RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Intellectual Honesty, Robert Shapiro "Origins"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2005,16:32   

The subject of my first post is to simply inquire what is lost or worse feared by admitting as Dr. Shapiro does that the origin of life underpinning of evolutionary theory is virtually no-existant, that none of the current approaches have any real scientific, experimentally demonstrated credibility, that this is a known major failing of the theory and that the discovery of yet unknown physical laws or properties of matter or an alternative explanation is necessary to set evolutionary theory on a firm foundation regarding origins.

I see nothing weak or defeatest in his argumentation, research, methods or conclusions and he is a world reknown scientist in the field.

Puzzled,

Evopeach

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2005,13:01   

I would guess responding to my own first post is against the rules, but I did not really expect any replies..... my point is thus made.

Being 61 and a retired person who worked in several technical and business positions I observed a lot about human behavior, debate and discussion techniques, human personality and how one's training and experiences impact the techniques employed in such daily activities.

I can assure the mainstream posters here that you side is losing the public policy debate, will start to lose the legal battle quickly and as a result public funding priorities for research will be redirected.

One has only to examine the current polls, articles, media interest and several legal challenges to understand that such is the state of affairs. It is empirically true.

1) The average well educated Joe or Jill over a large age range has an instant dislike for peole who display the arrogance, elitism and self congratulatory attitudes and behaviors exhibited daily here and throughtout the evolutionist community. It hurts the cause of your team when people demean, attack and belittle people who they disagree with and discredit their credentials,abilities and accomplishments in outrageous and demonstrably inaccurate polemics. No one of even slightly above average intelligence will agree with or appreciate such utter nonsensical methods directed at Dembski and other D.I. types or their gifted supporters who have identified themselves openly with their ideas.

Your open, unreasoned, vitriolic hostility toward anyone, no matter how credible their credentials, work and experience who disagrees the slightest bit with the standard evolutionary dogma is, I asure you,  anathema to the great majority of fair minded, well reasoned Americans.

Your refusal to publically acknowledge the wide ranging debate about many aspects of darwinian theory within your community, often outright rejection of basic tenets by various schools of thought and the seeming inability to publicallly jettison concepts and ideas long ago discredited by your own community is cause for peole to have grave reservations about your intellectual and personal, not just credibility but basic honesty.

Robert Shapiro's book on Origins is a delightfully candid and refreshing exception to the rule and is enlightening to many and is presented in an engaging and scientifically sound prose.

The term reasonable compromise coupled with honest admission of the current troubled state of the theory of evolution would go a long way toward establishing some credibility with the public.

Yet the ongoing persecution of honest, upstanding and well educated scientists and others who dare to disagree on even the most minor points in a systematic and  vicious assult contunues.

No one who has lived into adulthood and has significant life experience believes or tolerates people who have all the right answers, permits no dissent and uses deplorable tactics against decent established opponents. Americans have never supported for long such attitudes and behaviors.

Such positions as "every living thing is a transitional form and thus we have no real need for or concern about the fossil record" or "abiogenesis is removed from evolutionary theory and has no identifiable impact on evolutionary concepts, thinking or theory" are just such rediculous behaviors as to cause intelligent people in large, large numbers to simply shake their heads in disbelief, bordering on derision. These are the same people who have been bombarded with these exact tenets all their adult lives in school, in college, in the media and print as being facts of evolution and parts of an all encompassing explanation for all we are and observe in an unbroken chain of rigerous scientific reasoning and experimentation.

If your team is to maintain the support through their tax dollars for your vital and important work then you'd best take a close look at your approach and behavior and perhaps decide that after all, honesty, respect, self discipline and a little humility are vital to any rational debater.

Evopeach

  
Henry J



Posts: 4116
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2005,13:50   

A list of unanswered questions will not by itself discredit a theory. ;)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,10:36   

It depends on what is met by the terms. In this case the questions that remain unanswered are those asked and unanswered for a hundred years...some of which were Darwin's own questions.

If questions at the most basic, fundamental, cogent and sound level are dismissed, defined away, ignored, trivialized and other common practices by the evolutionary community then the theory is suspected of being intellectually fragile, untrue, unfalsifiable and likely erroneous in one or more of its major corresponding tenets.

