-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is a 'theory' ?
- Thread starter Iasion
- Start date
newhope101
Active Member
Good point! I suppose that it is also fair to point out that you were quoting me, not Frank Merton. 
That is a wonderful statement, but you clearly do not practice what you preach. You only listen to one side. Dawkins has carefully studied creationists' distortions of the research, and he exposes them for the nonsense that they really are.
However, the truth to a discussion involves both sides, doesn't it?
Look, I hold no illusions that you will consider the evidence. One of the things that inspired Dawkins to write his book was a TV interview he got hooked into by a fundamentalist. She pointed out that she had visited a lot of museums and had seen no fossil evidence that we were evolved apes. She was right, we first were knucklewalkers, then decendant from something like a chimp, now we are decendant from some thing..nothing like a chimp. I guess your fossils must be multi purpose!Dawkins, quite stunned, kept repeating that the fossils were there. He named them. He cited other evidence. No matter what he said, she simply acted as if he had said nothing. That is classic argumentum ad nauseam--ignore all counterevidence and simply repeat your claims.
No, what is ad nauseam is repliers not being able to address posted research with the same robustness they are prepared to belittle creationists. Having a shot at me means literally nothing. I am no one and neither are you. How about some evidence?..as opposed to what you or Dawkins 'says'.
Molecular Clocks have been shown to be non constant and erranous. [/i]
Dawkins addresses that phony objection in great detail. He explains how they work and why we have the level of confidence in them that they do. That confidence comes from the fact that they can be cross-checked against each other and verified by independent means. Again, you will repeat what you have heard, but you will not check your facts. For example, your link on "molecular clocks" (but one of the many clocks that Dawkins described) actually supports the conclusion that those clocks have demonstrated reliability, although someone not checking the link would easily be fooled into thinking it supported your claim. Dawkins explains in detail how they work and why we consider them reliable.
Knowledge of approximately-constant rate of molecular evolution in particular sets of lineages also facilitates establishing the dates of phylogenetic events, including those not documented by fossils, such as the divergence of living taxa and the formation of the phylogenetic tree. But in these cases especially over long stretches of time the limitations of MCH (above) must be considered; such estimates may be off by 50% or more.
Molecular clock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did Dawkins refer to this in his books?
I think it is you that refuses to acknowledge the truth and wishes to live in fairy land.... no disrespect intended! No consistent clock and you do not dispute chaos theory, therefore Dawkins was badly wrong in his simplistic explanations of how life evolves. Genes are not selfish, they are lucky as seen by genetic drift studies.
...Dawkins explains why DNA represents such solid evidence, but the icing on the cake is that both the fossil record and methods of comparing DNA corroborate each other (Only in hindsight. eg hippo is not related to a pig but a whale. Thehuman Y chromosome is remarkably different to the chimp hence the requirement for accelerated evolution.) in such a way that the theory of evolution cannot be doubted...
What?!? Do my eyes deceive me, or did you just admit that whales and hippos are related? You can only arrive at that conclusion if you buy off on the theory of evolution. Of course, whales and pigs also have a common ancestor. But a pig is not the closest ancestor to the hippo as was commonly thought due to morphology, and is an example of similar morphology meaning squat as far as ancestry goes...and there are a plethora of examples and hopefully, you know at least some of them.It is just that the whales' common ancestor with hippos was more recent on the geologic time scale. Anyway, I am a bit stunned that you seem to accept one claim by evolutionists in order to criticize a straw man. Fascinating. What is more facinating is that your researchers can look at the same evidence and disagree on major differences eg ancestry of birds. That's how clear and convincing your fossils are.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
Which bird ancesry do you adhere to, and can you defend it appropriately? I take neither side, of course, but it is hilarious to see your irrefuteable evidence once again headed for the garbage bin of delusionary evidence past, along with your knucklewalking ancestry, LUCA and lots more.
Gosh, I love it when you cite articles that support evolution 100%, but quibble with something some researcher has said about how it occurs. At least I post research and give something more valuable that words. Science is different from religion. It is open to challenge. That article did not attack evolution theory, but it did say that the process was more chaotic than imagined by Darwin. I could see nothing in the article that Dawkins might object to other than the author's depiction of what Darwin believed. Darwin made evolutionary predictions. The article state that evolution is unpredictable. Hence your theoretical models are out the window!The moecular clock is faulty, evolution is chaotic, and there are no new genes per se, morphology does not necessarily indicate ancestry and traits arise independently. I'd say your models are all broken and guesswork at best(Dawkins is the modern version of "Darwin's Bulldog".) By juxtaposing these "very educated and credentialed persons" with "creationists", you give the false impression that the two groups have something in common. They do not. This is the same technique that has been used by creationists to frame Stephen Jay Gould's evolution-friendly idea of "punctuated equilibrium" as an attack on evolution theory rather than simply an alternative proposal to Darwinian gradualism. It drove Gould crazy that his work was abused in that way, and he made that quite clear before he died.
No it is as I depicted exactly. Your researchers found fossils that did not slip into smooth transistion as expected, so they had to come up with 'puntuated equilibruim'. The attack on evolution does not refer to the invention of a name. The attack relates to the finding of fossils that did not fit your initial hypothesis so you had to go invent another hypothesis to make the fossil evididence align with TOE. TOE is a theory in evolution!
There are also creation scientists around. I am sure it is difficult for them to get funding for any project that flys in the face of TOE in any way.
