Evolution is a Joke part XII

Well then I guess all those scientists are "creationists". Only one of them said anything about ID in his statement. None of them said, "God did it". They questioned the method of evolution as commonly described.

So you are all saying that these educated men are "crackpots"?

And again you attack the messenger and not the message.
Can't you do better than that?

 

Who was? I went through every single example you gave and none of them were considered crackpots. The only person actually degraded in any sort of manner was Goddard in an editorial column in the New York Times due to sensationalism more than anything. Regardless of all of these "people ridiculed" (and by this I mean Goddard), every single one of those examples you provided, besides the Wright Brothers, had degrees in relevant fields and posted their findings in a peer reviewed journal which was the process I was justifying anyways.

Why are you posting this? Every single one of those individuals listed went to universities and got degrees in their fields, and then published their works. When I was talking about the purpose of stringent regulations on scientific journals, the point I was trying to make was that they are stringent to keep out uneducated ideas from people without any relevant education in their fields.

No, you clearly are lying now since, once again, you couldn't even accurately define evolution and you even told me earlier that you hadn't taken any evolution courses.

Wow, impressive, but that seems to be the extent of your knowledge on the subject.

You aren't asking questions, you're demanding that evolutionary theory is a dogma and is false, and yet you seem to have the most minuscule understanding of what the theory actually says, how the process is defined, and what the evidence for the theory is.

And as the others have pointed out, the Discovery Institute is one of the premier creationist foundations. So, you'll excuse us if we scoff at your claimed "understanding" of evolution.

Also, once again, you ignore my question about what evidence would prove evolutionary theory for you (because you clearly have no damned idea) and my question dealing with Babylonian mathematics.

Stop pretending that you're educated on the subject and actually educate yourself on the damn subject.

 

Funny story. One prominent youtube atheist decided that something seemed fishy about the list. So he did some research on the old published version with 101 signatures. The result? All but two people on the list he could contact either had no degree in any relevant field, felt that they were extremely misrepresented by the list, or had demanded their names removed from the list. And yes, that first point is really important, because many of the people on the list do not have any relevant education in the field. You wouldn't expect a mathematics professor or a law professor to necessarily understand evolution of the evidence for it. It's not that they're stupid, it's that they're ignorant, because nothing in their field requires that knowledge of them. It's like if an archaeologist suddenly started saying, "you know, this whole 'relativity' thing makes no damn sense" - there's no real reason to pay any attention unless they can demonstrate basic competency, and publish their work in peer-reviewed journals.

Meanwhile, the list still has less names on it than Project Steve. The fact of the matter is, among those who actually work in relevant fields (essentially, anything in or related to biology), the likelihood of not accepting evolution by common descent is up there with the likelihood of a geologist rejecting plate tectonics, because the theory of evolution by common descent is basically the glue that holds all of biology together - nothing we see in nature makes a lick of sense without it. And you would deny this. Look, I hate to break it to you, but that guy up there, when he said " Stop pretending that you're educated on the subject and actually educate yourself on the damn subject."? He's right, and I've been saying this from the start. You don't need a debate partner, you need an education.

 

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/[/quote]

Have you actually looked at the list of scientists and the statement that they agreed to sign onto? First off, there are a vast amount of scientists who signed this paper who don't even have close to relevant degrees.

Charles A. Rodenberger - Aerospace Engineering
Dave Jansson - Engineering
Timothy H. heil - Computer Engineering
Gerald Pech - Satllite Communications & Networking

The list goes on and on, Geosciences, Physics, Mathematics, Atmospheric Sciences, Computer Sciences, Statistics, etc.

And the statement that these people agreed with?

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

As critics have noted, 'the statement's wording is "very narrow, omitting any mention of the evolutionary thesis of common descent, human evolution or any of the elements of evolutionary theory except for the Darwinian mechanism, and even that was mentioned in a very limited and rather vague manner."

Hell, even I would agree with the statement, for the most part. The purpose of science is to always be skeptical of ideas and examine the evidence.

There are a bunch of other criticism lobbed at this list:

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

Here are a few excerpts, but you really should read the entire article:

"In addition, the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields."

Which is what I was pointing out.

"Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. For example, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice and, according to Forrest and Branch, is deliberately misleading."

"The National Center for Science Education interviewed a sample of the signatories, and found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed.[11][48] It wrote to all of them asking whether they thought living things shared common ancestors and whether humans and apes shared common ancestors. According to Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, a few of the signatories replied saying that they did accept these principles but did not think that natural selection could explain the origins of life. However, the replies ceased when, according to Scott, the Discovery Institute found out and advised signatories not to respond. She concluded from this that "at least some of the more knowledgeable scientists did not interpret this statement the way that it was intended [by the Discovery Institute] to be interpreted by the general public."[39]"

We've already discussed this topic.

I just want to post a relevant quote from Mr. Wells.

"Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism..."

Not much to respond to here.

 

Holy (*)(*)(*)(*), using proper quote tags isn't that difficult. You're quasi-coherent morass of words is barely legible due to the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up use of quote tags.

 

If by poo-pooed, you mean universally accepted, sure.

Motivation and intelligence are nice, until you run into the problems of not being trained in the proper etiquette for running experiments including control protocols, handling equipment correctly, calibrating equipment correctly, dealing with statistical outliers, etc. Not to mention the problems of not understanding the current ideas, techniques, and experimental data available, especially when the subjects get more complex.

No, but it does take a period of time where you actually sit down, study the subject, and peruse the basic experiments and available data. And I don't consider going to creationist websites or ancient alien websites studying the subject.

Semantics, gotta love it.

No, now you're just being a liar and an ass. You literally asked me a few posts ago what evidence would disprove evolution, after you steadfastly refused to acknowledge that you have no idea what evidence for evolution would even look like, and I gave you a list of what would disprove the theory. Hell, I even said this in my last post in regards to the statement that the list of scientists signed onto:

"Hell, even I would agree with the statement, for the most part. The purpose of science is to always be skeptical of ideas and examine the evidence."

So, who's being emotional and a dogmatist now? I would go with the person who can't define evolution, is ignorant of the available evidence, is unfamiliar with what some biological concepts even mean, and is ignoring everything I've said.

Give me one, just one argument that hasn't been refuted in this thread that you've brought up. Every subsequent post you drop statements of mine that were answers to your questions or your "refutations of evolution", which I proclaim means that you're the one being dogmatic here considering you can't even rebut my answers and just keep insisting that 99.9% of scientists with relevant degrees are dogmatists.

And yes, I'm ignoring the Discovery Institute because they are demonstrably a religious organization with a forceful anti-scientific agenda that they've been trying to insidiously insert into our public school systems. They have knowingly misrepresented scientific evidence, misquoted scientists, and their members have dogmatically spoken of their main goal: the destruction of any scientific finding that goes against their conservative Christian beliefs.

You want to know why I dismiss them? Let the "Wedge Strategy", a plan authored by the Discovery Institute speak for itself:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

You want dogma? THAT is dogma.

Just because you're ignorant of morphology (Mr. "Lol, what's morphology, you mean morphing?!") doesn't mean we all are.

 

Funny how the differences that matter most escape your notice.

First of all, one doesn't need "proof or data" when one has insight. I have it and you don't, bummer for ya.

Second, you've made it plain that you don't understand what conscience is to begin with, so it would be like trying to prove the Pythagorean Theorem to someone who doesn't understand addition.

No, because I don't know that to be true or false - and neither, obviously, do I have any reason to give a damn one way or the other.

Relative to you and everyone who looks like you, you may safely consider me an expert on the human condition.

You care nothing for science, else you'd not recoil from knowledge of yourself like a vampire from a cross.

And dogmatic atheists need it to be otherwise, so as to maintain their blissful ignorance of their misdeeds.

 

Pretty ironic coming from the guy who said, "First of all, one doesn't need "proof or data" when one has insight. I have it and you don't, bummer for ya," in the very same post.

