a requirement of the scientific method. This is an often used tactic by creationists to try to support their claim that there is no way to subject the theory of evolution to the scientific method. The seven steps are: 1 - Question. The question you want to answer. 2 - Research. Conduct research. 3 - Hypothesis. Develop a working hypothesis. 4 - Experiment. Test the hypothesis. 5 - Observations. Data you collect during the investigation. 6 - Results/Conclusion. 7 - Communicate. Present/share your results. Replicate the process. Some evolutionary detailsThere you go again, babbling on about the so-called "Scientific Method." I'll bet you never knew that if you rearrange the letters in "Scientific Method" you get "Satan-Made Fiction." And who know what it implies when it's read backwards and upside down!!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 22, 2019 14:12:39 GMT -5
There you go again, babbling on about the so-called "Scientific Method." I'll bet you never knew that if you rearrange the letters in "Scientific Method" you get "Satan-Made Fiction." I didn't know that. Being in an atavistic mood I was going with midsection fetich. I must admit I had never considered modifying the glyphs to get the desired output!Well if you don't learn to mix things up a bit you just will never make a good creationist.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 22, 2019 14:14:33 GMT -5
Excerpts Is evolution pseudoscience? (the subject of the thread) by Mark Johansen The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories.1 The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’. Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list. Let’s look at how evolution exhibits the fallacies listed by these self-proclaimed skeptics, with just one example of each. 1. Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.In almost every debate about origins, the first argument given by the evolutionists is an appeal to authority. The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, ‘While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve.’2 [our emphasis] We are supposed to respect these scientists because science has proven so powerful. But the people who preach evolution didn’t discover gravity or pasteurization or semiconductors. They just call themselves by the same name, ‘scientist’. ......see the rest at the link below....... So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling, simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific method has anything to do with ‘science’. Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. F ew other pseudosciences—astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever—would meet so many. (emphasis gratu's) Creation.com creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience www.youtube.com/channel/UCAJfDidJyukTekgSRZrjadw
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 22, 2019 16:02:39 GMT -5
Excerpts Is evolution pseudoscience? (the subject of the thread) by Mark Johansen The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories.1 The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’. Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list. Let’s look at how evolution exhibits the fallacies listed by these self-proclaimed skeptics, with just one example of each. 1. Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.In almost every debate about origins, the first argument given by the evolutionists is an appeal to authority. The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, ‘While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve.’2 [our emphasis] We are supposed to respect these scientists because science has proven so powerful. But the people who preach evolution didn’t discover gravity or pasteurization or semiconductors. They just call themselves by the same name, ‘scientist’. ......see the rest at the link below....... So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling, simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific method has anything to do with ‘science’. Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. F ew other pseudosciences—astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever—would meet so many. (emphasis gratu's) Creation.com creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience Like I said, gratu;
You pulled it off of a "creationist" site ! You didn't get the information from Carrol's book. Knowing as I do how a creationist site will leave out part of the context and/or twist the text to make it appear to say what they & you want to believe, - I certainly wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of a creationist site . I have seen how they operated in the past.
Why don't you go to Carrol's book The Skeptic's Dictionary and check out what is actually stated? You can get the book here:
The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions
Robert Todd Carroll, Robert T. Carroll
Published by Wiley (2003)
ISBN 10: 0471272426 ISBN 13: 9780471272427
Used First Edition
Quantity Available: 1
From: Better World Books (Mishawaka, IN, U.S.A.)