Jonathan Sarfati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sarfati's expertise is in physical chemistry, not biology, and it is not difficult for so-called "creation scientists" to get funding. They get it from tax-exempt religious sources and private individuals with too much money. The reason that they fail to get it from more conventional sources for scientific research is that they do not do science. They write papers that cannot get published for lack of scientific merit, and they nitpick at the work of other scientific findings as if the nitpicking were genuine research.
That is not true, I can cite Gonzales, who lost his fellowship, not because of his work, but because of what he believes and I can produce the emails to prove it if you like. The point being there are educated and credentialed people do not accept your evidence for evolution it is not just the realm of the uneducated as often implied, and a fact evolutionists appear unable to accept at all.
You are a nasty sort of person full of ire for creationists it appears.
Rather than ridiculing me, why not try something new like presenting evidence.
Scientists are usually open minded in relation to their theories, but not when it comes to TOE. Evolutionary research is done with a priori in place, ancestry, and does not meet the scientific benchmark of sufficient refuteability, and hence is not a true science any more that creationism is.
The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution itself. It therefore, cannot explain anything at the moment. Rather TOE morphs to fit what is found and is the only macroevolution going on around here.
That is a wonderful statement, but you clearly do not practice what you preach. You only listen to one side. Dawkins has carefully studied creationists' distortions of the research, and he exposes them for the nonsense that they really are. However, the truth to a discussion involves both sides, doesn't it?
Look, I hold no illusions that you will consider the evidence. One of the things that inspired Dawkins to write his book was a TV interview he got hooked into by a fundamentalist. She pointed out that she had visited a lot of museums and had seen no fossil evidence that we were evolved apes. She was right, we first were knucklewalkers, then decendant from something like a chimp, now we are decendant from some thing..nothing like a chimp. I guess your fossils must be multi purpose!Dawkins, quite stunned, kept repeating that the fossils were there. He named them. He cited other evidence. No matter what he said, she simply acted as if he had said nothing. That is classic argumentum ad nauseam--ignore all counterevidence and simply repeat your claims.
No, what is ad nauseam is repliers not being able to address posted research with the same robustness they are prepared to belittle creationists. Having a shot at me means literally nothing. I am no one and neither are you. How about some evidence?..as opposed to what you or Dawkins 'says'.
Molecular Clocks have been shown to be non constant and erranous. [/i]
Dawkins addresses that phony objection in great detail. He explains how they work and why we have the level of confidence in them that they do. That confidence comes from the fact that they can be cross-checked against each other and verified by independent means. Again, you will repeat what you have heard, but you will not check your facts. For example, your link on "molecular clocks" (but one of the many clocks that Dawkins described) actually supports the conclusion that those clocks have demonstrated reliability, although someone not checking the link would easily be fooled into thinking it supported your claim. Dawkins explains in detail how they work and why we consider them reliable.
Knowledge of approximately-constant rate of molecular evolution in particular sets of lineages also facilitates establishing the dates of phylogenetic events, including those not documented by fossils, such as the divergence of living taxa and the formation of the phylogenetic tree. But in these cases especially over long stretches of time the limitations of MCH (above) must be considered; such estimates may be off by 50% or more.
Molecular clock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did Dawkins refer to this in his books?
I think it is you that refuses to acknowledge the truth and wishes to live in fairy land.... no disrespect intended! No consistent clock and you do not dispute chaos theory, therefore Dawkins was badly wrong in his simplistic explanations of how life evolves. Genes are not selfish, they are lucky as seen by genetic drift studies.
...Dawkins explains why DNA represents such solid evidence, but the icing on the cake is that both the fossil record and methods of comparing DNA corroborate each other (Only in hindsight. eg hippo is not related to a pig but a whale. Thehuman Y chromosome is remarkably different to the chimp hence the requirement for accelerated evolution.) in such a way that the theory of evolution cannot be doubted...
What?!?
Do my eyes deceive me, or did you just admit that whales and hippos are related? You can only arrive at that conclusion if you buy off on the theory of evolution. Of course, whales and pigs also have a common ancestor. But a pig is not the closest ancestor to the hippo as was commonly thought due to morphology, and is an example of similar morphology meaning squat as far as ancestry goes...and there are a plethora of examples and hopefully, you know at least some of them.It is just that the whales' common ancestor with hippos was more recent on the geologic time scale. Anyway, I am a bit stunned that you seem to accept one claim by evolutionists in order to criticize a straw man. Fascinating. What is more facinating is that your researchers can look at the same evidence and disagree on major differences eg ancestry of birds. That's how clear and convincing your fossils are.Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
Which bird ancesry do you adhere to, and can you defend it appropriately? I take neither side, of course, but it is hilarious to see your irrefuteable evidence once again headed for the garbage bin of delusionary evidence past, along with your knucklewalking ancestry, LUCA and lots more.
Gosh, I love it when you cite articles that support evolution 100%, but quibble with something some researcher has said about how it occurs. At least I post research and give something more valuable that words. Science is different from religion. It is open to challenge. That article did not attack evolution theory, but it did say that the process was more chaotic than imagined by Darwin. I could see nothing in the article that Dawkins might object to other than the author's depiction of what Darwin believed. Darwin made evolutionary predictions. The article state that evolution is unpredictable. Hence your theoretical models are out the window!The moecular clock is faulty, evolution is chaotic, and there are no new genes per se, morphology does not necessarily indicate ancestry and traits arise independently. I'd say your models are all broken and guesswork at best(Dawkins is the modern version of "Darwin's Bulldog".) By juxtaposing these "very educated and credentialed persons" with "creationists", you give the false impression that the two groups have something in common. They do not. This is the same technique that has been used by creationists to frame Stephen Jay Gould's evolution-friendly idea of "punctuated equilibrium" as an attack on evolution theory rather than simply an alternative proposal to Darwinian gradualism. It drove Gould crazy that his work was abused in that way, and he made that quite clear before he died.
