Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I don't think I said you said it, what I said was that there are some people on this thread. You weren't the one who talked about it. And also when someone questioned about scientists, I said there was one. I didn't say your name because you hadn't done so in this thread, but I was giving you a bump.

Given that you wrote this-

Barcs, please read Peter Vlar's comment about Darwinism. Abiogenesis was a construct within the paradigm of Darwinism.

. I hope you can understand how it could be misconstrued because the connotation seemed clear to me.

From what I am gathering is this...you guys are no longer concerned about the origin of life so therefore you only need to study evolution as it is occurring now. Hence, study about the small, adaptive mutations in present species?

You make it sound as if evolutionary studies are just one small, generalized way of looking at the past. Sure, there are evolutionary biologists who study the minutiae and how it connects to things we can see and test for now but the fact is, in Anthropology alone there are dozens and dozens of specialized areas of study. Everything you're ranting about is generally covered during an undergrad program unless you're grad program is geared specifically to studying small, adaptive changes in present species. In anthropology you can study physical, cultural, social anthropology and on and on. Each of these disciplines has their own multitude subsets and specialized areas of study so to take the entire area of study and condense it and some parody of a generalization is disingenuous and ignorant.

Small, adaptive changes in present species lead only to small, adaptive mutations in species. Those adaptations reverse. This is what you guys are telling me, that evolution isn't concerned with the grand picture of where life originates, only what it does now?

Evolution is the study of the process itself. God, creators, abiogenesis, panspermia etc... Are of no consequence. If you want to know about origins talk to a molecular biochemist not an anthropologist. You keep talking about evolution as if its a University Dean not an area of study.

Is this then how it works now..."just simply accept that you are primate, now concern yourself only with the small traits you inherited from your parents. but let's never talk about where your original ancestors came from, just the several million years ago". Is that it?

No, that's not how it works. Nobody I've studied under or worked with has advocated for approaching science from a point of ignorance. Nothing is blindly accepted and your statement is borderline ludicrous because any anthro 101 student is going to have to familiarize themselves with all members of the genus Homo, Australopithecines, Ardepithecus, S. Tchadensis etc... You'll have to know at which points various lines diverged, learn about the European apes, the fact that while humans may have originated in Africa, primates originated in Asia. Your coming offals condescending and mocking.

Let's talk about evolution except that...let's talk about evolution except where life orginates...let's talk about evolution except when there might be an Intelligent Designer, but let's never talk about it? Is this is it?

And that's really your issue, that evolutionary studies don't include creation by your version of god.

Is that it? Accept that I am a primate without origins and wasn't designed at all, just a random, adaptive. mutated species?

This just reinforces the impression you're giving off about nobody wanting to accept intelligent design or creation by your own personal deity. Its a rather arrogant approach in my opinion. From my end, I follow the evidence, the fossil record and genetic data. If god ever shows up in that data stream it'll be front page news. It just doesn't factor into how I study things from any angle. There could be a god, I'm not arrogant enough to rule out the possibility of anything but until evidence for that appears, I'm going to continue doing what I've always done. Either way, I'm open to wherever the data leads, you on the other hand seem genuinely frightened at the possibility of sharing ancestry with the other great apes.

I know what evolution is and you guys have went on and on and on about how I don't know and yet you have consistently again and again said nothing leading toward evolution. But hey, the origin of life no longer matters at all in the current climate, but let's teach children they are primates descended from some ape/human hybrid, and let's force them to believe it without question.

You start of with this righteous indignation about how you DO know what evolution is and then prove you don't by saying that children are taught they are descended from an ape/human hybrid. The jury isn't out, the case is closed. You may think you know all about evolution but you don't understand anything at all regarding it and have continued to make that clear all through your foot stomping and pouting.

Is that evolution today? Nothing more than just trying to discover why there are mutations? EVERY peer review I have posted has cited Darwin. But if Darwin isn't important any more then please tell your Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris and others to please shut up about it. Oh no, you've added more to Darwinism, you understand Darwinism so much better now, we've evolved past that understanding. No, you guys have just given up on it because it failed in the expectation to say where life originated. So let's not talk about it any more.

Its interesting how it always comes full circle to your religious paradigm and are mentioning Dawkins, Harris and Krauss who are very public and outspoken atheists when I could have thought of dozens of anthropologists at the forefront of breaking new ground. Those guys you mentioned have as much affect on my studies as Ray Comfort.