US $ 4.36
Now wouldn't it be well worth $ 4.36 too find out what Carrol really said?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 22, 2019 16:05:14 GMT -5
"Creationists will say in is not a new species because the dog did not turn into a cat. " Try accurately quoting creationist without the bait and switch word "species." Creation science does not equate "species" with "kind" and YOU would know ithat before disgusting "species.". (Final comp "a few seconds ago") There is no bait and switch. Creationists continue to make the claim that no one has seen the one specie evolve into a new/different specie. Proof is offered and creationists either redefine the mean of species or start using a different word. Kind means nothing. Species is well defined.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 22, 2019 21:30:52 GMT -5
There is no bait and switch. Creationists continue to make the claim that no one has seen the one specie evolve into a new/different specie. Proof is offered and creationists either redefine the mean of species or start using a different word. Kind means nothing. Species is well defined. Excerpts In the first chapter of Genesis the phrase "after its kind" or "after their kind" occurs ten different times. And this is what happens when individuals of the same kind/species reproduce. But if at some point individuals cannot mate/reproduce they are considered different species. The word translated in Genesis as "kind" is the Hebrew word min. It cannot be equated with our modern term species. This can be observed from the following passage in the Book of Leviticus where the following birds are mentioned: [/quote] I suppose you mean Leviticus 11 13 And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 14 the kite, the falcon of any kind, 15 every raven of any kind, 16 the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, 18 the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, 19 the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.You are presenting this as an authority? A book that does not differentiate between a bird and a bat? It is like expecting Chicken Little to contain an explanation atmospheric composition. But electromagnetic radiation was not mentioned. And neither was species. But because the goat herders that told the stories that became the bible could only relate what they observed does not mean humans shouldn't move forward. How do you explain how an animal can adapt? Can you grow a 6th digit? Of course, you could tell us your hypothesis as to how the changes happen. From where do the changes come? How can they be passed from one generation to the next?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Nov 22, 2019 23:34:34 GMT -5
And this is what happens when individuals of the same kind/species reproduce. But if at some point individuals cannot mate/reproduce they are considered different species. The word translated in Genesis as "kind" is the Hebrew word min. It cannot be equated with our modern term species. This can be observed from the following passage in the Book of Leviticus where the following birds are mentioned: I suppose you mean Leviticus 11 13 And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 14 the kite, the falcon of any kind, 15 every raven of any kind, 16 the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, 18 the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, 19 the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.You are presenting this as an authority? A book that does not differentiate between a bird and a bat? It is like expecting Chicken Little to contain an explanation atmospheric composition. But electromagnetic radiation was not mentioned. And neither was species. But because the goat herders that told the stories that became the bible could only relate what they observed does not mean humans shouldn't move forward. How do you explain how an animal can adapt? Can you grow a 6th digit? Of course, you could tell us your hypothesis as to how the changes happen. From where do the changes come? How can they be passed from one generation to the next? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- gratu's reply Well, I'm learning some more stuff I think without a TMB tutor - I deleted your invisible "" under your last sentence and STILL there was no space below full quote to place my reply in. SO that's just fine - I'll answer inside the quote box --- “How do you explain how an animal can adapt? Can you grow a 6th digit? “Besides now avoiding the fact that “kind” was well defined long before “species” was even coined, I'll give only this much more of my time – every answer to your questions is available to you without wasting more of my time ignoring my answers.: The answer to the above quoted question is readily available to YOU without anything from me – googleit for yourself if – I say again “IF” you have any interest it the scientific answers that have recently come to light for adaptation even of single-cell organisms, let alone human beings. (Final comp. "7 minutes ago") [/quote] You still didn't answer rational's question @gratu ..... !
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 22, 2019 23:51:01 GMT -5
Like I said, gratu;
You pulled it off of a "creationist" site !
You didn't get the information from Carrol's book.
Knowing as I do how a creationist site will leave out part of the context and/or twist the text to make it appear to say what they & you want to believe, - I certainly wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of a creationist site. I have seen how they operated in the past.
Why don't you go to Carrol's book The Skeptic's Dictionary and check out what is actually stated?
You can get the book here:
The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions
Robert Todd Carroll, Robert T. Carroll
Published by Wiley (2003)
ISBN 10: 0471272426 ISBN 13: 9780471272427
Used First Edition
Quantity Available: 1
From: Better World Books (Mishawaka, IN, U.S.A.)
US $ 4.36
Now wouldn't it be well worth $ 4.36 too find out what Carrol really said?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 23, 2019 14:23:05 GMT -5
Excerpts Is evolution pseudoscience? (the subject of the thread) by Mark Johansen The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories.1 The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’. Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list. Let’s look at how evolution exhibits the fallacies listed by these self-proclaimed skeptics, with just one example of each. 1. Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.In almost every debate about origins, the first argument given by the evolutionists is an appeal to authority. The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, ‘While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve.’2 [our emphasis] We are supposed to respect these scientists because science has proven so powerful. But the people who preach evolution didn’t discover gravity or pasteurization or semiconductors. They just call themselves by the same name, ‘scientist’. ......see the rest at the link below....... So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling, simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific method has anything to do with ‘science’. Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. F ew other pseudosciences—astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever—would meet so many. (emphasis gratu's) Creation.com creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience Like I said, gratu;
You pulled it off of a "creationist" site ! You didn't get the information from Carrol's book. Knowing as I do how a creationist site will leave out part of the context and/or twist the text to make it appear to say what they & you want to believe, - I certainly wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of a creationist site . I have seen how they operated in the past.
Why don't you go to Carrol's book The Skeptic's Dictionary and check out what is actually stated? You can get the book here:
The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions
Robert Todd Carroll, Robert T. Carroll
Published by Wiley (2003)
ISBN 10: 0471272426 ISBN 13: 9780471272427
Used First Edition
Quantity Available: 1
From: Better World Books (Mishawaka, IN, U.S.A.)
US $ 4.36
Now wouldn't it be well worth $ 4.36 too find out what Carrol really said?