No it is as I depicted exactly. Your researchers found fossils that did not slip into smooth transistion as expected, so they had to come up with 'puntuated equilibruim'. The attack on evolution does not refer to the invention of a name. The attack relates to the finding of fossils that did not fit your initial hypothesis so you had to go invent another hypothesis to make the fossil evididence align with TOE. TOE is a theory in evolution!
There are also creation scientists around. I am sure it is difficult for them to get funding for any project that flys in the face of TOE in any way.
Jonathan Sarfati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sarfati's expertise is in physical chemistry, not biology, and it is not difficult for so-called "creation scientists" to get funding. They get it from tax-exempt religious sources and private individuals with too much money. The reason that they fail to get it from more conventional sources for scientific research is that they do not do science. They write papers that cannot get published for lack of scientific merit, and they nitpick at the work of other scientific findings as if the nitpicking were genuine research.
That is not true, I can cite Gonzales, who lost his fellowship, not because of his work, but because of what he believes and I can produce the emails to prove it if you like. The point being there are educated and credentialed people do not accept your evidence for evolution it is not just the realm of the uneducated as often implied, and a fact evolutionists appear unable to accept at all.
You are a nasty sort of person full of ire for creationists it appears.
Rather than ridiculing me, why not try something new like presenting evidence.
Scientists are usually open minded in relation to their theories, but not when it comes to TOE. Evolutionary research is done with a priori in place, ancestry, and does not meet the scientific benchmark of sufficient refuteability, and hence is not a true science any more that creationism is.
The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution itself. It therefore, cannot explain anything at the moment. Rather TOE morphs to fit what is found and is the only macroevolution going on around here.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Yes. That is why Dawkins took the time to address creationist objections to evolution theory. I wish that you would take the time to read them, but you do not want to look at that side of the argument, lest it challenge your preconceptions about the truth.
We descended from a being like Lucy--a primate that walked upright but had a cranium like that of a modern-day chimp. In this case, fossils serve our purposes--as evidence of the truth.
Argumentum ad nauseam is exactly what I said it was. We can disagree over whether she or you have engaged in it. But you are right that she was not able to address research with the same robustness as Dawkins was. She merely ignored his argument and insisted she knew better.
I don't recall, but why should he? It doesn't contradict anything he said. It is just a claim in Wikipedia that one of many methods for establishing length of time "may be off by 50% or more". That may or may not be true, but dating techniques rely on cross-checked methodologies, not that single method. The authors of the study did not find their belief in evolution challenged, only that the evidence fully supported a particular type of molecular dating in their opinion.
If I am living in "fairy land", then I am in good company. All of the world's leading experts on biology live there with me.
Dawkins would agree that "genes are lucky". He has always been at great pains to distinguish metaphors from literal language, even if you decide to ignore the difference and use his metaphors to misrepresent what he clearly meant by them.You still can't distinguish between a religious doctrine and science, even though the distinction has been pointed out to you many times. Scientists challenge theories and retest hypotheses all the time. That is actually what they are trained to do. If the bird-dinosaur link went unchallenged, then they would not be doing their jobs. As it happens, though, you have not really assimilated the material that you direct other people to read. You use this material to argue that the theory of evolution is in doubt. What the article you linked to reported about the researchers' conclusion was: "This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed."
Argument from ridicule sometimes makes its purveyor look ridiculous, as in the present case. Whichever side of that argument you put yourself on, you still end up on the side of researchers who do not question the factual basis of evolution theory. What makes you look ridiculous is that you think choosing a side gets us closer to rejecting that theory.
Too bad for you that Darwin and his theory have been making predictions that came to be true ever since he published it. You misunderstood the article, which only claimed that evolution was more chaotic than Darwin imagined, not that it made no reliable predictions! The authors did not address the predictions that have been corroborated by evidence, but Dawkins and others have done that repeatedly. Again, you need to look at the evidence in order to see what I mean here. For example, read about Darwin's finches. That was one of his examples that convinced scientists of his time who were prone to believing in special creation. Also, it is worth noting that Darwin's theory predicts that we will never find rock strata with fossils that are "mixed" from the perspective of geographic eras. Since Darwin's time, that prediction has held. We have never found one single exception to it.
Again, the 'punctuated equilibrium' claim by Gould was never meant as a challenge to evolution theory. You have--once again--misconstrued an argument between evolutionists over how to interpret the data as an argument against the theory that they both take as factually correct! BTW, Dawkins disagreed vigorously with Gould's interpretation of the data, and he did so very eloquently. But he also gave a very moving elegy for Gould that explained his great respect for his intellectual rival's defense of his 'punctuated equilibrium' position. Both men were in agreement that creationism was nonsense.
I'm sure that Gonzales has his side of the story, and I do not dispute that people are treated unfairly even when they are on the right side of an argument. His treatment may or may not have been unfair. It is still absurd to claim that the near unanimous acceptance of evolution theory among biologists is maintained through intimidation alone. Scientific theories have been overturned in the past despite the opposition of the scientific establishment. They have been overturned by competent researchers who had the courage to buck the trend. So far, creationists have not been able to produce any. I'm not saying that you should give up hope, but I do think that you ought to challenge your own belief that the majority of the world's scientific authorities are wrong in their belief that evolution theory is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you do, do not be surprised if your fellow creationists tend to treat you even worse than scientists treat peers who object to what they regard as settled science.
