RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 >   
  Topic: Intellectual Honesty, Robert Shapiro "Origins"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,10:38   

Chimp,

If you had certain conclusions, a world view and a life time of study in each of two areas science, technology, engineering (in an integrated sense) and in the Christian faith with rigerous examination of the Bible via the very best scholarship you could gain access to and then for twenty-five years you and your friends and teachers were subjected to constant unending ridicule for your views by people who certainly are smart and talented in their fields but no smarter than the people they ridicule, admitted to no error in their thinking, insisted on their intellectually supremecy always and called you a redneck, snake holder, bible thumper, dolt, etc would that engender sound public debate?

Let's try this for an example since I did not propose it.

"Thing just aren't adding up for feathered dinosaurs," said lead researcher, avian evolutionist and paleobiologist Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He described the prevailing theory that birds descended from theropods as paleontological "wish-fulfillment" based on "sloppy science."

It seems to me that this article and the research behind it is ever so typical of the entireity of evolutionary dogma except that to his credit the contributor is being intellectually honest... that I can admire as with Robert Shapiro. But it is a dramatic reversal of decades of nonsensical teaching which to name one, the ever hated by evos Duane Gish, has analyzed and logically destroyed twenty years ago in two books he wrote on the fossil record. Now it is clear he was absolutely correct ... dinos never had featheres and are not the ancestors of birds.

How can that be trivial... because nothing can dislodge the theory... absolutely nothing.. its as plastic as can be imagined.

I am open to your civility.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,10:45   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 11 2005,15:38)
I am open to your civility.

And we are waiting for yours.  Although I admit in your case it seems a commodity in remarkably short supply. :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Chimp



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:14   

Evopeach,

Thanks for the obviously heartfelt reply.

I am obviously new to these forums, but from what I've
read it seems like there's a escalation of sorts that has
lowered the bar of civility. It in some ways mirrors what
is happening with political discourse in the US, IMO.

I singled you out because you are one person I could adress,
rather than the multitude of your detractors. It does seem
like everyone could take it down a notch and maybe have a
productive dialogue.

You have taken a minority dissenting opinion, which, I'm
sorry to say will expose you to criticism from the majority,
regardless of the content of your opinion. That's the nature
of group dynamics, however, if your opinion has merit it will
ultimately prevail. If it does not then you may be religated
to a Lamarckian fate.

Not being an expert in any science related field, I am content
to sit on the fence and observe.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:17   

Evopreach:

Quote
Feduccia has broken more new ground with his "big-bang" theory. He thinks that the ancestors of all today's birds evolved explosively in only about 5 to 10 million years. In traditional theory, all modern bird orders appeared by 80 to 90 million years ago and "oozed" into the present. That makes no sense, Feduccia says, because the cataclysmic event that killed the dinosaurs would have extinguished most birds too.

Feduccia contends that about 65 million years ago, most birds died with the dinosaurs, except for a group of shorebirds and possibly a few others. Fossils from just before that time show lots of primitive birds, with the shorebirds the only kind of modern birds present. "But shortly after 65 million years ago, all the primitive birds are gone. All you're finding are these shorebirds. And then by about 53 million years ago, all the modern groups are present," he says. "So somewhere between 65 and 53 million years ago, all these modern types of birds evolved."

A Big-Bang view of Birds

Also from the same article:
Quote
He agrees with the theory that the common ancestor of both ancient and modern bird orders was a small, ground-dwelling reptile that took to the trees for hiding, sleeping, or nesting. After this "protoavis" started climbing, it began leaping from tree to tree.


Funny how  AiG  says the evolutionists "got to" Feduccia.  Got to him before whom?  The IDC movement and their bags and bags of money?

A quote from the AiG article about what Feduccia thinks of creationists:
Quote
Feduccia: Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, …

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:27   

Saddle I read the entire article and if you can point out any comfort to the dino to bird people in there you are a magician.

Again a careful analysis as Gish did years ago renders this scale to feather theory and proavis and such as laughable.. I mean I can't keep a straight face when reading this crap. And its all hypothetical .. there is no fossil evidence of the little critter or any transitional forms to support one line of it.. all a fairy tale.