The objective of Creationists is not Truth. Their one agenda is to align things with their holy book. If science discoveries contradict what the Bible says then they can't be right according to that crowd. Facts just don't matter to them.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 23, 2019 17:10:12 GMT -5
Like I said, gratu;
You pulled it off of a "creationist" site !
You didn't get the information from Carrol's book.
Knowing as I do how a creationist site will leave out part of the context and/or twist the text to make it appear to say what they & you want to believe, - I certainly wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of a creationist site. I have seen how they operated in the past.
Why don't you go to Carrol's book The Skeptic's Dictionary and check out what is actually stated?
You can get the book here:
The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions
Robert Todd Carroll, Robert T. Carroll
Published by Wiley (2003)
ISBN 10: 0471272426 ISBN 13: 9780471272427
Used First Edition
Quantity Available: 1
From: Better World Books (Mishawaka, IN, U.S.A.)
US $ 4.36
Now wouldn't it be well worth $ 4.36 too find out what Carrol really said?
“Why don't you go to Carrol's book The Skeptic's Dictionary and check out what is actually stated? “ I guess I didn't leave it posted long enough – I didn't want to be the one keeping this threat top side. But now that it is near top side by snow's assistance, I'll REPEAT my previously posted answer. I did – and before I posted the excerpts from creation.com. So YOU can buy the 1 copy that you found and check it out yourself, which, from what YOU write seems quite needed. (Final comp. "3 minutes ago") You did what? Read what Carrol actually wrote? Or just the burb from the Creation site?
If you didn't, then you are still quoting from a site which I have found to be dishonest in their attempt to prove their solely religious view.
They do not care about facts. They try to shoe-horn anything that they can into a shoe which totally doesn't fit.
They will pad the shoe or cut off part of the foot, -just like Cinderella's step-sisters did in an attempt to fool people!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 23, 2019 19:58:30 GMT -5
"You did what? Read what Carrol actually wrote?" Can you actually read? (Final comp. "a few seconds ago") Yes, I indeed can read. What I question is whether you read what Carrol wrote instead of just reading your skewed "creationist" site.
As usual, your post is an attempt to circumvent answering questions But then, -we have become used to your dissembling, Gratu.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2019 22:13:11 GMT -5
"So we've heard a lot of "evidence" about the angle of the bullet indicating the shot was fired by someone my client's height... the striations on the recovered round fragment matching the gun of my client... my clients fingerprints on the window frame.... my client's DNA at the scene... the psychiatric files indicating my client's troubled mental state and long standing grudge against the victim..... the plethora of contractions and implausible alibis offered by my client.....
.... but what I want to know is.... were any of you "experts" there to see what happened? Cause it's in the past, so nobody can really know.... it sounds like a conspiracy against my client because he's a Christian! It's a hoax!! Here - watch this YouTube video about the myth of arterial spray!"
[It was about then that the accused began to have misgivings about hiring an attorney without checking to make sure he wasn't a Creationist]
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 24, 2019 16:28:38 GMT -5
Besides now avoiding the fact that “kind” was well defined long before “species” was even coined, I'll give only this much more of my time – every answer to your questions is available to you without wasting more of my time ignoring my answers. The word 'hoof' was also defined before 'neutron'. But this doesn't matter either since the claim of creationists has always been that there are no new species developing. That incorrect claim has been demonstrated to be incorrect with the discovery of species that have recently emerged. Your argument that kind was described only indicates the lack of detail and understanding the goat herders had regarding reproduction. The initial question remains unanswered. How does an animal develop the means to adapt that will be passed down from generation without the evolution of DNA?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2019 8:17:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 25, 2019 14:29:42 GMT -5
@gratu are you an exact replica of your parents? Which one? Obviously you aren't. What was the process that caused you to be similar but different? That is all evolution is talking about. Our obvious ability to not be an exact replica of those that birthed us. Over a long period of time the more recent generations no longer resemble the far older generations. That is the process of evolution. So to say evolution is stupid, you are denying that you are any different from your parents. That you look exactly like them, think exactly like them etc. We can observe that just isn't the case. So I have no idea how anyone can say we don't evolve?