Sorry if I have offended you. I do not think that you are nasty or mendacious, only misguided. I have presented evidence and pointed out why yours was counter-productive. From what I can tell, you do not really examine the evidence. We've seen often enough that you give links to evidence that actually corroborate, not challenge, the theory of evolution. Usually, you are just pointing out that scientists have disagreements with each other. Scientific methodology would not work if they never challenged each other, so your "evidence" just makes it look like you do not understand how science works.
Scientists are not as open-minded as you think when it comes to challenging what they regard as settled science. They tend to be a skeptical, surly lot, just like you creationists. The difference I see is that they actually listen to the other side and engage in critical thinking. There is no difference between biologists and other scientists in that respect, and you have given us no reason to expect a difference.
That statement is barely coherent, but I will agree with you that science itself "morphs to fit what is found". That is the whole point of science, you know. Our dispute here is whether or not any evidence has been found to cause TOE to "morph" into a better theory. You have certainly presented none.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
More like devolved.
newhope101
Active Member
Yes. That is why Dawkins took the time to address creationist objections to evolution theory. I wish that you would take the time to read them, but you do not want to look at that side of the argument, lest it challenge your preconceptions about the truth.
Your evidence changes so much that anything Dawkins or anyone else think today may be overturned tomorrow!
We descended from a being like Lucy--a primate that walked upright but had a cranium like that of a modern-day chimp. In this case, fossils serve our purposes--as evidence of the truth. Oh is that so? Well some credentialed non creationist researchers disagree!
Lucy = fossil Gorilla species?
Argumentum ad nauseam is exactly what I said it was. We can disagree over whether she or you have engaged in it. But you are right that she was not able to address research with the same robustness as Dawkins was. She merely ignored his argument and insisted she knew better.
There is no robustness re TOE. This is what you kid yourselves about the most. Your evidence rarely aligns with common thinking, that's why you need to invent such things as punctuated eqilibrium, accelerated evolution, you went from traits arising once in evolution, and now they evolve a plethora of times in non related species etc, your bird ancestry is a mess and really you have no idea. If you cannot even get modern bird ancestry worked out, how in hell are you going to be accurate with birds ancestry over 60mya. I say it is impossible and straw grabbing at best, re birds, humans and anything else.
I don't recall, but why should he? It doesn't contradict anything he said. It is just a claim in Wikipedia that one of many methods for establishing length of time "may be off by 50% or more". That may or may not be true, but dating techniques rely on cross-checked methodologies, not that single method. The authors of the study did not find their belief in evolution challenged, only that the evidence fully supported a particular type of molecular dating in their opinion.
Your dating methods rely on misplaced and inaccurately classified fossil evidence. If you say Lucy is an ancestor that becomes an insertion value in an already biased, ancestrally predetermined model. You have presumed part of the answer before looking for answers.
If I am living in "fairy land", then I am in good company. All of the world's leading experts on biology live there with me.
I have already shown you that ALL is not accurate! Skeptisism does not belong solely to evolutionary uneducated creationists. Again this is a fact that you are unable to comprehend nor acknowledge.
You still can't distinguish between a religious doctrine and science, even though the distinction has been pointed out to you many times. Scientists challenge theories and retest hypotheses all the time. That is actually what they are trained to do. If the bird-dinosaur link went unchallenged, then they would not be doing their jobs. As it happens, though, you have not really assimilated the material that you direct other people to read. You use this material to argue that the theory of evolution is in doubt. What the article you linked to reported about the researchers' conclusion was: "This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed."
PROBABLY IS NOT EVIDENCE. 'PROBABLY' IS STRAW GRABBING. It is you that is unable to differentiate evidence from hypothesis.
Argument from ridicule sometimes makes its purveyor look ridiculous, as in the present case. Whichever side of that argument you put yourself on, you still end up on the side of researchers who do not question the factual basis of evolution theory. What makes you look ridiculous is that you think choosing a side gets us closer to rejecting that theory. I am not trying to make you reject anything. I am explaining why I and other science heads do not accept it. It is your dogmatic stance that the evidence is soooo convincing one should swallow it all up as fed to you.
No I reckon my bird comic is a good demonstration of the current status que re bird evolution. The good news is you can provide nothing concrete to refute it. Whereas I have produced evidence of bird footprints that predate the famous arch. You loose!
Too bad for you that Darwin and his theory have been making predictions that came to be true ever since he published it. Oh yeah,,what happened to his gradualism. It got punctuated...You misunderstood the article, which only claimed that evolution was more chaotic than Darwin imagined, not that it made no reliable predictions! If supposed evolution is chaotic your models mean less than they did prior The authors did not address the predictions that have been corroborated by evidence, but Dawkins and others have done that repeatedly. Again, you need to look at the evidence in order to see what I mean here. For example, read about Darwin's finches. That was one of his examples that convinced scientists of his time who were prone to believing in special creation. Also, it is worth noting that Darwin's theory predicts that we will never find rock strata with fossils that are "mixed" from the perspective of geographic eras. Since Darwin's time, that prediction has held. We have never found one single exception to it. Is that so?
Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on. *William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (1980), p. 219.
Mixed Up and Missing Strata | Fossils - What is the real story they tell?
And
Evolution Handbook 3
http://palaeo-electronica.org/2009_1/149/vertebrate.htm
And
So Darwin saw somatic changes and difference in gene expression, called these different species..and whalaaah, you get dinosaurs turning into birds or a chimp like creature becoming human. Too bad your dosophila experiments over 600 generation could not provide any evidence. Darwin saw evidence of orgnisims ability to adapt, which creationists do not disagree with. Darwin then extrapolated this microevolution into a macroevolution event of which you have no evidence for, no mater how hard you try.