Your inability to seperate evolution which is a legitimate fact based scientific theory from Hypothesis like abiogenesis is a huge burden that you refuse to see let alone understand. I'm sorry that science as a whole doesn't just study things the way you demand they be studied but until you can differentiate there's not much point in harping on it.

The question is now this, was Darwin wrong?

Could you be a little more specific? He was correct about some things and not so much on others. Its a pretty big book and covers a lot so to generalize his entire hypothesis as right or wrong but massive over generalizations are your speciality at this point.

a reply to: WarminIndy

You have it backwards, religion expects you to believe without question... Nothing about science requires or forces you to believe anything without question. The field of evolution fits the very definition of science, it follows the scientific method, it does not depend on opinion but on empirical objective evidence. Opinion can be wrong, as can be seen by the fact that your opinion of evolution is wrong. In science evidence is king!

Bagging on Darwin does nothing to harm his theory as it currently exists, 150 years later. It doesn't matter if some of his ideas were incomplete, or even wrong. These things get worked out by subsequent generations of researchers.
Darwin is not a prophet whose words must be taken literally from then and forever. Creationists would be better served by learning the theory as it is now.

I've seen your type before you're nothing more than a particularly loud creationist latching onto a scientific principle you barely understand and insisting it proves other scientific theories wrong, as if actual scientists wouldn't have noticed that before you? What a joke!
And even worse, you exacerbate your ignorance with accusations of fallacious reasoning when the comments you refer to- are not... it's insulting!

Provide some actual evidence that refutes evolution or concede your argument.

Looking over this thread, I don't understand how it
has only raised ten flags. Not just because the OP brings
some good stuff to the table, which he does. But also because
of the way the questions posed by the OP have been fielded.

I'm just saying that after going over this thread. I'm really impressed
with the information and great discussion on both sides.

Awesome thread everybody.

SnF

a reply to: WarminIndy

You can't have genetic mutations without genes, therefor Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution. It has nothing to do with ancestry or anything else you are talking about. Evolution is specifically genetic mutations sorted by natural selection.

It isn't about not being concerned about the origin of life. We'd all LOVE to know the answer to this one day, but equating it to evolution doesn't make the least bit of sense.

Please give me some examples of modern biology textbooks that teach abiogenesis as a fact and do not refer to it as a hypothesis. You are making numerous assertions in this thread. I'd like a citation on this one, please.

Why do you assume that genetic changes and speciation events cannot add up over time leading to greater diversity from the original species? Beetles don't mutate into birds. They mutate into slightly different beetles. It's like that with every observed instance of speciation. But again, I'm going to ask you why these changes cannot add up after thousands to millions of speciation events? Why can't millions of small changes eventually become big change?

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: WarminIndy

You have it backwards, religion expects you to believe without question... Nothing about science requires or forces you to believe anything without question. The field of evolution fits the very definition of science, it follows the scientific method, it does not depend on opinion but on empirical objective evidence. Opinion can be wrong, as can be seen by the fact that your opinion of evolution is wrong. In science evidence is king!

Bagging on Darwin does nothing to harm his theory as it currently exists, 150 years later. It doesn't matter if some of his ideas were incomplete, or even wrong. These things get worked out by subsequent generations of researchers.
Darwin is not a prophet whose words must be taken literally from then and forever. Creationists would be better served by learning the theory as it is now.

I've seen your type before you're nothing more than a particularly loud creationist latching onto a scientific principle you barely understand and insisting it proves other scientific theories wrong, as if actual scientists wouldn't have noticed that before you? What a joke!
And even worse, you exacerbate your ignorance with accusations of fallacious reasoning when the comments you refer to- are not... it's insulting!

Provide some actual evidence that refutes evolution or concede your argument.

Of all you said, this is the most disturbing..

It doesn't matter if some of his ideas were incomplete, or even wrong.

It absolutely does matter when teaching students. And why is it that if he is wrong and you can embrace that, why do you say it matters for anything else you think is wrong?

What this means is that you are comfortable with building on the wrong premise and continuing it. A wrong premise never turns into right outcome. That's the foundation, so if the foundation has cracks in it, then the whole building is in danger of collapsing.

What were you taught as truth that later was found out to not be true?

a reply to: WarminIndy

You could say the same thing about any religious teaching...they can all be wrong.
But evolution at least evolved from darwinism to what is taught today backed up with fact.
Can't say that about any religious teachings.

originally posted by: WarminIndy


Of all you said, this is the most disturbing..