It could be true but there is no evidence to support it not one iota its just a story that fits preconceived opinion... even Darwin admitted that.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:38   

If I say, "there have been no Cadillacs made in the last 20 years" and proceed show you a blue book from 1983, I am right.  So in one sense you are right in saying "there are no transitional fossils" so long as you plug your ears and jump up and down saying "thats laughable no transitional fossils."

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,13:34   

Memo to EvoPeach:

Science does not work by finding one "iconoclast" from several years in the past and deciding that, because said iconoclast in some tortured way supports your own preconceptions, that must be the final word.

Why don't you try checking out what's become of Feduccia's hypotheses since they were proposed? You might start here:

RICHARD O. PRUM
The Auk 120(2):550–561, 2003
Quote
Feduccia can no longer deny the conclusive evidence that basal dromaeosaurs had feathers (Xu et al. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003; Czerkas et al. 2002; Norell et al. 2002). In the end, he concedes that dromaeosaurs had feathers. In a rhetorical tour de force that conflicts with decades of his own work and most of his commentary, Feduccia (2002) then hypothesizes that dromaeosaurs are birds, but that the birds, now including the dromaeosaurs, still originated from some unknown early archosaurian ancestor and are unrelated to theropod dinosaurs.


--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,20:33   

Quote (American Saddlebred @ Oct. 11 2005,16:38)
If I say, "there have been no Cadillacs made in the last 20 years" and proceed show you a blue book from 1983, I am right.  So in one sense you are right in saying "there are no transitional fossils" so long as you plug your ears and jump up and down saying "thats laughable no transitional fossils."

I just went through this with this guy on Telic Thoughts who insisted that there is absolutely no evidence whatsover to support the notion that whales could have evolved from land mammals. I sent him this link, which you would have thought would have shut him up, but no. He never even acknowledged that he'd read it. He continued to insist there was "no evidence."

The same thing went on and on over half a dozen topics. He'd claim there was "no evidence" that random mutation and natural selection could have driven evolution, that there was "no evidence" that life could have arisen from pre-biotic precursors, etc. etc. etc. For every claim he made, I provided a link demonstrating in detail how his claim was mistaken. Did it make any difference?

Of course not.

After a while, it stopped being fun.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,05:00   

Four hundred scientists and a whole lot more that are intimidated by the hords herein and their memtors agree with me that mutations and natural selection are inadequate to explain the life we observe.. period.

As to transitional fossils whether dinos to birds or land mammals to whales are never ilustrated in the fossil record by a series of clear unmistakable fossils showing the incredible multiple changes required.

The dino to bird theory is as dead as is possible to imagine and thats just a fact.

When you morons refer to papers writtne by other brainwashed evos without one whit of math, fossil evidence, chemical evidence, experimentally varifiable date etc. that doesn't prove one darn thing just more malarkey and BS without a scintilla of factual evidence.

Give me a hundred just so stories.. they are not science.. just fairy tales.

You will never get it... macroevolution, common descent and abiogenesis will never be science because it cannot be demonstrated, repeated in the laboratory, is mathmatically inconsistent with statistical possibilities and all of the fossil evidence is mounted against it.. period.

You cannot show me any undisputed evidence that any of the above is wrong which is is other than a fairy tale.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,11:23   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 12 2005,10<!--emo&:0)
Four hundred scientists and a whole lot more that are intimidated by the hords herein and their memtors agree with me that mutations and natural selection are inadequate to explain the life we observe.. period.

As to transitional fossils whether dinos to birds or land mammals to whales are never ilustrated in the fossil record by a series of clear unmistakable fossils showing the incredible multiple changes required.

The dino to bird theory is as dead as is possible to imagine and thats just a fact.

When you morons refer to papers writtne by other brainwashed evos without one whit of math, fossil evidence, chemical evidence, experimentally varifiable date etc. that doesn't prove one darn thing just more malarkey and BS without a scintilla of factual evidence.

Give me a hundred just so stories.. they are not science.. just fairy tales.