Again, the 'punctuated equilibrium' claim by Gould was never meant as a challenge to evolution theory. You have--once again--misconstrued an argument between evolutionists over how to interpret the data as an argument against the theory that they both take as factually correct! BTW, Dawkins disagreed vigorously with Gould's interpretation of the data, and he did so very eloquently. But he also gave a very moving elegy for Gould that explained his great respect for his intellectual rival's defense of his 'punctuated equilibrium' position. Both men were in agreement that creationism was nonsense.
Saying creation is nonsense does nothing to bolster the fact that your researchers need to make up a new theory to explain the things they find as they rarely align with common thinking. The Y human chromosome is another example, simiar traits identifying ancestry is another one gone out the window, cryptic species and your plethora of species definitions, is yet another.
.
newhope101
Active Member
Quote Copernicus:I'm sure that Gonzales has his side of the story, and I do not dispute that people are treated unfairly even when they are on the right side of an argument. His treatment may or may not have been unfair. It is still absurd to claim that the near unanimous acceptance of evolution theory among biologists is maintained through intimidation alone. Scientific theories have been overturned in the past despite the opposition of the scientific establishment. They have been overturned by competent researchers who had the courage to buck the trend. So far, creationists have not been able to produce any. I'm not saying that you should give up hope, but I do think that you ought to challenge your own belief that the majority of the world's scientific authorities are wrong in their belief that evolution theory is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you do, do not be surprised if your fellow creationists tend to treat you even worse than scientists treat peers who object to what they regard as settled science.
Again you are unabke to accept that credentialed researchers CAN be skeptical of TOE and its' evidence. Even 0.1% adds up to lots. You are really silly if you kid yourself that absolutely not even one credentialed researcher is a TOE skeptic.
A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science
1) Dr. Raymond Damadian - inventor of MRI device
2) Dr. Raymond Jones - CSIRO Gold Medal, detoxified Leucaena for livestock
consumption
3) Dr. Keith Wanser - 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents
(Professor of Physics, Cal State Fullerton)
4) Dr. Russell Humphreys - successful planetary magnetic predictions
(nuclear physicist, Sandia National Laboratories )
5) Dr. Kurt Wise - Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard
6) Jules H. Poirier - designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar
Landing Module
7) Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa - discovered 7 new species of fish in the Congo
8) Dr. Saami Shaibani - "International Expert" by the US Depts of Labor and
Justice. 100 published articles (B.A. (Hons), M.A., M.Sc., D.Phil, a
physics professor and researcher)
1) (ID) Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III - five-time Nobel nominee
(professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia)
2) (ID) Dr. William S. Harris - $3.5 million in research grants, over 70
scientific papers, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory at Saint
Luke’s Hospital. Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology and is a
Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri.
A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science
Sorry if I have offended you. I do not think that you are nasty or mendacious, only misguided. I have presented evidence and pointed out why yours was counter-productive. From what I can tell, you do not really examine the evidence. We've seen often enough that you give links to evidence that actually corroborate, not challenge, the theory of evolution. Usually, you are just pointing out that scientists have disagreements with each other. Scientific methodology would not work if they never challenged each other, so your "evidence" just makes it look like you do not understand how science works.
I think your TOE science is a calculated fraud. Fortunately your opinion and mine means nothing in the grand scheme of things. It is about evidence as opposed to theories.
Scientists are not as open-minded as you think when it comes to challenging what they regard as settled science. They tend to be a skeptical, surly lot, just like you creationists. The difference I see is that they actually listen to the other side and engage in critical thinking. There is no difference between biologists and other scientists in that respect, and you have given us no reason to expect a difference.
Oh I do not know about that. They find dark matter and dark energy and acknowledge their deficiency in understanding. However with TOE everything proves evolution and nothing refutes it. It is not a science, no matter how much you want it to be one.
That statement is barely coherent, but I will agree with you that science itself "morphs to fit what is found". That is the whole point of science, you know. Our dispute here is whether or not any evidence has been found to cause TOE to "morph" into a better theory. You have certainly presented none.Evidence is supposed to confirm a standing theory, not morph it. Your TOE has no predictive power, really. It is a responsive organism given life by those that adhere to its' teachings.[/quote]
Seriously, how can you provide research that proves ancestry of kinds when you cannot even get what you see in the here and now right.
http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20080627/985299.html
TOE theory is about making what you find fit in by inventing more theories to explain the unexpected. In the end what you have purchased for yourself with all the money spent is a bunch of theories with little supportive evidence to back them all up. Remember Probably, Likely and Maybe do not provide evidence...just theories
Again you are unabke to accept that credentialed researchers CAN be skeptical of TOE and its' evidence. Even 0.1% adds up to lots. You are really silly if you kid yourself that absolutely not even one credentialed researcher is a TOE skeptic.
A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science
1) Dr. Raymond Damadian - inventor of MRI device
2) Dr. Raymond Jones - CSIRO Gold Medal, detoxified Leucaena for livestock
consumption
3) Dr. Keith Wanser - 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents
(Professor of Physics, Cal State Fullerton)
4) Dr. Russell Humphreys - successful planetary magnetic predictions
(nuclear physicist, Sandia National Laboratories )
5) Dr. Kurt Wise - Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard
6) Jules H. Poirier - designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar
Landing Module
7) Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa - discovered 7 new species of fish in the Congo
8) Dr. Saami Shaibani - "International Expert" by the US Depts of Labor and
Justice. 100 published articles (B.A. (Hons), M.A., M.Sc., D.Phil, a
physics professor and researcher)
1) (ID) Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III - five-time Nobel nominee
(professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia)
2) (ID) Dr. William S. Harris - $3.5 million in research grants, over 70
scientific papers, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory at Saint
Luke’s Hospital. Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology and is a
Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri.