Perhaps the evolutionary proponents should just publish an appropriate version of the 5th amendment and then see how the jury reacts.

In time the only version of this theory will be one which limits itself to change within kinds or types strictly bounded by the quite wide spectrum adaptability of the DNA itself and the evident reproductive facilites and methods. It will be a limited explanation of observed biological change and diversity concerned only at the margins with mutational aspects likewise the selection circular reasoning will be scarcely mentioned as explanatory.

The quagmire of unexplained and dramatically unexplainable subject of origins and abiogenesis will remain a major failing of all naturalistic explanations of life and all we observe.

The ID movement and allied communities will display for the citizenry the voo doo, imaginary, unsubstantiated and purposefully fraudently science force fed young people for 75 years and display alternative approaches to all things scientific that are efficient, robust , wide-spectrum and respectful of decent that deserves respect.

This weekend in my states letters to the editor five very credible scientific persons wrote letters in support of the equal consideration of ID in public education and their utter distain for the hight-hat egocenterd rudeness and implausiblity of the current stand taken by the evolutionisty community.

Very predictable as I have suggested,

Evopeach

  
Henry J



Posts: 4116
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,10:52   

Did any of those letters answer Lenny's questions?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,16:11   

It may come as big shock but I suspect people would be about as impressed with Lennys questions as with Lenny himself. As in not at all. I mean this person Lenny is an unknown,in every respect, a sort of little tin god who has gathered a cult of followers who hang on his every words.. as insipid as they may be.

Goodness, the intellectuals of the ID and IC movement simply consider him a wantabe "back-bencher". A small pain perhaps, but nothing more. I mean whoever heard of the guy outside this warm fuzzy nest he opines in.

I would be a little more worried about the 400 Phds at the D.I., Denton, Behe and the historical disputations of Morrison, Whittington,Barnes,Axelrod,Simpson,Grasse, Agaziz and a few hundred others than people answering Lenny.. goodness.

For years professionals have labored with real work in science ... just letting the hysterical true believers of Darwinian thought (could be an oxymoron) race around with thumbs in the dike postering and threatening in real ways anyone stepping outside the cult publically. Yeah Yeah I swear allegiance to the cult ... now can I get back to work on some real science.

Now at last the crystalized faults in the steel of this ripe Titanic are failing, the rivets are popping quite loudly and the waters are rushing past even the most powerful waterproof doors.

Actually I would prefer the Lenny(s) would have a visible voice ... it would hasten the day when we will emerge from the dark ages of darwinism and see a renewed committment to real science freed of the dogmatic burden of proving the Invicta of darwinism. "I AM THE MASTER OF MY FATE, I AM THE CAPTAIN OF MY SOUL"

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,16:46   

Who is Dr Shapiro and where can whatever it is that he says, be found?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,16:50   

Googling gets me:
Howard M
MarkH
Ron
Ehud
Michael
Jonathan
on first 10 searches.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,16:55   

Sorry

I left out Francine

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,17:31   

"The average well educated Joe or Jill over a large age range has an instant dislike for peole who display the arrogance, elitism and self congratulatory attitudes and behaviors exhibited daily here and throughtout the evolutionist community. It hurts the cause of your team when people demean, attack and belittle people who they disagree with and discredit their credentials,abilities and accomplishments in outrageous and demonstrably inaccurate polemics..."

hmm.  does it hurt your "team" when you are shown to be liars (Dembski), use spin instead of science to further your position and hire PR folks instead of scientists (Discovery Institute), engage in spurious lawsuits in order to paint yourselves as victims (lawsuit against Eugenie Clark), etc., etc.,???

as to whether your "team" is winning or not, what did Bush's science adviser say after Bush's innane comments about supporting ID the other day?  can you tell me?

hey, i'll take vitriol over pure deceit any day of the week.

you can delude yourself all you wish, however don't expect the rest of us to encourage or address your delusions specifically.

do enjoy the world you seem to be painting for yourself.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,06:07   

Henry J:  "Did any of those letters answer Lenny's questions?"

evopeach:  "It may come as big shock...."

So, can we assume that none of those letters answer Lenny's questions?

