views on evolution

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Apr 21, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,725
    Wow, that's like .01% of the people working in the field!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720
    A typical example of leopold’s cherry-picked anti-evolution “evidence”.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is from a statement called “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute (a non-profit public policy think tank that advocates intelligent design). It is one of many disingenuous and dishonest efforts by the Discovery Institute to manufacture scientific controversy and promote an imagined dissent in the evolutionary biology field.

    An account of this woeful effort can be seen here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720
    Oh no, it’s much worse than that. It’s a common strategy of the creationist to swamp the reader with a long list of references, names, figures, factoids etc. in the hope that the reader won’t delve any deeper than a casual glance at the list. But I did a quick check down that list of scientists. Here’s the breakdown:

    Biologists (of one type or another): 39
    Chemists (of one type or another): 19
    Physicists: 8
    Astrophysicists/Astronomers: 2
    Mathematicians/Computer Scientists: 10
    Medical doctors: 6
    Engineers: 6
    Environmental scientists: 3
    Psychologists: 2
    Geologists: 1
    Unknown: 7

    Biologists: 39
    Non-biologists: 64
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    The figures don't add up very well!
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    this time you are wrong hercules.
    it was the entire webpage, i "cherry picked" nothing.
    yes, we all know how reliable wiki is, right?

    i noticed you failed to address the post i made from "a storhouse of knowledge".

    i also noticed to failed to explain why my post from science daily was moved here.

    and could you explain why almost 75% of HS biology instructors outright dismiss evolution or had no comment because they were concerned about their academic future?
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,714
    Because this is a thread dedicated to evolution deniers.

    Same reason I'd have no comment if someone asked me if I supported the flat earth society. I'd just laugh.
     
  10. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720
    You cherry-pick everything. You desperately scour the internet for anything that appears to support your misunderstanding of evolutionary science whilst ignoring everything that people here offer you in counterpoint. You quote mine and resort to conspiracy theories when you’ve got nothing else. You’re the epitome of the disingenuous cherry-picker.


    Fine, have a go at addressing the references that are offered on that page, then.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Hilarious! And also quite sad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So let me get this right: you question my usage of wikipedia then in the very next sentence you ask me why I haven’t addressed your usage of a wiki (a Bible-centric one at that) in support of your evolution denialism.


    Because you are engaged in a dismal effort to deny evolution by desperately cherry-picking any source of information that appears to support your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. That’s why.


    What’s your point? Are you trying to use this as some sort of evidence against the validity of evolutionary theory? What is this popular science journalism piece saying, according to you?

    Did you somehow miss the message that the majority of teachers who do not implement National Research Council recommendations on the teaching of evolution are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives? Did you miss that this majority take this position so as to avoid controversy, not because they explicitly believe the theory of evolution to be wrong?

    I’ve lost track of the number of times you’ve offered evidence that doesn’t say what you think it says. It means you either don’t read your evidence or you can’t understand what’s written. Either way the prudent advice is to stop embarrassing yourself.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2011
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    this entire post of yours is nothing short of vilification hercules.
    my posts and references stand on their own, the authors are there for all to see.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i don't understand what you mean to say here.
    because you aren't a biologist you are unqualified to make an assessment as to the validity of the evidence?
    is that what you mean to imply?
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    HS biology instructors where? Is this across the US, or just in a few flyover states?

    These people obviously aren't qualified to teach biology if they dismiss evolution. If they do support evolution and are afraid to say so then their school boards and employers are at fault.

    Evolution is a fact. Only somebody who is ignorant or willfully blind will deny this.
     
  14. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @leopold --

    I'm pretty sure that, on this subject, your posts and about 99% of the sources you reference are viewed as "laughable", at best. What's next, a link to a Kent Hovind or Ken Ham quote?
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    Willfully blind then. Ok.
     
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    that's exactly my point hercules.
    if evolution was indeed such a dyed in the wool, set in stone, fact, what would be so "controversial" about it?
    or maybe the "controversy" surrounds their career, the piece doesn't really elaborate.
    i'm not the type of person that will say i seen something when i didn't.
    honestly i don't care which side is right.
    and equally honestly i haven't seen any evidence for either side.
    so, where does that leave us?
    could it be that maybe, just maybe, there might be a third option?
    we will never know by doggedly pursuing the status quo will we.
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you can't see something that isn't there james.
    the lab results, i haven't seen any.
    where are they?
    post them.

    no, i'm not "willfully" blind, just a stickler for the "hard evidence".

    do yourself a favor james, prosecute evolution like it was on trial for murder.
    what would it take for you to convict someone of murder james and apply that same reasoning to evolution.

    then show us the evidence you used.
     
