Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Media Alerts and Destroying Evolution

Pages: (4) < 1 [2] 3 4 >

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,04:38    Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,09:28) Now, if we're past all that, and someone wants to actually make the topic of discussion the evidence for and against evolution that's certainly great news.  If *I* am to be the topic of discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time. You have that ability.  Anyone can start a thread.

rmagruder Posts: 20 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,04:52    Let me get this straight. I counted more than 10 different people responding to this thread.  So basically for every post I make, there's going to be a large amount of piling on, and I'm going to have to respond to each and every one. (And that's assuming no one else joins the dogpile, right?) I did, by the way, follow the link to the whole AFDave thread and now I see where the engineer and pilot insults came from -- I didn't know where that was coming from until I followed the link.   So just how crazy do I have to be to mix it up with you guys when every bullet I fire is going to be answered with a hailstorm of gunfire? Hmmm  I've got to decide whether I actually care enough about this subject to do this... Randy

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,04:53    Quote okay, I glanced at the messages here ... I did pick up the topic title change.  Thanks. As far as whether its okay to move someone's comments from one board to another and effectively say 'let's fight'.... the problem is one of multiple fronts.  Let's say I took someone's post, copied it, pasted the guy's name and quote on every forum I could, and challenged him on all those forums.  Now anyone (at least, anyone with a life), is not going to be able to go to every forum where he's been quoted and challenged and put his dukes.... so the people on those forums say "Ha! Whattsa matta??? Too CHICKEN?!".  You're basically saying: "You not only have to continue THIS thread, but I've challenged you over on THIS thread, too...."  You win by swarming, no other reason. The purpose of ATBC is for PT people to chat about off-topic threads. You're not seeming to get that. I guessed that since much of the content in your posts were not directly about Ann Coulter being on tv, yours would get moved to the off-topic section here. It was just a guess. There's no consistent behavior. Some PT authors move comments, some let anything go. Quote The way this topic was set up was akin to being directed down a dark alley and "pay no attention to the men with the brick bats".  And then if I don't wander in, I get to be called names.  Well, from what I can see, the insults would be coming either way.  If I come in and chat, I get insults.  If I don't come in and chat, I get.....insults. You started with the insults from the beginning. "laughable concept of science" sound familiar? Start making some detailed scientific claims and we'll argue those. If you want to sit around and trade insults, there are people here who will oblige that too. Quote So what do I possibly have to gain from being here?  Zip. Now, if we're past all that, and someone wants to actually make the topic of discussion the evidence for and against evolution that's certainly great news.  If *I* am to be the topic of discussion, then I'm not going to waste my time. Randy Start making some scientific arguments and we'll be off to the races.

rmagruder Posts: 20 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:15    Yeah, I will admit I started off defensive, mainly because as I read the thread regarding Ann, all I saw were insults not so much aimed at her, but anyone who might agree with her. I have the all too common weakness of sometimes diving into the mud myself when I feel attacked. I shouldn't.  I know I shouldn't.  And yet sometimes I still do.    It's that pesky thing called emotion that kicks in some times when you feel that people are dealing with differences by simply dismissing anyone who disagrees with them as clueless, scientifically stupid, etc, and effectively including you in that group which is so beneath contempt.  What can I say, get me in the right mood, I'm easily baited.  It was also around midnight and I was tired, so there you have it - recipe for gettin' a little hostile. The main difference, I guess, is that the thing just turned into a dogpile...and having to fend off a dozen different people all hurling insults is a losing proposition. Let me also clarify a big misunderstanding from the outset.  I expressed my opinion in the other thread, gave an example of something I don't agree with (the gravity = evolution thing), and this was construed as "hey he wants to destroy evolution - let's give him a thread and let him go at it").  I never said I wanted to enter a long drawn out debate on every scientific front by a dozen or so opponents who have demonstrated on several occassions that they are interested in nothing more than a public lynching. I did not move the thread here and start a topic, and I did not indicate a desire to get into an involved debate.  All of this was ASSUMED, and now I can see that any attempt by me to say "whoa" is going to be met by "see he wanted a fight and now he got cold feet".   So, I'll tolerate the inevitable cheap shots that are on the way for saying I don't particularly want to go down this road right now.   If we can get past that for a moment, I am ALWAYS interested in reading literature that disagrees with what I think.  The biggest problem, as a working parent, is time.  So, I'd be interested in hearing recommendations on books that you guys currently deem to be your best summary of evidence for evolution.  Preferably up to date, preferably not loaded with ad hominen attacks.  Just plain and simple: "here's our case for evolution".  I don't mind buying a few books from amazon and doing some reading to catch up with what's currently popular in these circles. If I have questions or comments, I certainly know where to come for my abuse... Thanks, Randy