A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science
Sorry if I have offended you. I do not think that you are nasty or mendacious, only misguided. I have presented evidence and pointed out why yours was counter-productive. From what I can tell, you do not really examine the evidence. We've seen often enough that you give links to evidence that actually corroborate, not challenge, the theory of evolution. Usually, you are just pointing out that scientists have disagreements with each other. Scientific methodology would not work if they never challenged each other, so your "evidence" just makes it look like you do not understand how science works.
I think your TOE science is a calculated fraud. Fortunately your opinion and mine means nothing in the grand scheme of things. It is about evidence as opposed to theories.
Scientists are not as open-minded as you think when it comes to challenging what they regard as settled science. They tend to be a skeptical, surly lot, just like you creationists. The difference I see is that they actually listen to the other side and engage in critical thinking. There is no difference between biologists and other scientists in that respect, and you have given us no reason to expect a difference.
Oh I do not know about that. They find dark matter and dark energy and acknowledge their deficiency in understanding. However with TOE everything proves evolution and nothing refutes it. It is not a science, no matter how much you want it to be one.
That statement is barely coherent, but I will agree with you that science itself "morphs to fit what is found". That is the whole point of science, you know. Our dispute here is whether or not any evidence has been found to cause TOE to "morph" into a better theory. You have certainly presented none.Evidence is supposed to confirm a standing theory, not morph it. Your TOE has no predictive power, really. It is a responsive organism given life by those that adhere to its' teachings.[/quote]
Seriously, how can you provide research that proves ancestry of kinds when you cannot even get what you see in the here and now right.
http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20080627/985299.html
TOE theory is about making what you find fit in by inventing more theories to explain the unexpected. In the end what you have purchased for yourself with all the money spent is a bunch of theories with little supportive evidence to back them all up. Remember Probably, Likely and Maybe do not provide evidence...just theories
Last edited:
lunamoth
Will to love
To what end?
Newhope,
When I asked why you care so strongly about the Theory of Evolution and no others, you gave a very ill informed answer:
Unlike religion, science not only encourages falsification it demands it. Falsification is the modus operandi of science. That is why you can rest assured, when the scientific community declares that x is a fact, that x is a Law, that x is a Scientific Theory, this is knowledge that you can take to the bank.
It is sciences stringent requirement of falsification that ensures all scientific hypotheses and conclusions are forever subject to revision or rejection. That is our guarantee that scientific knowledge is as current, unbiased and certain as possible.
Gee, I said that so well I think Ill repeat it: It is sciences stringent requirement of falsification that ensures all scientific hypotheses and conclusions are forever subject to revision or rejection. That is our guarantee that scientific knowledge is as current, unbiased and certain as possible.
(A Google-search under "Scientific Method" will get your education well under way.)
Next, you go on about some precambrian mammal that does not "mute any creationist ideas", but offer me no clue as to which mammal you are referring. (A flatworm?) It's not even clear what point you were trying to make. So, you are spared my retort.
When asked what emboldens you to take issue with the entire scientific community you replied:
This is the article you cited: 'Feathered' Dinosaur Was Bald, Not Bird Ancestor, Controversial Study Says Theropod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds? Not Likely, Says Study
Obviously, you did not bother to read the article, (big surprise ), since it concluded that this radical hypothesis is rubbish:
"'But the majority of scientists in the field are unconvinced. These people have been flogging the same horse for a long time, said Kevin Padian, curator of the University of California Museum of Paleontology. It is appalling that Proceedings B chose to publish this nonsense.'"
And theres damning criticism that points out, in detail, the flaws of this feeble study, which I encourage everyone to read for their own amusement.
To summarize, I have revealed that your cherry-picked "scientific" study is for the birds; it is dismissed by the scientific community for its unsubstantiated conclusion. Worse, the disingenuous act of cherry picking, itself, betrays you by exposing your true mission. You have no legitimate quarrel with evolution; you have no legitimate evidence against evolution; you have no legitimate interest in evolution. All you want is for evolution to go away, come hell or high water, so you can preserve your Iron Age beliefs that keep you lulled into a false sense of security.
You have been found out; now if only you could find yourself out -- out of this self-induced deception -- then evolution wouldnt be such a fearful burden for you to deal with. I sincerely wish for you to snap out of it, and live in the 21st century. Dont fight knowledge, embrace it as did your Biblical ancestors, Adam and Eve. The Fruit of Knowledge has so much more to offer than a life sentence in a make believe paradise.
When I asked why you care so strongly about the Theory of Evolution and no others, you gave a very ill informed answer:
Firstly, you are grossly misinformed about "irrefutability" as a requirement of science! What religious propaganda led you to that silly notion? (I am reaching the limit of my patience having to educate you creationists time and time again.) Irrefutability has never been a requirement of science; nor is it even possible or desirable. The requirement of science that you are painfully unaware of is falsifiability, not irrefutability. Is this news to you? Wow.
Unlike religion, science not only encourages falsification it demands it. Falsification is the modus operandi of science. That is why you can rest assured, when the scientific community declares that x is a fact, that x is a Law, that x is a Scientific Theory, this is knowledge that you can take to the bank.
It is sciences stringent requirement of falsification that ensures all scientific hypotheses and conclusions are forever subject to revision or rejection. That is our guarantee that scientific knowledge is as current, unbiased and certain as possible.