Considering the fact that Lenny's most famous question is "What is the theory of ID," I do think that whatever you think of Lenny, the question certainly has merit.  Can you answer that simple question?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,09:32   

Henry J,

Frankly I have yet to see a lucid definition of evolution which is rational, non-tautalogical and mathmatically credible. Is it slow and gradual, is it punctuated, it is by saltation..... does it account for origins .... is it complete or just hang on skyhooks and a strange sort of pseudo-religious faith.

I believe the major proponents of ID and IC are well known and the "theory" has been well stated by them.

I think beginning in 1973 and continuing to the present my fairly extensive reading on both sides of the issue persuaded me that:

1) Anyone who hangs their hat on an undefined singularity, cosmic egg, etc. and believes that the universe and all that we observe is the result of hydrogen gas chaotically swirling around, combining with minor constituents under the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them results in the human brain is so far removed from rational thinking, critical thinking, sound analytics and such that it engenders incredulity in the trained and reasoning mind.

2) The text books on biology and other evolutionary biased sciences have contained so many totally discredited ideas, experiments, hypotheses and never corrected that it becomes crystal clear that the evolutionary community is untruthful, incapable of self disclipline, engaged in purposeful fraud for financial and power gain and is deeply flawed in principle as the evidence has shown.

3) The hostility toward all things metaphysical and of faith is so rabid and ill founded that it renders any attempt at mutual respect and transparency in the debate essentially impossible. The adherents are so dedicated to the agnostic, atheistic and egocentric philosophies of humanism and such that every thought and action are saddled indeed burdened by the baggage and continues the  hinderance of  effective, efficient,open and expansive approaches to true science.

For me ID and IC are rather straight straight forward scientific propositions, hypotheses and theories that offer an alternative approach to the investigation of life and the observable universe. It is one which focuses on the logos, informational and systematic functionality of such. It encourages an entirely different emphasis in tools, techniques and thought regarding observation, investigation and inquiry and objects of persuit.

Illustration:

Pure chemistry and the evolutionary paradigm lead to radiation, chemotherapy and readical surgery for treatment of cancer.

Radical information and systematics lead to Herceptin a non-poisonous smart information based treatment.

Further the entire genomic science is entirely concerned with information systems , codes, systematics and the application of information systems techniques with evolutionary biological thought of minor, minor importance.

So long as disproving the existance of God and the elevation of humanistic self elevation are at the heart of a theory, its proponents and its methods there will be failure, inefficiencies, frauds and misdirected resources.

I suggest we can no longer afford the origin of life and ETSI sort of wastral diversions... lets do some real science.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,09:37   

Alan Fox,

See, http://www.nyu.edu/pages/chemistry/faculty/shapiro.html

Also the book Origins by the author.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,09:53   

Toe Jam assertions without evidence, references, supporting documentation and specifics are called sophistry ... not rhetoric.

I don't have to paint a contrived world as the pseudo-scientific members of the evo community have for 100 years.. I have the advantage of seeking truth in observation of  the universe and without self elevation and egocentricity explore the universe for the purpose of understanding, enlightenment and betterment of the human experience.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,10:29   

Evopeach,

Here is a definition of evolution:

What is Evolution?

That will get you started.

As for the definition of ID, there is none.  But, you seem to think there is.  Can you point us to one?  A link will suffice.

"1) Anyone who hangs their hat on an undefined singularity, cosmic egg, etc. and believes that the universe and all that we observe is the result of hydrogen gas chaotically swirling around, combining with minor constituents under the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them results in the human brain is so far removed from rational thinking, critical thinking, sound analytics and such that it engenders incredulity in the trained and reasoning mind."

Gee, it's so easy to state something in an absurd way and then argue about how absurd it is, isn't it?

"2) The text books on biology and other evolutionary biased sciences have contained so many totally discredited ideas, experiments, hypotheses and never corrected that it becomes crystal clear that the evolutionary community is untruthful, incapable of self disclipline, engaged in purposeful fraud for financial and power gain and is deeply flawed in principle as the evidence has shown."

Examples please, or is it OK for you to chide STJ for making assertions then turn around and do it yourself?

"3) The hostility toward all things metaphysical and of faith is so rabid and ill founded that it renders any attempt at mutual respect and transparency in the debate essentially impossible. The adherents are so dedicated to the agnostic, atheistic and egocentric philosophies of humanism and such that every thought and action are saddled indeed burdened by the baggage and continues the  hinderance of  effective, efficient,open and expansive approaches to true science."