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:21    Sounds to me like you have no evidence and can't prove anything, and so now you're complaining of being 'persecuted', and trying to back out by copping an attitude that you're the only 'mature' one. That pretty much describe it? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

rmagruder Posts: 20 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:23    Cheap shot #1.  noted. My money is on at least 3 shots before someone actually moves on and gives me some good book recommendations. Takers? Randy

JMX Posts: 27 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:30    Ernst Mayr - This is Evolution What Evolution Is You lost   edit: Got the title wrong (probably because I read it in German), thx for the heads-up.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:31    Don't take this as an insult, but your grasp of what evolution IS sounds questionable. Whether you intend this or not, you come across as someone who "knows" evolution is wrong without feeling the need to understand what it is. So you might wish to start with Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is", a book that's reasonably short, clear, and accessible to the layman. Incidentally, what bothers people about Coulter is that her claims are largely incorrect, dishonest, misleading, and buried in an agenda so divorced from how science works as to be nearly impenetrable. As is true of many if not most of her persuasion, her arguments aren't based on the evidence; instead, evidence is fabricated or twisted as necessary to fit religious doctrine. That may satisfy Coulter's soul, but it's not science.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:33    Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,10:23) Cheap shot #1.  noted. My money is on at least 3 shots before someone actually moves on and gives me some good book recommendations. Takers? Randy I'll take that as a 'yes'. Seriously, do you actually have any proof, or are we 'abusing' you by asking that? You seem to dislike evolution an awful lot, and yet so far you've shown no real knowledge of it, and spend all your time compensating for this by insulting scientists, as tho this will hide your ignorance. In fact, the only 'counterevidence' to evolution I've seen from you is "Piltdown man was wrong, therefore evolution is wrong!" If all you're going to do here is whine about how awful scientists are and how mean people are to Ann Coulter, it's going to get old fast. If you're not in fact as ignorant as you seem, I would invite you to show it. And insulting 'evolutionists' won't accomplish that. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:35    Try "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins. You can skip the ad hominem arguments if you find any. I didn't notice any, myself.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:37    Quote So, I'd be interested in hearing recommendations on books that you guys currently deem to be your best summary of evidence for evolution.  Preferably up to date Unfortuantely books tend not to be that up to date on the current evidence as the field moves quite fast. Im told What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr is pretty good. Regarding comparing evolution to gravity I think in many ways the comparison is pretty solid. The theory of gravity is not a theory that things will fall, it is the theory that trys to explain the forces that cause them to fall. Similarly the theory of evolution trys to explain the diversity of life. We cant really 'see' gravity so we make predicitons to test our theory, just like evolution.

rmagruder Posts: 20 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:44    You're right.  I still got the 3, but not all before the book recommendation! Point conceded. The attempts to bait me into 'opening the door' and demonstrating that I know what evolution is are being resisted on purpose.  Because I recognize a gravity well when I get near one.  As soon as I get started, I'll get suctioned in (much as I already have....I really MUST get some work done today! ARGH!.   Anyway, I'll look into getting "What Evolution Is".  As far as Dawkins book...he's a pretty big lightning rod in this debate.  Do the majority of you guys consider him to be the best authority? Randy

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:45    Douglas Futuyma's college textbook, "Evolutionary Biology", is likely the way to go for a summary. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

rmagruder Posts: 20 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:50    Gads...is it PRICED like a textbook? (bad memories of college bookstore shopping...ouch). Randy