Gee, I said that so well I think Ill repeat it: It is sciences stringent requirement of falsification that ensures all scientific hypotheses and conclusions are forever subject to revision or rejection. That is our guarantee that scientific knowledge is as current, unbiased and certain as possible.
(A Google-search under "Scientific Method" will get your education well under way.)
Next, you go on about some precambrian mammal that does not "mute any creationist ideas", but offer me no clue as to which mammal you are referring. (A flatworm?) It's not even clear what point you were trying to make. So, you are spared my retort.
When asked what emboldens you to take issue with the entire scientific community you replied:
Oh please! That you would even attempt such a disingenuous reply is an insult to my limited intelligence. So lets understand this: you -- an impartial (!) layperson, with absolutely no inclination to cherry pick truths that fit nicely into your fantasy-world basket of beliefs -- you, who have looked exhaustively into the Theory of Evolution, have concluded, (in the midst of conspicuous unanimity among the entire scientific community), that they are all wrong, and that the entire Theory of Evolution is wrong -- yes, the entire theory! All because, why? Because a handful of rogue scientists has recently challenged the widely accepted idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs.
First of all, you're wrong. But even if this unconventional view were correct...so what? I dont care if birds evolved from unicorns, they still evolved! Do your powers of reason prevent you from grasping this significant point? Evolution still prevails!
This is the article you cited: 'Feathered' Dinosaur Was Bald, Not Bird Ancestor, Controversial Study Says Theropod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds? Not Likely, Says Study
Obviously, you did not bother to read the article, (big surprise ), since it concluded that this radical hypothesis is rubbish:
"'But the majority of scientists in the field are unconvinced. These people have been flogging the same horse for a long time, said Kevin Padian, curator of the University of California Museum of Paleontology. It is appalling that Proceedings B chose to publish this nonsense.'"
And theres damning criticism that points out, in detail, the flaws of this feeble study, which I encourage everyone to read for their own amusement.
To summarize, I have revealed that your cherry-picked "scientific" study is for the birds; it is dismissed by the scientific community for its unsubstantiated conclusion. Worse, the disingenuous act of cherry picking, itself, betrays you by exposing your true mission. You have no legitimate quarrel with evolution; you have no legitimate evidence against evolution; you have no legitimate interest in evolution. All you want is for evolution to go away, come hell or high water, so you can preserve your Iron Age beliefs that keep you lulled into a false sense of security.
You have been found out; now if only you could find yourself out -- out of this self-induced deception -- then evolution wouldnt be such a fearful burden for you to deal with. I sincerely wish for you to snap out of it, and live in the 21st century. Dont fight knowledge, embrace it as did your Biblical ancestors, Adam and Eve. The Fruit of Knowledge has so much more to offer than a life sentence in a make believe paradise.
More generally it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."
"There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations. It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism: these are religious matters and therefore outside the domain of science."
"But you cannot have it both ways. At least, religious theorists and apologists should not be allowed to get away with having it both ways. Unfortunately all too many of us, including nonreligious people, are unaccountably ready to let them.
-- Richard Dawkins
"There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations. It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism: these are religious matters and therefore outside the domain of science."
"But you cannot have it both ways. At least, religious theorists and apologists should not be allowed to get away with having it both ways. Unfortunately all too many of us, including nonreligious people, are unaccountably ready to let them.
-- Richard Dawkins
Thief
Rogue Theologian
These two statements are not well thought out.
I've seen Dawkins speak at length.
He's quite the orator.
But most people chase after religion...and their souls....and their faith .... reflecting concerns of an afterlife.
Science doesn't really serve God.
Chasing God with science?
Catch God in a test tube...a petri dish?....
Finding God with science ....won't work.
newhope101
Active Member
In the end there are two parts to this dilemma.
One is the actual evidence that your researchers have. The second is the interpretations and hypothesis made of the evidence.
The reason why a group of scientists, all equally credentialed, can look at the same evidence and come to totally different hypothesis hangs on interpretation of the data/evidence. They also have agendas eg out of Africa or not. They give each other a pizzling sometimes. This is not uncommon in the scientific fields and has nothing to do with a lack of brains or credentials.
Well, there are other interpretations of the evidence that may not include TOE and I believe they are equally valid. I am entitled to use my own capacity for reasoning to reach my own conclusions. For anyone to say that I am misguided is a little “up yourself”. You may brand any researcher ‘misguided’ until their version is proven correct… then they are the hero of the day.
Take Michael Denton and “Evolution: A theory in Crisis”. He was shot down for this paper. However he was correct in defending himself in relation to the molecular clock being erroneous.
Indeed he was correct in saying that even the tiniest cell is a complicated factory and irreducibly complex.
　
Now you may produce a plethora of THEORIES as to how the eye evolved on more than one occasion as well as flight. You may bring on your THEORIES of what use is a half wing to any creature that has evolved flight, and why anything would need eyes in the first place. You can produce abiogenetic theories about how the first factory assembled itself. You can produce Ardi and point to similarities had hope she is our ancestor. But these are all assertions based on trait similarities that have already proven erroneous many times.
What you do know for sure is that humans today are NOT descendant from todays chimps. Hence, that there must be a common ancestor is put forward as a THEORY. So far this theory has come full circle from knuckle walking ancestor to some creature that looks nothing like a chimp at all. Even Lucy has been found to have gorilla features and some researchers question her place in the human line, much like Florensiensis.