You will never get it... macroevolution, common descent and abiogenesis will never be science because it cannot be demonstrated, repeated in the laboratory, is mathmatically inconsistent with statistical possibilities and all of the fossil evidence is mounted against it.. period.

You cannot show me any undisputed evidence that any of the above is wrong which is is other than a fairy tale.

Okay, who are you really? That entire post is a stream of ridiculousness that even DI fellows would be hardpressed to top. Who could have written that? I'm often curious about the people behind the screennames that I see on forums, but you take the cake. You have captured my curiosity. I want to know who you are.

Four hundred scientists are anti-evolution? I'll be liberal and say that 2000 biologists are out there that do not support evolution. There are millions upon millions on the other side. And don't tell me that the scientific consensus is wrong because YOU brought it up.

Evolution doesn't expect us to find every possible transitional fossil. They are too rare and too easily destroyed. But you'll act like I never said that.

So you're discounting all scientific papers just because they were written by scientists in a language that you can't understand? Then you have admitted that you cannot be swayed. Your mind is closed.

"You cannot show me any undisputed evidence that any of the above is wrong..."

Who the heck do you think you are anyway?

    
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,18:55   

A troll. I´ve heard there be trolls here on the Internets.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,04:05   

Fishy Fred,

I never said 400 scientists don't believe in evolution. Rather there are 400 who publically state they do not accept neo-Darwinian theory of muation and selection as an acceptable explanation of the life we observe. And that does not include any members of the American Scientific Affiliation or the very large body of Creationists. Anyway any person skilled in critical thinking knows that Conclusions from Popularity is a severe logical fallacy. (I can give you references if you like)

As to language there are a number of good books written by people with credentials comparable to anyone on this forum who make very convincing arguments based on the very same data and findings that are readily understandable by college degreed people. They just reply on hard nosed facts instead of dashed lines, plaster of paris and pseudo science approaches to math, statistics, thermo, pchem and such hard sciences.

Denton, Meyers, Yockey,Gish, Wilder-Smith and many others write rather clearly and accurately and are well documented.

I even recall one of my mentors Dr. Harry Lass was able to make a rather unique contribution to GR with an article on the Twin Paradox using math no more complicated than Calculus.

You see some sciences do not need linguistic obfuscation to hide the weaknesses of their theory.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,04:12   

Quote
They just reply on hard nosed facts instead of dashed lines, plaster of paris and pseudo science approaches to math, statistics, thermo, pchem and such hard sciences.

More intellectual dishonesty Evopeach?  It's already been pointed out to you that fossils are not reconstructed from plaster of paris, unless there is already a complete fossil to model the incomplete one off of.  I know, because I'm the one that dug up the reference.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,04:42   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 13 2005,09)
I never said 400 scientists don't believe in evolution. Rather there are 400 who publically state they do not accept neo-Darwinian theory of muation and selection as an acceptable explanation of the life we observe.


How many of those scientists are biologists, and what do they believe to be an acceptable explanation?


Quote
Anyway any person skilled in critical thinking knows that Conclusions from Popularity is a severe logical fallacy. (I can give you references if you like)


But the Conclusion from Popularity is one that ID supporters like to use, given the 50%-66% support that ID gets in polls.

All while dismissing the near universal consensus on evolution by scientists, incidentally....

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,09:04   

As to the list of neo-darwinian rejectionists its posted so I'll let you practice counting yourself. And I suggest you stop parading around the idea that only biologists are real scientists. You may alienate the paleo bone polishers, zoologists, physicists, astronomers... etc.

Unlike evos, IDers and IC people never say we know we're 100% right and everone else is a redneck, uneducated, bible thumping, illterate cult group.

Neither do they insist on suppression of alternate explanations or paradigms in science, the persecution of people who disagree with them, the denial of work tenure etc. for opposing or even questioning the evo principles.

Its really quite obvious that the suppression of new ideas that might call into question the theory of evolution and the censorship of associated textbooks  is a very common practice in the evo camp and that open debate in the marketplace of ideas, schools in particular, is very much feared indeed. I wonder why?