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:53    In terms of subfields of evolution, this book about the relatively new science of evo-devo is good: Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155 The Mayr book is highly recommended. Here's a long list by biologist PZ Myers. Pick one or two of the more general ones, would be my suggestion:     Quote For the grown-up layman: Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Sean Carroll. A phenomenal book; if there's one book you should pick up for an introduction to evo-devo, this is the one. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Matt Ridley. Orac says, "It's a downright poetic look at each of the 23 chromosomes and what sorts of biological and disease processes genes from each of them are involved in, along with a nice dollop of evolution of the genome." Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Kenneth Miller. Danny Boy says, "A Christian debunks creationism and shows how evolution can be compatible with Christianity." Charles Darwin: Voyaging(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) and Charles Darwin : The Power of Place(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Janet Browne. This is the best biography of Darwin out there. Science As a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). John A. Moore. This is part history book, part philosophy of science book; if you know someone who doesn't understand the scientific method, this one will straighten him out. The Darwin Wars(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Andrew Brown. Much as we aspire to the pure search for knowledge, scientists can be testy and political and vicious, too—this is a study of the sociology of evolutionary biology. Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Carl Zimmer. If you want a general survey of the history and ideas of evolutionary biology that isn't written like a textbook, this is the one you want. At the Water's Edge: Fish With Fingers, Whales With Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Carl Zimmer. The focus in this one is on macroevolution of tetrapods and cetaceans. Excellently written, with a very thorough overview of the evidence. Trilobite: Eyewitness to Evolution(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Richard Fortey. Everything you need to know about the basics of trilobytes, with a chatty and often amusing introduction to the world of paleontologists. The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Jonathan Weiner. A Pulitzer-winning account of the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant in documenting the evolutionary changes occurring in Darwin's finches in the Galapagos right now. Taking Wing: Archaeopteryx and the evolution of bird flight(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Pat Shipman. Chris Clarke says, "an excellent and readable treatment of current thinking at printing on bird evolution and the evolution of that instance of powered flight." The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Richard Dawkins. Mrs Tilton says, "both as a general explanation of evolution and as a particular refutation of what has come to be known as intelligent design." The Ancestor's Tale : A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Richard Dawkins. A step-by-step account of human evolution, working backwards through time. What Evolution Is(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Ernst Mayr. A survey of the theory by an opinionated master. Evolutionary Biology(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Douglas J. Futuyma. If you don't mind reading a textbook, this is one of the best and most popular texts on the subject. An Introduction to Biological Evolution(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Kenneth Kardong. Another textbook, but less weighty and less expensive then Futuyma's; a book I'd use in a freshman non-majors course. For the more advanced/specialized reader: From So Simple a Beginning: Darwin's Four Great Books (Voyage of the H.M.S. Beagle, The Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals) (amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Charles Darwin, Edward O. Wilson (Editor). I've read these books, but I don't own this edition…so this is one I'll be hinting to my wife might make a nice present. It collects the four in one volume, with introductions by Wilson, so if every you've wanted these seminal works for your bookshelf, here they are in an inexpensive edition. On Growth and Form(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson. I'm afraid no developmental biologist can list important books without mentioning this one. From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Sean B. Carroll, Jennifer K. Grenier, Scott D. Weatherbee. Like it says…molecular genetics, evolution, developmental biology. A good textbook describing the new cutting edge of evolutionary biology. Shaking the Tree : Readings from Nature in the History of Life(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Henry Gee. GirlScientist says, "This is a collection of scientific papers that were influential in the field for one reason or another." (I don't think she intended that her recommendation come out sounding so tepid.) Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). David M. Raup. A little statistics, a lot of paleontology, a good introduction to how we try to puzzle out what the world was like from a sparse data set. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Stephen J. Gould. Massive. Indulgently written. But full of interesting ideas. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Mary Jane West-Eberhard. Also massive. If you're already comfortable with the conventional perspective on evolutionary theory, though, this one twists it around and comes at it from the point of view of a developmental biologist. Biased Embryos and Evolution(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Wallace Arthur. A slim and readable book about evo-devo. The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Richard Lewontin. A slender book that lucidly summarizes the non-reductionist position on modern biology; it's a call for greater breadth in science. The Shape of Life : Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). Rudy Raff. Hardcore evo-devo. A little out of date, but very influential. If you want to know what I think the most appropriate book for you would be from that list, I'd say it's definitely Futuyma's textbook Evolutionary Biology.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:56    Quote You're right.  I still got the 3, but not all before the book recommendation! Point conceded. Curious - what exactly did you perceive as a "cheap shot" by either Wesley, Chris, Alan, Flint, or JMX? -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:57    Yeah, it's priced like a textbook, but you can find used copies. Here's one for $52 http://www.amazon.com/gp....on=used and I bet if you look you can find maybe a slightly older edition for like $20 or so