What you cannot do is provide evidence of this proposed evolution from one kind to another. ie drosophila. In other words to say that this creature is related to another either morphologically or genetically is a huge mistake. We have spoken to traits arising independently. Your genetic comparisons look for comparative closeness, saying things like a whale is closer to a hippo than a pig. This method presumes an ancestry to begin with and is compared to a model organism, with that assumption.
You have many flat faced non human primates, eg Lluc and traits arise independently hence your fossils could be anythings ancestor or decendant and not necessarily human ancestors eg homonids. You are hopefull, but there are other explanations. You do not have to like nor agree with another hypothesis.
What you can see are systems within cells that are complicated and more intricate than anything built by mankind. To propose that these systems can be reduced and maintain functionality, is absurd as Darwin himself proposed. You may theorise, but cannot prove that the wonderful creation of the eye, or any other system, is anything less that Gods creation, as it was meant to be. So marvelous is the creation that in a controlled laboratory setting, with all your advancements, you are unable to produce a living cell. I believe if it were possible you would have done so by now. My thoughts ..my choice.
　
Theory is about interpretation of the evidence, hopefully with an unbiased mindset, but not so in all cases of theoretical assertions. Common thinking has morphed many a researcher into a goose in hindsight, and it will happen again.
.
Last edited:
Are these two any better?
You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.
-- Richard Dawkins, in Lanny Swerdlow, "My Sort Interview with Richard Dawkins" (Portland, Oregon, 1996)
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
-- Richard Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001)
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I happen to believe in evolution.
It is a good explanation for how things developed.
God is behind all movement.
God did it.
And it is not safe to assume the ignorance of your fellow man....
when he will not say as you do.
He might actually know better.
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I bolded and underlined the relevant word in my post so that you could see how you misread it. Lucy is a transitional fossil, but nobody claims Lucy was actually one of our ancestors. That was likely not the case. She just belonged to a class of hominids that we evolved from. The article you cited in no way disagrees with that claim, but it disputes how closely related to her we might have been.
Newhope, I admire your stamina in trying to refute evolution theory, although I do not admire your ability to think critically about the subject. Your arguments really fall into two categories:
- If evolution scientists get something wrong, then evolution theory is not proven
- If evolution theory makes false predictions, then evolution theory is not proven.
Category 2 is more serious. For example, it is known that the first fossils of humans or even mammals appeared millions of years after Jurassic rock strata were formed. If a single human fossil were found mixed in with Jurassic dinosaur bones, that would cause a huge crisis for scientists, which is why some proponents of creationism have tried to fake such evidence. It might not be a fatal blow to evolution theory, given the more convincing non-fossil evidence we have for it, but such a find would be a huge blow to it, which predicts that we will continue to find rock strata that contains the same mix of fossils that are typical of the Jurassic period.
So, I am not going to engage you in any discussions of category 1 arguments, because they simply have no bearing on what you wish to show—that evolution theory is not established by the evidence. Scientists challenge each other’s findings all the time. In order to seriously challenge evolution theory, you need to present evidence as stunning as evidence of human fossils in Jurassic rock strata. The fact that we do not find human remains that are more than a few hundred thousand years old has held ever since fossils have been collected. There is not one single case to refute it, although people with your particular bias have tried to scrounge up some evidence. That fact alone is a pretty decisive refutation of creationism.
You are used to a style of argument in which you cut-and-paste things you find on creationist web sites, and you seldom check out the articles that you cite which are not from those web sites. So you end up with a lot of category 1 arguments. Nothing that you posted actually showed evidence of a single exception to my generalization, and some of it was just awful. For example, Darwin never said anything about genes and gene pools. He died before the role of genes in evolution became established knowledge in the scientific community. Moreover, he had no way of knowing about DNA, although its discovery in the 20th century represented profound confirmation of his theory. Also, you fall into the creationist trap of assuming that the bulk of the evidence for evolution lies in the fossil record. It does not. Darwin mentioned the fossil record, but it was too sparse at the time for him to use it to make a fully convincing case. His main arguments had to do with the distribution of populations of species. The fossil record has only served to confirm his findings, as did the discoveries of genes, chromosomes, and DNA. The record of confirmation is so overwhelming that no scientist seriously considers it anything but a theory that has achieved the level of established fact. It is the foundation of the science of biology.
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Newhope, that small list of scientists is always the same, and it does not support your case. It is not the first time any of us has seen it. I will not deny it that there are a few people with excellent scientific credentials who are creationists or who have voiced skepticism of evolution theory. I will even admit that some may have been unfairly discriminated against because of their outspoken support for creationism (e.g. Dr. Damadian). For the most part, they are people with no scientific credentials in fields related to evolution theory. Dawkins has called Kurt Wise (whose degrees are in geology, not paleontology) perhaps the best example of a scientist whose expertise is related to evolution theory, but Wise admits that he would support creationism no matter what any facts or data show. In other words, he has a closed mind. These people are not considered experts on evolution theory by anyone, and they do no publishable work to support it. They do not produce any arguments against evolution theory that their peers take seriously. You can certainly argue that there is a global conspiracy to suppress valid research in support of creationism, but the effort needed to mount and sustain such a conspiracy in the scientific community taxes the credulity of non-creationists. Scientists have devoted a lot of effort to debunking junk science, but their real job is to challenge credible science, not the goofy stuff.
I can go along with that.You do believe that TOE science is a calculated fraud, but most people see no reason to believe that conspiracy "theory". In the end it is about evidence, even though you will not look at it. You will not look at the evidence, because you fear that it will challenge your religious dogma. That is why all of your information on this subject comes from creationist sources that are devoted to the denial of evolution theory.