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,09:11   

:04-->
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 13 2005,14:04)
As to the list of neo-darwinian rejectionists its posted so I'll let you practice counting yourself. And I suggest you stop parading around the idea that only biologists are real scientists. You may alienate the paleo bone polishers, zoologists, physicists, astronomers... etc.

Unlike evos, IDers and IC people never say we know we're 100% right and everone else is a redneck, uneducated, bible thumping, illterate cult group.

Neither do they insist on suppression of alternate explanations or paradigms in science, the persecution of people who disagree with them, the denial of work tenure etc. for opposing or even questioning the evo principles.

Its really quite obvious that the suppression of new ideas that might call into question the theory of evolution and the censorship of associated textbooks  is a very common practice in the evo camp and that open debate in the marketplace of ideas, schools in particular, is very much feared indeed. I wonder why?

"...censorship of associated textbooks  is a very common practice in the evo camp..."

I love that one.  Please learn what the Establishment Clause means and you might understand why such comic books are not allowed in our public schools.[B]

Arguing that this is not a effort gain religion a foot hold in our public schools is disengenious.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,09:29   

You mean  "an effort to gain". See I understood you exactly but I wanted to mimic the evo form over substance trivia for you.

I would be very satisfied with one six week session where the Michael Denton book "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" was objectively presented without a wisper of religion brought into the discussion. It after all was the watershed event that brought the ID vd ND evolution to the forefront originally. He is an evo, not an IDer or a YEC so that can't be the problem.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2005,12:03   

:04-->
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 13 2005,14:04)
As to the list of neo-darwinian rejectionists its posted so I'll let you practice counting yourself.

Where? Show me a link or back your claim up in some way, please.


Quote
And I suggest you stop parading around the idea that only biologists are real scientists. You may alienate the paleo bone polishers, zoologists, physicists, astronomers... etc.


I never said they were. The point is, why ask astronomers, physicists, etc, about something that isn't their field of expertise? You wouldn't go to a heart surgeon and ask him to do eye surgery, would you?

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,05:07   

Wonderpants,

Jerry Coyne isn't he one of those brothers that makes independent movies?  His article in New Republic must be really embarrassing to your clan.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts....%20News

Are Doctors men of scientific training?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts....id=2611

Oh and here's the link to the 400 people.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts....ainPage

Evolution is a multidisciplinary field and all of those you mentioned are integral to its promulgation. If all science were left up to biologists nothing would happen in science that required math beyond long division, physics beyond f=ma/gsubc, chemistry beyond h20 etc., e=ir should I continue.

If I should ever have trouble telling an oak tree from a cactus, I'll call you right away, however.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,05:36   

You mean F=ma.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,10:22   

GCT,

Do you really want your butt kicked over that again. I can easily resurrect the sources that drove your head into the ground last time.

Are you an intellectual masochist?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,13:41   

You mean the part about the sources that didn't agree with you, or the part about how you wanted to introduce a unitless component in order to make the units in the equation line up?  How about the part where it was all evasion on your part from the beginning in order to avoid showing your inconsistencies?

We don't need to go down that road again, anyone can scroll back and see that my butt was not whipped on it, just like anyone can see that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Helium either.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,03:44   

GCT,

You mean the direct quotes from the mechanical engineering texts and instructor notes from two rather prestigious universities using my precise nomenclature and  showing that gsubc is implicit or explicit in every system of units in the world depending on the systems.

Oh and the direct quote from Newton's work using the term proportional which for non-math people like you insists on a constant of porportionality is I suppose to be ignored.

I know, Einstein really meant E=m.

Against that is the assertion of you, a moron,an egomaniac and an academic hack outside whatever discipline you have dabbled in ... to date undefined.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,03:55   

Um, try 1 link, not 2 (another lie I see.)  Also, it did not back up your position, as it used a completely different equation.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,04:54   

GCT

If Michigan State Engineering School is deemed non-authoratative by you regarding the F=MA/gsubc precise and general form of Newton's law try this nail in your coffin goober head.