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,05:58    Quote (Renier @ June 15 2006,09:36) Well, you aqre a free man in here, and can even open a topic yourself! My I suggest for starters, your evidence against evolution. The evidence for evolution is a lot longer discussion, and could be the main course. I have a better idea: how about evidence for creationism? I realize that might be an extremely short thread, but since AF Dave shows no sign of admitting defeat yet, we'll still have plenty of material from creationists to respond to. -------------- 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

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,06:02    Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,09:52) So just how crazy do I have to be to mix it up with you guys when every bullet I fire is going to be answered with a hailstorm of gunfire? How crazy, I dunno- Do you intend to scientifically prove that the Earth is 6000 years old?     Quote The attempts to bait me into 'opening the door' and demonstrating that I know what evolution is are being resisted on purpose.  Because I recognize a gravity well when I get near one.  As soon as I get started, I'll get suctioned in (much as I already have....I really MUST get some work done today! ARGH!. I see... OK, that's understandable. Unlike W.A.Dembski, you seem to have a life; so it's normal to hesitate to "match our pathetic level of detail" (WAD's words). But you could, you know, give us a small summary of what you think is wrong with the way ToE explains the diversity of life, and we could talk about that? Just a thought. Anyway, you've seen afdave, and you've seen sceptic's posts, so I guess you must know by now exactly what's frowned upon here... -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

rmagruder Posts: 20 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,06:04    Cheap shot (and I should know because I'm guilty of taking them myself, as has been pointed out), is trying to assume you understand my motives, draw perjorative conclusions from such, use words I didn't use, etc.  There's no redeeming value in that kind of post.  So yeah, I'd say the attempts to make the topic a referendum on ME and what a backward hick I must be not to agree with you....is pretty cheap. But again, struggling to move on... I added Ernst's book to my amazon cart.  Here's another question. This one should challenge you. What is the best book you've ever read that CHALLENGES  the validity of evolution?  It's pretty easy to say "Oh that Behe, he's just a pseudoscientist (does that mean he got a 'pseudo-degree' in biochemistry? <G>)', etc etc.  So, have you ever read a book that you feel did a good job in challenging the theory of evolution?  Or are you convinced that there is no such scientist, no such book, and that it's just a bunch religious zealots trying to push creation into the classroom?  I'd be interested in seeing where YOU think the theory has been most capably challenged, and by whom? Randy