 

Not here on Earth. Star Trek original series had a silicon based life form. Pure accident does not explain diversity and complexity, and I not sure that silicon has the properties to support the complex chemical forms that make up life. I think I remember hearing that some shell fish hace shells or exoskeletons that has silicon. DNA is a carbon reaction with protiens and other chemicals that supprot life. So if silicon is the basis of life somewhere else then the DNA compounds would be different.

 

Yawn...

 

Funny how you lack the honest or the ball to actually address the question. Sidestep much?

No, actually you do. That's how it works. You want to make a claim, then you need to back it up and the fact is, you can't. You bible can't and your faith can't. The science proves you wrong.

Well, you could know if you're sincere intention was to learn. But, because it's not, you choose to remain ignorant. That's something you should work on.

Based on your blatant intellectual dishonesty, you fail as an "expert". Maybe you could get one of those degrees like "Dr." Kent Hovind. You know, the kind where you don't actually go to school...

You're making value statement regarding Knowledge???.....that's rich. Let's just let the irony of your comment hang in the air.

So, when new fact and evidence are introduced and accepted....how is that Dogma? Project much?

 

I think one of the main issues is how much heavier Silicon is when compared to carbon. This means that it is naturally much rarer throughout the universe than carbon is, and simultaneously a bit less willing to react - it's like the difference between dropping a pound of Natrium and a pound of Cesium in water; there are just far less atoms of Cesium to react with, so that when the Natrium makes contact, you'll have a very nasty explosion, and when the Cesium makes contact, you'll have considerably less of a bang. It's possible, but the likelihood of it existing is very low, and in any system that could generate silicon-based life forms, you're far more likely to get better results from carbon-based lifeforms.

 

While I agree with this explanation, as it is absolutely accurate....I would point out the diversity of possible worlds, and the timeframes involved. It is very likely at least a few billion world are primarily a Silicon base rather than Carbon. These worlds will go through much the same evolution our world went through over time, and naturally be forced to use what chemical components exist.

 

...and because life that begins and evolves on any planet (if it's possible) is the result of that planets environment.

 

God is a genius!

 

Well, according to your definition, he's literally omniscient and omnipotent, so I don't see how that even registers as a statement.

 

Don't forget Omnipresent. He is genius because he is creator. From the smallest detectable particle to the ever expanding vastness of a seemingly infinite universe his handiwork is clearly visable and he is understandable because of it. Science is cool.

 

No, god id jeebus!

 

This may be amongst the most ridiculous statements yet provided by you....which is truly saying something.

Science is indeed very cool.....understanding is nice as well.

 

Science reveals God's work the way he did things, the building blocks of all that is.

 

"Corruption" is a non-answer. Most life on earth is parasitic, and a great deal of them are obligate parasites. Toxoplasma parasites have to live in certain hosts at certain times of their lives and enable their continued existence by altering the behavior of their hosts (for instance, making rats less fearful of cats; rats being an intermediate host for several Toxoplasma species and cats being the terminal host, thus, they make it more likely that their intermediate host is devoured by their terminal host and thus they hitch a ride from one to the other). Simply handwaving it away as "eh, Original Sin something something dark side something something" as a way of explaining parasites doesn't really explain anything at all. So, YHWH either had an extra-Biblical creation, in which case, the Bible is untrustworthy as it is sorely lacking important information, or the Bible is not a literal document (though, why that should surprise anyone is a sad commentary on human gullibility).

 

Unfortunately...Science cannot in any way show the hand of this "God" in any aspect of reality. That you appreciate some aspects of the process is commendable, that you choose to ignore the concept in favor of limited understanding is rather silly.

 

That God is a revealed by what God has made. That is the very definition of understanding.

 

I see....so you have no option but to fall back on the "God exists because he says so" tactic......very scientific.

Tell me please, what defined or even slightly tangible aspects of this entity can be examined by science?
....and reading a book does not cut it.