WIKOPEDIA is the Source for the following:

The F=m·a relationship can be used with any consistent units (SI or CGS). If these units are not consistent, a more general form, F=k·m·a, can be used, where the constant k is a conversion factor dependent upon the units being used.

For example, in imperial engineering units, F is measured in "pounds force" or "lbf", m in "pounds mass" or "lb", and a in feet per second squared. In this particular system, one needs to use the more general form above, usually written F=m·a/gc with the constant normally used for this purpose gc = 32.174 lb·ft/(lbf·s2) equal to the reciprocal of the k above.

You are the most intellectually dishonest person I have encountered in all my years of debating on the net or elsewhere. There is simply something psychologically wrong with a person who in the face of absolutely black and white, substantiated, expert provided, sourced, universally accepted evidence that is 100 percent against their position continues to rant and rave about their correctness.

I truly think it would be best if you just stopped posting or responding to my strings because I have no further interest in listening to such a dishonest and uninformed person.

You are now on logical ignore.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2005,05:09   

I don't see that anywhere on wikipedia.

Even if I am being intellectually dishonest, let's consider a few things.  You never addressed the fact that this was all a side discussion from the beginning.  Also, the question was whether it was the general form or not.  Considering that text books use F=ma and that's the original form from Newton, not to mention that your form is only to make units agree, which is superfluous since you can also just change the units of the m and a variables, I would have to say that you are still wrong.  But, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you are right and I am just being stupid, stubborn, or whatever.  Then, you would have a single instance of intellectual dishonesty from me, vs. the numerous ones that you have displayed that have been expressly written out for all to see.  Yeah, I'm the intellectually dishonest one here......right.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:37   

GCT,

If you can't read this get Dan to help you ... or maybe .. or maybe ... or maybe... darn just take my word for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force


Butthead and Bevas had nothing on you two clowns.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,10:48   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 17 2005,09:54)
GCT

You are the most intellectually dishonest person I have encountered in all my years of debating on the net or elsewhere. There is simply something psychologically wrong with a person who in the face of absolutely black and white, substantiated, expert provided, sourced, universally accepted evidence that is 100 percent against their position continues to rant and rave about their correctness.



Evo,

I'm not going to wade through the kinematics part of the discussion because it's irrelevant to what I'm about to say. Do you realize how little credibility you have here when you rant about intellectual honesty? You demand an answer to how the human brain could have evolved from helium, and then you deny you ever made any such demand when it's pointed out to you that helium has nothing to do with the human brain. When we quote you making just such a demand, you still deny saying it.

The spectacle of you accusing someone else of intellectual dishonesty is one of the mildly funnier things I've heard today.

Also, if you want some more laughs, here's an article on your source for the F=m*a relationship.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Henry J



Posts: 4008
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,17:15   

At the risk of asking a silly question, what is the distinction between intellectual honesty and nonintellectual honesty?

Henry

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,18:52   

GTC,

The formalism Newton used to describe force was the one regarding the change in momentum:  F=dp/dt.  F=ma is of course equivalent, and easier to understand by pre-calculus students.

Evo is hung up on the units.  For some reason he thinks the gsubc coefficient is important at all.  In reality it is just a kludge to get different units to work in the equation.  As long as one is consistent it is irrelevant what units one uses.  Physicists rarely plug any real numbers into their equations until they've solved for what they want completely.  It's common to set persistant constants to 1 to get them out of the way:  h = 1, and c =1 are typical.  As a result it's common to see things like "the mass of that particle is 32 MeV."  MeV is a unit of energy, but since it's easy to convert to mass (by dividing the energy by c^2) physicists leave it like it is.  At the end of the day though, when it comes time to check theory with experiment, they have to go back and re-insert all of those c's and h's.  It's actually not so hard to do.  All one has to do is make sure the units match up.

One has to take into account that Evo claims to be an engineer.  He probably has to work with SI and Imperial units all the time.  As a result, it's best that he remembers the gsubc, so he can keep things straight.  Even though it's just a unit kludge.  I'm betting it's what he learned in school, and it's not wrong.  It's just not what physicists use.

-Dan

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

Pages: (8) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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