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,06:06    We at least have to credit rm for being willing to read some books. That's more effort than many creationists are willing to give. Remember how AFDave came in here? "Prove evolution to me in 5 sentences in your own words." Followed by 65 pages of "Nuh uh"s. Quote What is the best book you've ever read that CHALLENGES  the validity of evolution?  It's pretty easy to say "Oh that Behe, he's just a pseudoscientist (does that mean he got a 'pseudo-degree' in biochemistry? <G>)', etc etc.  So, have you ever read a book that you feel did a good job in challenging the theory of evolution?  Or are you convinced that there is no such scientist, no such book, and that it's just a bunch religious zealots trying to push creation into the classroom?  I'd be interested in seeing where YOU think the theory has been most capably challenged, and by whom? Randy The scientific literature is where evolution gets seriously challenged. There are two things. There's the fact of evolution, which is the phenomena that we've overwhelmingly witnessed, and there's the theory of evolution, which is an evolving model which explains the fact. Since you mentioned gravity earlier, I'll explain in those terms. There's the fact of gravity--planets moving in orbits, books falling when you drop them, all the measurements pertaining to those phenomena. Then there's the theory of gravity, which used to be F=G(m1)(m2)r / r^2, and is now Einstein's general relativity, but still the first part for most common uses. Just as scientists argue about how to further adapt the theory of gravity to explain the fact of gravity, scientists argue about how to adapt the theory of evolution to explain the fact of evolution. So if you look in all the journals of evolutionary biology, you'll find people arguing for modifications of evolutionary theory, people saying this or that kind of speciation is more important, or just how important sexual selection is, or what the constraints are on protein function. These are all attacks on evolution, in the sense that they seek to alter the theory in some way, which is to say, they argue that the current theory is defective in some way. As far as if you mean, what's the best case that evolution does not exist, you won't find anybody making a decent case for that, in the same way you won't find anybody making a decent case for gravity not existing.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,06:09    Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,11:04) What is the best book you've ever read that CHALLENGES  the validity of evolution?  It's pretty easy to say "Oh that Behe, he's just a pseudoscientist (does that mean he got a 'pseudo-degree' in biochemistry? <G>)', etc etc.  So, have you ever read a book that you feel did a good job in challenging the theory of evolution?  Or are you convinced that there is no such scientist, no such book, and that it's just a bunch religious zealots trying to push creation into the classroom?  I'd be interested in seeing where YOU think the theory has been most capably challenged, and by whom? I dunno, this paragraph makes it look like he's already backpedalling on his offer to actually read any real science books. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

JMX Posts: 27 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,06:16    Randy, you'll need to have at least some basic understanding of evolution before you can assess any criticism thereof. Like Miles Davis said (I paraphrase): "You gotta know the rules before you can break 'em" So read at least one of the recommended books and then you can go for the "controversy". Babysteps, y'know?

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,06:19    Quote So, have you ever read a book that you feel did a good job in challenging the theory of evolution?  Or are you convinced that there is no such scientist, no such book, and that it's just a bunch religious zealots trying to push creation into the classroom?  I'd be interested in seeing where YOU think the theory has been most capably challenged, and by whom? Well, I'll take a crack at this, because it's chock full of questionable assumptions and can't be answered directly. The fact of evolution (that life forms change over time for some reason) is not subject to rational debate. It happens. The *theory* of evolution, which proposes testable mechanisms by which such changes occur, is pretty well nailed down in large-scale terms, which is to be expected after tens of thousands of scientists have been adding mountains of corroborating evidence over 150 years or so. So when you speak of challenges to this or any other well-established scientific theory (and evolution is probably the most solid, best-attested theory science has ever produced), hopefully you aren't talking about challenges to the fact of evolution itself. Life forms DO change over time. The theory is only concerned with how and why this happens. And as with any scientific theory, there are always items of debate at the forefront. With respect to evolutionary theory, there are quite a few. How important is genetic drift? Are mutations always random with respect to fitness? Does selection happen at levels above (species) or below (cells) the level of the organism? I'm not a biologist; I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can add to this list a great deal. But note that such debates and targets of current research are not creationist-class broadsides against the fact of evolution. If that's what you're asking for, sorry, evolution is as established as gravity. There is no longer any informed debate about this. There is a great deal of debate at the margin, about the details of the mechanisms. Which is what you'd expect of such a mature theory.