This is outright refuted by the posters on PT (like PVM, Nick Matzke, Wesley Elsberry, etc. who are not atheists), scientists like Ken Miller, and many other theists who also ascribe to evolution.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,12:19   

GCT:

I know.. I know.. all these people are not real scientists, uninformed buffoons because they didn't run it by Lenny I suppose. Guffaw!

1) The Penguin Dictionary of Biology. The authors: "M.
Abercrombie...was Professor of Embryology and then Professor of
Zoology at University College London..."; "C.J. Hickman was Professor of
Plant Sciences at the University of Western Ontario"; "M.L.
Johnson..taught zoology at Birmingham University." (Abercrombie M.,
Hickman C.J., & Johnson M.L., "The Penguin Dictionary of Biology,"
1985, reprint, p1)


2) The Oxford Concise Science Dictionary: does not have biographical
details about the authors but lists them as "Alan Isaacs BSc, PhD, DIC",
"John Daintith BSc, PhD" and "Elizabeth Martin MA." (Isaacs A., Daintith
J. & Martin E., eds., "Concise Science Dictionary," 1991, pvi)


3) The Collins Reference Dictionary of Biology: authors are Professor
W.G. Hale, B.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc., F.I.Biol., is Dean of the Faculty of Science
and Head of the Department of Biology at Liverpool Polytechnic;" and "Dr
J.P. Margham, B.Sc., Ph.D., Dip.Gen., M.I. Biol., is Principal Lecturer and
Course Leader for the B.Sc. Honours Applied Biology Degree at Liverpool
Polytechnic." (Hale W.G., & Margham J.P., "Collins Reference Dictionary
of Biology," Collins: London, 1988 reprint, p.i)


I was present at a debate between Duane Gish and Doug a number of years ago and watched Gish systematically destroy Doug to the point that I was concerned for Doug's mental well being... it was indeed pitiful to behold. I think one can even buy a video or transcript of the debate (evolution butt whipping)

This is the same old argument from superior intellect and hubris people can't tolerate: " People simply don't understand evolution because it is so comlex and esoteric and complicated that the american citizenry simply cannot grasp it in full ... the're too dumb. Then our attempts to explain evolution to the ignorant masses and intellectual buffons require we superior high IQ evolutionist types to put it into easy to understand terminology .. that the backward, fundamentalist, religious, unscientific, unsophisticated American populace could comprehend while still accurately portraying the essence of the theory, have been inadequate." (the morons who don't accept what we feed them at face value as fact may have to simply be ignored and eliminated by any means necessary from public discourse)

Not if, but when the bright light of ID and IC analysis is focused on the details of evolution and the real historical evidence of same is made clear we believe that same population will readily understand and comprehend the greatest hoax, fraud and conspiracy in scientific circles in modern history. We have great faith in the intelligence and common sense reasoning power of the American people.

When they understand the mindset of people wo can look at a old world wolf skeleton and see it is really a whale ancestor ...... and hundreds more examples, they might ask if there is anything more to this complex subject than diagrams filled with dashed lines (no evidence extant) and figurines made from 5% bone and 95% plaster of paris.

As for me such an intellect will have no trouble discerning transitional forms in the leaves of of an empty te cup.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,12:47   

First of all, what are you trying to point out with those dictionary citations?  Are those supposed to be where your scientific definition of ID can be found?  Let me guess, they all say something like, "ID posits that certain forms of life are better explained by an intelligent designer than by a purposeless process."  Unfortunately the question was sort of a trick question, because ID has no scientific definition, nor can it.  ID is predicated on the supernatural, which lies outside of the scope of science.  But, hey, if you want to provide a link (which I did ask for so that I don't have to run all over the place looking for some book) to a good definition, or copy and paste it on here, go ahead.

I'll also note that you could not back up your assertions and you had nothing to say about the fact that many theists accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.  Your silence has been noted.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,14:41   

GCT

I reply to cover several coments on the thread not just one individual ... see one of me ... lots of you. Its called efficiency of purpose.

Yes there are theistic evolutionists about 1-2% and they are mostly silent as to their reasoning for such.