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Nov 25, 2019 16:32:35 GMT -5
Here’s Douglas Axe, author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, (Harper One, 2016) in an interview at Biola prof Sean McDowell’s blog: MCDOWELL: Scientifically speaking, what is your biggest critique of Darwinian evolution? AXE: Darwin’s mechanism explains some things, such as the ongoing annual battle between the flu virus and humans. These things may impact human lives greatly, but they have no bearing at all on the weighty question of where humans came from. With respect to that question, the only thing that keeps Darwinism going is the culture of intimidation that makes so many of us afraid to question it. In other words, as an answer to the big question of our origin, Darwinism has succeeded only socially, not scientifically. It is living proof of the power of herdthink. If I’m right about this, then there should be no shortage of scientific refutations of the theory. This is indeed the case. Take your pick. Those who like math may prefer the various refutations based on probability—all boiling down to the plain fact that blind causes are stupendously unlikely to stumble upon any of the ingenious contrivances that characterize life (and, again, natural selection is completely irrelevant until these things are stumbled upon). Those intrigued by the problem of consciousness might prefer refutations based on the incoherence of physical explanations of mind. Or, if common-sense reasoning is your thing, I’ve developed a refutation based on the unacceptability of appeals to scary coincidences (which Darwinism ends up being). Then again, if you simply value scientific honesty, you ought to be moved by the fact that thousands of professional Darwinists laboring for 160 years have not explained the origin of a single complex functional feature of life with the degree of rigor expected in all serious sciences. Lots of imaginative storytelling and vigorous handwaving, but nothing at all that rises to the level of a demonstration. Not even close. Sean McDowell, “The Origin of Species Turns 160 Years Old. What Is the State of Darwinism Today?” at Sean McDowell: Bringing truth to a new generation Central Weakness of Darwinism today“Evolution is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforth bow and which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.” -Teilhard de Chardin Phillip Johnson: “The continual efforts to base a religion or ethical system upon evolution are not an aberration, and practically all the most prominent Darwinist writers have tried their hand at it. Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth. As such it is an obvious starting point for speculation about how we ought to live and what we ought to value” (Darwin on Trial, p. 163)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2019 23:20:09 GMT -5
Here’s Douglas Axe, author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, (Harper One, 2016) in an interview at Biola prof Sean McDowell’s blog: MCDOWELL: Scientifically speaking, what is your biggest critique of Darwinian evolution? AXE: Darwin’s mechanism explains some things, such as the ongoing annual battle between the flu virus and humans. These things may impact human lives greatly, but they have no bearing at all on the weighty question of where humans came from. With respect to that question, the only thing that keeps Darwinism going is the culture of intimidation that makes so many of us afraid to question it. In other words, as an answer to the big question of our origin, Darwinism has succeeded only socially, not scientifically. It is living proof of the power of herdthink. If I’m right about this, then there should be no shortage of scientific refutations of the theory. This is indeed the case. Take your pick. Those who like math may prefer the various refutations based on probability—all boiling down to the plain fact that blind causes are stupendously unlikely to stumble upon any of the ingenious contrivances that characterize life (and, again, natural selection is completely irrelevant until these things are stumbled upon). Those intrigued by the problem of consciousness might prefer refutations based on the incoherence of physical explanations of mind. Or, if common-sense reasoning is your thing, I’ve developed a refutation based on the unacceptability of appeals to scary coincidences (which Darwinism ends up being). Then again, if you simply value scientific honesty, you ought to be moved by the fact that thousands of professional Darwinists laboring for 160 years have not explained the origin of a single complex functional feature of life with the degree of rigor expected in all serious sciences. Lots of imaginative storytelling and vigorous handwaving, but nothing at all that rises to the level of a demonstration. Not even close. Sean McDowell, “The Origin of Species Turns 160 Years Old. What Is the State of Darwinism Today?” at Sean McDowell: Bringing truth to a new generation Central Weakness of Darwinism today“Evolution is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforth bow and which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.” -Teilhard de Chardin Phillip Johnson: “The continual efforts to base a religion or ethical system upon evolution are not an aberration, and practically all the most prominent Darwinist writers have tried their hand at it. Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth. As such it is an obvious starting point for speculation about how we ought to live and what we ought to value” (Darwin on Trial, p. 163) As a molecular biologist myself, there are a number of obvious objections to Axe's critique. I don't think that enumerating them would serve a functional purpose here though. I've tried that in the past, but after composing several paragraphs of thorough and accurate response and being met with more copy/paste full of misleading "scientific Creationist" opinion, it seems futile. Doubtless this will be pounced on as cowardly, but just consider it's possible to not know what you don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2019 23:27:25 GMT -5
I would greatly prefer a long debate with Axe himself, but the most daring thing he's ever engaged in is a radio discussion with a theistic evolutionary biologist, and a challenge to debate Bill Nye (an engineer, with no exceptional expertise in the biological sciences).
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Nov 26, 2019 0:32:12 GMT -5
“I've tried that in the past, ...” If you did that in the past on this board, unless you deleted it, it would still be on this board somewhere that could be easily linked (to avoid re-write and prove your claim). So, I'll opt for your self-assessment of cowardice for now. Final comp. “a few seconds ago”) Of course you would @gratu !!! Not that you are in any position to say that, considering the amount of questions asked by others that you have not answered but copied and pasted "stuff" from Creationists sites !!
|
|