rmagruder Posts: 20 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,06:20    >> How crazy, I dunno- Do you intend to scientifically prove that the Earth is 6000 years old?   Okay, so just to try to make sure I'm not stereotyped, I'll just summarize my position: Yes, I'm a creationist, and by creationist I mean that I believe the universe was brought into being by a divine intelligence.  Do I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old?  I tend not to.  I've become fairly satisfied that the time scales are much, much greater.  Exactly how long, I'm not sure (and I think the degree of exactitude anyone can reach drops the further you go back).   Do I believe that evolution could have happened under divine guidance?  I believe it's the only way evolution COULD have happened, at least if we are to bet on the odds and what we know about nature.  I do not believe that naturalistic forces alone can get life from non-life, nor do I believe that random mutations get us from chemical soup to sentient beings.  I think the odds are just too long.  There are basically two issues in play for me.  1) That evolution could happen and 2) That it did happen.   I'd also like to hear whether people feel that a scientific theory can be disproven in order to make it legitimate science.  Can evolution be disproven (even theoretically).  What would it take to disprove it?  What would it take to actually change anyone's mind about it? I don't claim to have all the answers.  I write software for a living, and my thinking TENDS to be logical (note I didn't say ALWAYS...I'm human, too).  My educational background is in physics and chemistry in college.  (I love numbers <G>). So there you are.  I'm not thumping Genesis in anyone's face.  Just consider me a skeptic who reads a lot.  Regarding Ann's book, I tend to read her stuff more for political than scientific content.  I also agree she crosses lines that I would not cross.  I found her book interesting mainly because it led me to jump to the footnotes on events and issues I had not been following, then go read about them.  For example, in the case of the Dawkins eye simulation, I read what she cited, then read Dawkins' rebuttal, the scientists' responses, etc.  "Quote mining" as you call it, to me is just a pointer to go check somethng out.  I don't mind it.  As long as it's in context (and all sides like to yank them out of context to buttress their arguments).    Given the constraints on my time, I find it rather nice to be able to go to talkorigins.org, wikipedia, and various online resources to read up on the issues in question.     So no, I'm not here to 'disprove' evolution.  I'm not here to attack people who believe it.  I'm here because I want to catch up on some reading, see what the current best arguments are, ask some questions, and see what's going on.  I don't have the time or energy to get sucked into the name-calling quagmire...so I'm trying hard to get out of that. Randy

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,06:20    Randy said, Quote What is the best book you've ever read that CHALLENGES  the validity of evolution? I have yet to read a book that actually challenges evolution using real data and sound arguments.  I have read pretty much everything the ID advocates have published, and a bunch of old 'creation science' works (such as the Genesis Flood). Quote It's pretty easy to say "Oh that Behe, he's just a pseudoscientist (does that mean he got a 'pseudo-degree' in biochemistry? <G>)', etc etc. Except that we do not do that.  Behe's work has been rejected because the arguments are poor and inadequate, not because we feel that Behe has an agenda.  We recognize that the existence of an agenda on Behe's part may, to some extent, explain the nature of his arguments, but we are not engaged in ad hominems.  If you read our responses to AFDave, you will note that our initial response was to deal with his arguments (or lack thereof).  It was only when he demonstrated that he was incapable of understanding or reacting to criticism that we found him amusing. Quote So, have you ever read a book that you feel did a good job in challenging the theory of evolution? No.  See above.[/quote]Or are you convinced that there is no such scientist, no such book, and that it's just a bunch religious zealots trying to push creation into the classroom?[/quote] You have now offered a false dichotomy; simply because I have not seen any valid counter-arguments does not mean that I am convinced that someone could not present one.  Just that I've never seen one. Quote  I'd be interested in seeing where YOU think the theory has been most capably challenged, and by whom? It hasn't.  As yet.  I encourage you, if you feel you have a valid counter-argument, to make it. But we see a great many strawmen, logical fallacies, special pleading, etc. so we are sensitive to those.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,06:21    Quote (rmagruder @ June 15 2006,10:15) Yeah, I will admit I started off defensive, mainly because as I read the thread regarding Ann, all I saw were insults not so much aimed at her, but anyone who might agree with her. I have the all too common weakness of sometimes diving into the mud myself when I feel attacked. I shouldn't.  I know I shouldn't.  And yet sometimes I still do.    It's that pesky thing called emotion that kicks in some times when you feel that people are dealing with differences by simply dismissing anyone who disagrees with them as clueless, scientifically stupid, etc, and effectively including you in that group which is so beneath contempt.  What can I say, get me in the right mood, I'm easily baited.  It was also around midnight and I was tired, so there you have it - recipe for gettin' a little hostile. Here's the deal, Randy. Many of the posters here are professional scientists, and a significant fraction of those work in the life sciences. As you may have noticed, Americans who believe in evolution are in the distinct minority, so while they may be most of the people here, it isn't hard to understand why they might feel a bit persecuted. So when someone (not necessarily you) comes by saying things like "laugably weak arguments for evolution" and "pathetic level of detail," they tend to get a bit irritated. Especially when nine times out of ten those statements come from people (William Dembski comes immediately to mind) who know little or nothing about evolutionary theory. So they get tired of having their lives' work insulted, belittled, and denigrated by people who don't have the knowledge or the credibility to make the criticisms in the first place. But, being scientists, they're open-minded and willing to hear your criticisms. But, since you're on their home turf (and no one is forcing you to make your criticisms), you'd best be prepared to defend your opinions. It's part of a scientist's professional life to have to defend his or her positions on things, so they're pretty good at it. If you are really interested in criticizing evolutionary theory, you'd best be prepared for a fight. If you want to see what happens to creationist arguments around here, have a look at AF Dave's threads. Yes, tempers do flare, but in many cases I believe it's justified. When you have a character like AF Dave, whose ignorance of basic science is breathtaking, still claiming victory in dispute after dispute despite having had his arguments obliterated, people do tend to get testy. Can you blame them? -------------- 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