1) They have faith in scripture, revelation, purpose.
That puts them in the camp of the psychologically disturbed according to the Lennyites.

2) Their God is powerless, harmless, inept, removed and a sort of pacifer. (not the God of the bible)

But hey for most people of faith this subject is less than an essential to a common understanding.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,15:34   

Quote (evopeach @ Aug. 23 2005,14:41)
GCT

I reply to cover several coments on the thread not just one individual ... see one of me ... lots of you. Its called efficiency of purpose.

Yes there are theistic evolutionists about 1-2% and they are mostly silent as to their reasoning for such.

1) They have faith in scripture, revelation, purpose.
That puts them in the camp of the psychologically disturbed according to the Lennyites.

2) Their God is powerless, harmless, inept, removed and a sort of pacifer. (not the God of the bible)

But hey for most people of faith this subject is less than an essential to a common understanding.

1-2%, that's it?  Wow.  And you paint them with such a broad brush as well.  That's quite impressive how dismissive you are of them.

I do have a problem believing that you can read Lenny's mind on this matter, however.

Also, your numbers are flat wrong.

Evolution Poll

Now, would you care to recant your 1-2%?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,16:16   

I looked really hard at your FIVE YR OLD poll and never did see the term "theistic evolution" appear let alone be defined.

Try Harder .. you're not gettin any traction

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,16:50   

51% of people who identify themselves as adherents of evolutionary theory agreed with the following statement:

"Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"

That is theistic evolution.

51%, not 1-2%.

Not only have you made assertions that you can't back up, but you've been shown to be incorrect in your assertions.

You also still haven't backed up the assertions of purposeful fraud, etc.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2005,10:09   

Baloney,

That is your assertion from a survey that doesn't even mention the term.

Try any one of 100 H.S. Biology texts or even 1st yr College texts from 1940 through today.

1) Embronic recapitualtion ( totally a lie and misrepresentation for two decades after being shown false)

2) Miller Fox demonstrating the efficacy of chemical predestination and abiogenesis in pre-biotic conditions. ( a total fabrication failing to mention lack of optical purity, racemate results always, zero separation of L&D forms of amino acids critical to molecules of life or that even if such were the result its a dead end for several reasons not the least of which is the next step chemically has the rather unfortunate problem of directionally impossible free energy comsiderations. These are never, never mentioned though known absolutely by every organic chemist in the world.

3) Total misrepresentation of the fossil record results which is totally unsupportive of the theory .... a scam made possible by plaster of paris and dashed lines on charts , nothing more. Consider the several major fossil frauds in the last century.. undeniable dishonesty.

4) Purposefully blurring the differences between a priori and as posteriori probability arguments time and again with the stiupid and irrelevant (perfect bridge/poker hand demonstration of unlikely events and other such baloney)

5) Misstating the definitions of open, closed, isolated and constrained systems in thermodynamic discussions... trotting out the old snowflake, salt crystal and other rediculous and irrelevent processes to illustrate local violations of SLOT... knowing better all the while.

6) Denying in the face of crystal clear evidence real codes and  systematics in the genome of living organisms as in the genetic code and the operations of the cell. Utter fraud and misrepresentation.

7) Dismissing abiogenesis and the fossil record as irrelevent and unimportant to the evolutionary paradigm.


8) All origin of proposals and experiments have ended in utter failure for 100 years  but are presented in texts, documentaries and all public forums as success is just around the corner.

The public record is clear and unambiguous and undeniable by an honest observer

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2005,13:15   

First of all, the fact that you can still argue that your 1-2% figure is correct is beyond the pale.  Where did you get that figure, out of your backside?  But, when an actual poll is shown to you, you still reject it.  Perhaps you should read the PT thread that recently went up on what is science?  The inability to correct errors after facts present themselves is a good indicator.

1. Answer to embryonic recapitulation

2. and 7.  Abiogenesis is (once again) a separate theory.  God could have zapped the first single-celled reproducing organisms onto the planet and evolution could have taken over from there.  It's really not that difficult to understand and honestly I don't know why you have such a problem comprehending that.  But, even so, if you are referring to the Urey-Miller abiogenesis experiments (I'm not sure of any Miller Fox experiments) the NCSE says this:

Quote
A: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.


3.  Perhaps it would help if you specified how the fossil record is misrepresented?  This resource also might help you out.
Fossil Record resource
As for fossil frauds, I suppose you are talking about Kennewick man and Piltdown Man?  Perhaps you should peruse PT for those, considering the stories are not as bad as you seem to think.  For instance, Kennewick Man was never reported by the finders as being definitely a hominid, but that claim was made by news organizations.  Also, in all cases, it is scientists double checking other people's work that finds errors, not creationists.

4.  You will have to be more specific here, although I suspect you mean that science excludes god in an a priori fashion?  Nothing is further from the truth.  One is free to make hypotheses based on god, and if one can successfully navigate the scientific method, then it's all good.  If god is assumed to not be a part of the equation, that is an a posteriori assumption.

5.  SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.  If you think it does, then state your case.

6.  Simply because Dembski says there are codes in genomes does not make it so.  It is neither fraud nor misrepresentation to make an unwarranted jump to conclusions based on no evidence.

7.  Why would one dismiss the fossil record when we have found a lot of "missing links" over the years.  IIRC we have over a hundred different hominids from the fossil record.  That's quite a good deal.

8.  All proposals and experiments have ended in failure over the last 100 years?  That's news to everyone.  Even hard-core creationists like yourself grant that microevolution happens.  That doesn't sound like failure to me.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2005,17:05   

Here is an article about a real, live theistic evolutionist for you Evopeach, plus a good dig at the DI.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html....24.html

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim of 1-2%.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2005,17:12   

The answers to poll questions often reflect the way the question is asked and certainly on the definition of terms. Since your term theistic-evolution does not appear in the poll the logical option is th e 1-2 % other.

But I do understand why you can't follow the reasoning,, oops mymom always told me to be kind.

You restated the history of recapitulation.. is that supposed to be an answer as to why it was included as evidence of evolution (macro-evolution) through the 90's. It was fraudulent, purposefully misleading to young impressionable minds all to support an erroneous world view.

There are no uncontested transitional fossils yet even Dawin predicted there would be myriads of such yet worm tracks in mud and holes in he ground connect an unknown unimaginable first life forms to the complex invertebrates nothiong over a billion year span, then from invertibrates to vertebrates without a single transitional fossil... should be millions upon millions.

The angiosperms appear de novo without a single predecessor.

Where are the precursors and transitional forms for the fishes... na da.

Yet pretty little pictures with 90% dashed lines connecting major phylum blah blah blah... every new major species ends up being placed in a completely separate widely branched twig of the supposed tree of life.. without exception.

Any one can read these facts if they will studey the words of the most prominent scientists since 1890.. you have to read the dissenters .. not the sychophantic true believers.

Miller to Fox to Urey all were 100 % failures in the origin of life experiments.

Get real.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2005,05:11   

I wrote:

Quote
As for fossil frauds, I suppose you are talking about Kennewick man and Piltdown Man?


I should not have included Kennewick Man, however, but instead should have said "Nebraska Man."  So, Nebraska Man is the one I was talking about in the rest of the paragraph.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2005,05:28   

Quote
The answers to poll questions often reflect the way the question is asked and certainly on the definition of terms. Since your term theistic-evolution does not appear in the poll the logical option is th e 1-2 % other.


No, it is NOT logically an option to use the figure that you pulled out of your gluteous.  You have yet to back that up, which is something you called "sophistry" and chided STJ for, but are using now.  That is called hypocrisy.

Besides, what is a theistic evolutionist?  I would say it is one who believes in god and also accepts evolutionary theory.  The 51% of people that accept evolutionary theory and say that god guided evolution would fit that definition.  This thread is titled, "Intellectual Honesty," which is YOUR title by the way, so perhaps you could show some and admit that your argument is flawed?

Quote
You restated the history of recapitulation.. is that supposed to be an answer as to why it was included as evidence of evolution (macro-evolution) through the 90's. It was fraudulent, purposefully misleading to young impressionable minds all to support an erroneous world view.


Um, perhaps you missed this section?