  19. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @leopold --

    Well then you've either never picked up a biology text book in your life, are choosing to remain willfully ignorant to preserve a pet belief, or lack a functioning brain. Which is it?
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    What's controversial is that the school boards in some states. usually elected non-scientists from the general population, have often been stacked with creationists who have tried to stop the teaching of science and to persecute those who teach it. What these people want is their religion taught as science.

    Like I said, there's no scientific controversy about evolution. There's just a conflict between some scientists and some religious nuts who want to pretend that religion is science.

    For somebody who doesn't care, you seem to spend an awful lot of time trawling answersingenesis.

    I think you're only interested in looking at stuff that backs up your existing religious views - just like most creationists. Willfully blind, in other words.

    What? After all that reading you've done, you really don't have an opinon either way?

    I think you're an ingenuous liar on this topic. If you're fooling anybody, it can only be yourself.

    Take some time out from answersingenesis and go over to talkorgins.org. There's plenty of lab results there for you to peruse, nicely collected in one place for your reading enjoyment.

    Evolution is a beautiful theory. Without evolution, the rest of biology makes no sense at all. If you can show me an alternative scientific theory that explains all the things evolution explains and more, then I might change my mind.

    I've looked into creationism, by the way. It's not even science. And ID is just a thinly-disguised version of creationism.
     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    maybe.
    the piece doesn't elaborate so this is your opinion.
    and you seem to have dropped one too many luudes.
    bite me james.
    i have no idea why you resort to such pitiful horseshit like this.
    have my ideas though.
    won't work.
    it isn't up to me to provide your evidence.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    This is an easily-verified fact. Maybe you ought to read more than one "piece".

    No. I'm going by the evidence again. You repeatedly lift and cite articles from answersingenesis. Ergo, you rely on that site for most of your creationist propaganda information.

    Why do you keep coming back for more? Every time you're shown up, you slink away, only to reappear with the same tired assertions a few weeks or months later. One of us is shoveling the shit, and I don't think it's me.

    Really? Do tell. I guess you think I'm part of the global scientific conspiracy that wants to quash your religion.

    Not until you pull your head out of the sand.

    I didn't ask you to. You wanted evidence, remember. I pointed you to some. I can't make you look at it.
     
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Personally, I can see how the data shows the gradual change of life over billions of years. But I also believe that the random mechanism being taught is only a stepping stone to a better model. The current model is not a final law of science, like many suggest. The current theory cannot predict the future with any accuracy, due to its assumptions. This does not fully meet the requirements of a science theory in physics or chemistry, never mind a law of science.

    To put this in perspective, if I had developed a theory for the creation of stars but I could not predict anything about a forming star, that would not be instituted as a law of science. It would need to go back to the drawing board. Evolution, as is, is based on 20/20 hindsight, which is not adequate to make this type of future predictions, anymore than an armchair quarterback can play in the game in real time and make future decisions. This lack requires dogma for smoke screen.

    The creationists suggest a model based on an ordering principle, while scientific evolution makes uses of a disorder principle so they can excuse themselves from having to make future predictions. This is too convenient. Part two is political pull to remove all competition so this is all there is. The ID people assume order, and tries to use mechanisms supported by science. The intelligent aspect of ID means no excuses like the current model, rather you need to use your intelligence. In my case, I make use of free energy, which amounts to the same thing as natural selection, but admittedly lacks the mystical appeal of natural choice. The idea was reason not emotional appeal like we do now.

    What I have found is the guardians of scientific evolution, tend to ignore common sense to defend the dogma. Most ID people see that. For example, changes on the DNA are assumed random, even though parts of the DNA are more likely to mutate that other parts. The random assumption does not even make sense in the context of the entire DNA, yet the supporters are either not rational enough to see this, or are simply using a political tactic to discredit reason and common sense in favor of their veil of emotions. Conceding one things makes the system so insecure that you have to assume there are more problems. Reasonable people are jumping ship because evolution is wide open for change. The behavior of the evolutionists, in terms of intolerance, has shown many people how irrational the supporters can be implicit of defending dogma theory like it is a type of religion.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page