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,06:22    Quote What is the best book you've ever read that CHALLENGES  the validity of evolution?   There is no 'best book', only a pile of pseudo-science dribble filled ones with some that suck less than others.       Quote It's pretty easy to say "Oh that Behe, he's just a pseudoscientist (does that mean he got a 'pseudo-degree' in biochemistry? <G>)', etc etc. No, it means he totally abandoned the scientific method, including peer review of his work, to push his religion-based anti-science claims.       Quote So, have you ever read a book that you feel did a good job in challenging the theory of evolution? Nope.  No such book exists. And I have read most all of the popular creationist and ID diatribes.       Quote Or are you convinced that there is no such scientist, no such book, and that it's just a bunch religious zealots trying to push creation into the classroom? That sums it up nicely       Quote I'd be interested in seeing where YOU think the theory has been most capably challenged, and by whom? The overarching ToE hasn't been seriously challenged for over a hundred years.  The fine details of certain areas have certainly been challenged and modified as new data comes in - that's the way good science works - but no capable challenges to the overall theory have been raised. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

rmagruder Posts: 20 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,06:27    I have some concerns about the current state of peer-reviewed science. Is it really a 'victors make the rules' place? I ask because (and no I haven't researched this so I'm admitting up front I only have one side of the story).  There was an incident with regards to, I think it was Smithsonian magazine engaging in a so-called witch hunt on someone because they allowed to be published a paper that DID pass peer review, but seemed to call into question some tenets of evolutionary thought.  There were references to an investigation, and an investigation OF the investiga  This was alluded to in Coulter's book and I hadn't seen it elsewhere. Is anyone familiar with this issue and can point me to 'the other side' of that one? Randy

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 15 2006,06:28    Randy said, Quote I'd also like to hear whether people feel that a scientific theory can be disproven in order to make it legitimate science. That doesn't appear to make sense; could you clarify?  If we disprove a theory, then it's not legitimate science.  If you are asking whether a theory must be falsifiable to make it legitimate science, then I can agree that it must be. Quote Can evolution be disproven (even theoretically). Which part?  Remember that evolution is an entire collection of mechanisms, and the proposal that those mechanisms operated over a historical period to produce the current biodiversity. A rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata would be a good sign that something is wrong, for example.  The continued persistence of a phenotypic feature that decreased reproductive success, for example. Part of the problem with evolution is that we've been doing experiments for 150 years and have found nothing that contradicts that evolution happens - though we've found data that makes us think about the contributory factors and priorities of various evolutionary mechanisms. Quote What would it take to disprove it? See above. Quote What would it take to actually change anyone's mind about it? Valid counter-arguments based on actual data.  Just like any other science.  There's nothing special about evolutionary theory.

Pages: (4) < 1 [2] 3 4 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard