Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    It's still the same there as well. So why are you incapable of refuting all of his article which clearly supports evolution?

    Then it should not be hard for you to support those claims of yours, especially when you know who said it and in regards to what. I would like to see the letters written to Science Magazine about that one Ayala quote.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The word "guess" does not appear in the article.

    In other words, the conference participants were discussing the conclusions they had drawn from their studies of different types of data. The data itself was not the focus of this particular conference. Nevertheless, some data was presented, as Lewin notes.

    Drawing conclusions based on theories and data is not the same as guessing.

    I don't get the impression that you, leopold, have any idea what scientists actually do in their day-to-day work. You give every indication that you don't understand the scientific method.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    leopold:

    Do you agree that the scientists at the conference reported in your favorite article came out in support of the theory of evolution, as opposed to creationism or any other alternative to science?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    That claim is unsupported.

    What have you learned in the past 3 years, leopold?

    Also, you forgot to answer why you'll only strust jstor as a source of this article. Do you trust Science, too, or just jstor?
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    You can purchase access to the article on the Science website (the original source) for just US$20 for one day.

    Go here:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/secur....pdf?sid=22822566-1b29-4118-8292-6afc45f0fed7

    This is surely well worth you forking out the money, isn't it, leopold? So you can check that the article hasn't been altered from the original by the Evil Grand Scientific Conspiracy.

    Please buy the article and get back to us on whether the free sources quoted above are accurate, leopold. I look forward to it.
     
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    This, again?

    I thought it was settled with Thomas Schopf report on the same conference?
     
  10. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Maybe so. However, you have been told this for several years now by folks here at SciForums. I (for one) have given you links to academic sites with the text of classroom material currently (or recently) being taught. And they include the discussion that addresses your concerns. So you have the option now of learning the current material, or using your decades-old information, which you imply was defective, as a basis for attacking science at large. However if what you really want to do is to research evolution and discover for yourself how it works, then you should enroll in a course in Evolutionary Biology and from there you will be well prepared to dig deeper into this question that plagues you, through further research.
     
  11. Dany Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    You do not seem to be pointing out any facts. Most of your posts seem to be arguing. I am yet to see a detailed response from you why you find evolution unconvincing.

    You remind me of Shaun Johnston.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shaun_Johnston

    You claim at first to just 'question' evolution and not be a creationist yet you use creationist sources and websites. Now you may not want to identify as a creationist right now but we can see you have your thinking firmly routed in creationist thinking. You will come out of the closet sooner or later

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    leopold isn't interested in learning about evolution. I think he's only interested in hearing about anything that claims it doesn't happen.
     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I believe in the process of change that is referred to as evolution. Even if you believe in creationism, after Adam and Eve, nature and eco-systems are not the same, as they were in paradise, as they are today. Humans have created variables and nature has to react and change. This shows natural change after creation; aspect of evolution.

    Although I believe in natural changes within life over time, I don't believe that that current science of evolution, used to explain the data, is correct. If we take any stage of life, from abiogenesis to modern man, and/or any level of life from enzymes to an entire animal, life will not become evident, if we take out the water. There is no life within only organics, apart from water. How can the evolution of life fixate on organics if organics apart from water is not alive?

    Experiments have also shown that no other solvent can be added to the organics and make life return, all the way down to enzymes. Life evolved in water and is tuned to water so intimately that to ignore this connection to water, means bad science. You can't ignore water at any level in the analysis and be right. Yet the current science does not place the proper amount of emphasis in their analysis, on the local and global impact of the water that make life possible. This makes the science an approximation, but it excludes it from being real.

    I am not saying the fossil and historical data is not real. This is hard data. I am saying the current explanation for the data is obsolete and lingers based on political smoke and mirrors, and not an appeal to reason. Nobody will explain how and why they do not include the impact of water, in every explanation, even though if we remove water, at any stage, nothing happens and life disappears. I can see why religion went after evolution, as is; evolution, as is, is a religion of denial supported by an irrational interpretation of the observational facts, that leaves out a main variable.

    The political trick is not to compare evolution to a rational analysis that includes water, but to fixate on creationism and lump all oppose the status quo, this way. This tactic allows it to avoid addressing rational science concerns that render it obsolete. Water loads the dice of random and makes the god of chaos disappear. This god is a cornerstone of the evolution religion and it taken away makes it naked so you can see its defective body.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Jesus, we know already. Everyone knows that if you take all of the water out of a cell this is a bad thing for the cell.

    Politics? Really? Politics has nothing in the slightest to do with evolution, well, except that the republicans are forced to say the don't believe in evolution to placate the part of their base composed of the lunatic radical christian right.
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Yes, in other words, the opposite is true: wherever the teaching of evolution is opposed, the folks opposing it tend to be Republicans. They alone have politicized the issue, picking up from where the fundamentalists politicized it through the Scopes Monkey Trial.
     
  16. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    • Please post on-topic and do not post nonsense.
    26910/829.44-1/2 ~ (55/36)32.
    Where the shape of the New Jerusalem "coming down out of heaven from God" is a perfect cube (Revelation 21:16: "The plan of the city is perfectly square, its length and its breadth equal. He measured the city with his rod and it was twelve thousand furlongs, equal in length and in breadth, and equal in height"), 1000 the dimensionless H20-resolution of the gravitational constant (Theorem for a Flat Universe: The ρcrit = 3H02/8πG Building Block 1000), V/BSA = 829441/4 the resistance ratio of the absolute dead center cube, and NJCf-d the face diagonal of the New Jerusalem cube (Revelation 21:16),
     
  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I think this is common among anti-science posters. They never have any actual interest in the facts and evidence they deny.

    leopold stands out with one additional belief: that people are actively altering posts, documents, etc., just to obstruct him.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Agreed. He knows that if he comes out and says he is a creationist he will be criticized, so instead he tries to cloak himself in the mantle of science, saying "I am just a skeptical scientist who is being very careful, and thus I cannot believe this theory with all these holes in it!" Yet he cannot find any holes. So he resorts to looking for misquotes to try to prove that someone 35 years ago said something wrong. It's a common tactic of creationists - claim they are not creationists, then quote mine for objections and claim "I am just being skeptical and objective."
     
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Too many tabs open? Looks like you meant to post this elsewhere.
     
  20. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    26910/829.44-1/2 ~ (55/36)32.
    Where the shape of the New Jerusalem "coming down out of heaven from God" is a perfect cube (Revelation 21:16: "The plan of the city is perfectly square, its length and its breadth equal. He measured the city with his rod and it was twelve thousand furlongs, equal in length and in breadth, and equal in height"), 1000 the dimensionless H20-resolution of the gravitational constant (Theorem for a Flat Universe: The ρcrit = 3H02/8πG Building Block 1000), V/BSA = 829441/4 the resistance ratio of the absolute dead center cube, and NJCf-d the face diagonal of the New Jerusalem cube (Revelation 21:16),
     
  21. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Why are you posting this here?
     
  22. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    One furlong = 660 feet = roughly 200 meters. 12,000 furlongs = (very roughly) 2,000 kilometers. Even today we cannot build a structure that tall, much less an entire city, 2,000km square, composed of such structures. In biblical times it would have been inconceivable.

    We're talking about the area covered by a rather large country, consisting of row upon row of buildings so tall that even with our industrial-era technology we could not build even one of them today.

    Most of the Bible is pure bullshit, and the "New Jerusalem" falls into that category.
     
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    This seems to be the same mistake that creationists make when they try to use K-Ar dating on, for example, the lava dome at Mt. St. Helens.
     

Share This Page