Quote
What textbooks say
For any textbook to show Haeckel's drawings themselves as unqualified statements of developmental anatomy or to advocate "recapitulation" in a Haeckelian sense would be inexcusable, but none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells appear to do so. Wells gleefully excoriates Futuyma for using Haeckel's drawings, but apparently in his fit of righteous indignation, he forgot to read the text, in which the drawings are discussed in a historical context -- stating why Haeckel is wrong -- and Futuyma has an entire chapter devoted to development and evolution. Guttman uses them in an explicitly historical context as well. Wells states that books use "Haeckel's drawings, or redrawn versions of them" (Wells 2000:255), but this is not true. Figure 10 shows Haeckel's drawings compared to the drawings in the textbooks reviewed by Wells. It can be clearly seen that a majority of the drawings are not "redrawn." Some textbooks show more accurate drawings; some use photos; only Starr and Taggart (and Raven and Johnson in their development chapter along with accurate drawings and photos) use what could be considered embryos "redrawn" from Haeckel. No textbook discusses embryology in any way that could be considered strongly "recapitulationist." In most textbooks, embryology is presented in just one or two paragraphs, making it hard to discuss all the complexities of development. At a high school level, the aim of the book is to convey some basic concepts of biology, not to confuse students with the complexity of a subject.


Really.  It wasn't that hard to find.  Admit it, you scanned the first couple sentences then stopped and decided there was nothing there, didn't you?

Quote
There are no uncontested transitional fossils yet even Dawin predicted there would be myriads of such yet worm tracks in mud and holes in he ground connect an unknown unimaginable first life forms to the complex invertebrates nothiong over a billion year span, then from invertibrates to vertebrates without a single transitional fossil... should be millions upon millions.


First of all, that's not what Darwin predicted.  He predicted that fossils would be hard to find and rare.  Also, there are transitional fossils before, during, and after the Cambrian period.  Perhaps you overlooked the Ediacaran fossils for instance?  I'm not going to do your homework for you, especially since I have already pointed you to a source for fossil record information at the NCSE.  Check out their other pages on the subject and check the talk.origins pages.  Just because you don't read it, however, does not mean that they don't exist.

Quote
Any one can read these facts if they will studey the words of the most prominent scientists since 1890.. you have to read the dissenters .. not the sychophantic true believers.


And those people are?

Quote
Miller to Fox to Urey all were 100 % failures in the origin of life experiments.


No, actually they weren't.  Urey-Miller was erroneous, but mostly because they didn't realize that the evironmental conditions that they set up were actually less conducive to life than what we now know.  So, if they could get life to form in conditions that were actually harsher than reality, then what do you think are the chances that life could form through abiogenesis?

Quote
Get real.


And your suggestion for doing that would be to read the Bible?  Do you have an alternative for evolution?  Do you have any evidence in favor of your alternative?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2005,11:23   

Since you place so much faith in polls and the assuredness of peoples devining your definition of theistic evolution then I am sure you will support the same populations view that evolution should not be taught as a fact and alternative views of origins and biological life should also be taught. Or is that where the population becomes stupid, uniformed, bigoted, flat earthers, clueless as to science and needful of guidence from the superior evolutionisy community.

VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM

God created humans in present form
All Americans
55%
Kerry voters
47%
Bush voters
67%

Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans
27%
Kerry voters
28%
Bush voters
22%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans
13%
Kerry voters
21%
Bush voters
6%

Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.

More than half of Kerry voters want creationism taught alongside evolution. Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included.

FAVOR SCHOOLS TEACHING…

Creationism and evolution
All Americans
65%
Kerry voters
56%
Bush voters
71%

Creationism instead of evolution
All Americans
37%
Kerry voters
24%
Bush voters
45%

60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 885 adults interviewed by telephone November 18-21, 2004. There were 795 registered voters. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus three percentage points for results based on all adults and all registered voters.

Your assertion is preposterous on its face... anyone can walk through a library of text books and see ER persented as anargument for evolution. Your statements carefully prepared and edited after the fact by EVOLUTIONISTA doing their CYA act is laughable.

Darwin did predict transitional fossils and stated that early on his excuse for not seeing them was the lack of exploration and such would be cured by time and thatif such did not emerge that would be a great difficulty to his theory. I have read the materials  and commentaries on all those finds and my statement stands uncontradicted..... Try Gould, Roemer, Grassee, Goldsmidt, Morowitz, despite being evolutionists they at least admit the utter lack of anything being an undisputed transitional form in the record.

Don't point me to purely evolutionist propaganda sources... I have read the origin.talk crap and it is written as though I was Kate in Taming of the Shrew.. see that bright orb up there that is actually the moon no matter how it actually appears..

No not the bible just detailed and honest reading of your own camps materials will do nicely.

Boy its great to have 3-4 of those Microsoft actives and retirees on the board at D.I. along with we lesser folks.. no money problems there. Of course they are only bright in segregated areas .. in science all of us are stupid.

Anyone who can see or imagine any origin experiments that give a scintilla of demonstrable support for abiogenesis step forward and claim the Nobel prize. This is after 100 years of evolutionist activity now stated to be totally unrelated to evolution and unimportant to the debate by your team.... which is it dude?

Your ship is sinking fast .... Charles Titanic Darwin.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2005,12:56   

The question is whether these people exist, not policy decisions.  Science is NOT decided by popular vote.  And, the poll that you brought with you only undercuts your assertions.

Quote
Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans
27%

27% of Americans are theistic evolutionists according to this poll.  I would say that if 27% of all Americans are theistic evolutionists, then that means that your 1-2% figure is off.
Quote
Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans
13%

If we take this 13% to represent non-theistic evolutionists, then now the percentage of people who accept evolution that are theistic evolutionists is 67.5%, not 1-2%.  By trying to be clever, you have shot your own argument in the foot.

A main thrust of your arguments against evolution is that it is atheistic.  If over 50% of people who accept evolutionary theory also believe in god, then it cripples your argument.
Quote
Darwin did predict transitional fossils and stated that early on his excuse for not seeing them was the lack of exploration and such would be cured by time and thatif such did not emerge that would be a great difficulty to his theory.

Darwin did predict that some fossils would be found and that it would be a difficulty if no fossils were found, but he also said that he doubted we would find detailed transitional pathways.  We somewhere between 100-200 distinct hominid fossils, however, how many more do you need.
Quote
Don't point me to purely evolutionist propaganda sources

Those sources are starting points.  You can also do literature searches.  Of course, at least I bring sources with me, whereas you bring......nothing.  I believe you called that "sophistry."
Quote
Boy its great to have 3-4 of those Microsoft actives and retirees on the board at D.I. along with we lesser folks..

Are you saying that you are on the board of the DI?
Quote
No not the bible just detailed and honest reading of your own camps materials will do nicely.

So, your alternative to evolution can be found by studying more evolution?  Um, please clarify.  Also, in the past you have characterized the Bible as being accurate in the area of the origins of life, do you take that back now?
Quote
Anyone who can see or imagine any origin experiments that give a scintilla of demonstrable support for abiogenesis step forward and claim the Nobel prize. This is after 100 years of evolutionist activity now stated to be totally unrelated to evolution and unimportant to the debate by your team.... which is it dude?

Once again (and I have not equivocated on this topic at all, so don't act like I have) abiogenesis is separate from evolution!
Quote
Your ship is sinking fast .... Charles Titanic Darwin.

Is that like Dembski talking about our "Waterloo?"

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2005,15:54   

Guess you missed those 55% who believe God created man in his present form and the 65% who think both views should be taughtin public schools.

Evolutionist filtering and claimed superiority and selective reading as usual...why am Inot surprised by your hubris and intellectual dihonesty... because I've seen it in action for 30 years.

The Bible has not entered into this discussion ... are you wishing to go down that road.. its not pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Abiogenesis is part and parcel of the spectrum of all life existing or you are guilty of placing your FAITH in nothing explanatory even in theory.

This is the same recent ploy put forth that says since everything living is a transitional form we don't need any fossil record of transitional forms.

Are you familiar with the term RETREAT!!

I always wondered how you could tell when Darwin's writings were done when he was in one of his extended manic depressive periods or when he was somewhat lucid and communicative.

I guess you weren't familiar with that short list of luminaries who are on record concerning the non-existance of any robust transitional forms. Shall I list a few more for you?

Oh and those are all extinct apes, tree climbers, knuckle walkers .... again you need to read more widely.

  
  228 replies since July 25 2005,16:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (8) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]