It doesn't matter if some of his ideas were incomplete, or even wrong.

It absolutely does matter when teaching students. And why is it that if he is wrong and you can embrace that, why do you say it matters for anything else you think is wrong?

What this means is that you are comfortable with building on the wrong premise and continuing it. A wrong premise never turns into right outcome. That's the foundation, so if the foundation has cracks in it, then the whole building is in danger of collapsing.

What were you taught as truth that later was found out to not be true?

No, what it means is your mind is battling so hard against a fact based reality as it attempts to maintain its religious paradigm that you refuse to read all the words people are writing. This has been replicated ad infinitum throughout this thread in your replies. Nobody said that the incorrect portions of what Charles Darwin postulated a century and a half ago are being taught as true, correct or factual today. In fact most professors are all to happy to point out what he got wrong and demonstrate how far science has come since then. Heck, even in 10th grade biology back in the late 80's it was a frequent topic of discussion so I honestly don't know where you're drawing these notions from but you keep ranting about how you know what evolution is, how it works and how it's taught while simultaneously demonstrating the exact opposite. I'm getting a little worried about you because your replies get more disjointed as the thread continues. You might want to take a day or two and point your mind towards something more positive.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: WarminIndy

You can't have genetic mutations without genes, therefor Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution. It has nothing to do with ancestry or anything else you are talking about. Evolution is specifically genetic mutations sorted by natural selection.

It isn't about not being concerned about the origin of life. We'd all LOVE to know the answer to this one day, but equating it to evolution doesn't make the least bit of sense.

Please give me some examples of modern biology textbooks that teach abiogenesis as a fact and do not refer to it as a hypothesis. You are making numerous assertions in this thread. I'd like a citation on this one, please.

Why do you assume that genetic changes and speciation events cannot add up over time leading to greater diversity from the original species? Beetles don't mutate into birds. They mutate into slightly different beetles. It's like that with every observed instance of speciation. But again, I'm going to ask you why these changes cannot add up after thousands to millions of speciation events? Why can't millions of small changes eventually become big change?

You know, I always use sources from your side to prove my points. And your side has not failed me yet again....

Evolution teaching abstract

And sometimes that content is wrong, and it has been for many years. Writers are in a difficult position because, if new research seems to contradict traditional information, it is hard for them to tell whether this new finding is really legitimate or will be overturned in a matter of months. And they have been burned in the past (just look up ‘Protoavis’). But textbook writers are also reluctant to change their presentations, even when they are long outdated, because they worry about being ‘too different’ from other textbook programs and confusing some teachers who expect certain content and cannot always keep up with new developments in the field. An example is how long it is taking textbooks to get rid of the Linnean classification system and teach phylogenetic systematics (cladistics).

And here is exactly what I said to this thread in the OP

Instead of saying ‘many scientists believe’ or ‘some scientists think’, it is more productive to talk about the evidence. What evidence (if any) supports a certain hypothesis, and what evidence (if any) seems to contradict it? And two more things: first, discuss what else we would have to know before we can advance the question further; and second, be clear about how we would know if a hypothesis were wrong. This, more than anything else, shows students what the process of science is all about. It takes a little more work on the part of the writer, but it is worth it in raising student interest and understanding. (An indispensable reference for explaining how science actually works is at undsci.berkeley.edu... webcite.)

How many places can you go on the internet that has that exact same statement? This guy who teaches evolution, once again at Berkeley, says that you should never use those words. I asked this in the OP. When I asked for evidence without the words "scientists think", people on the thread acted like it was a non-sequiter.

And if there wasn't difficulty producing the evidence, which is a problem in itself, the writer goes on to say.

To punch up the history of evolution, textbook writers often contrast the views of Lamarck and Darwin on how the giraffe got such a long neck. They do not say that Lamarck wrote 50 years before Darwin, that they never met or corresponded, or that neither man devoted more than a pgraph to the subject among the thousands of pages that each published

So textbooks and educators have been punching up, or filling in the places where there is no evidence or not teaching the history of the science itself, leads to wrong conclusions, from those teaching evolution.

Do scientists have dogmatic a priori and worldviews? Yes, they do.

Often, however, the personal aspect intervenes as scientists in a certain field will tend to favor one hypothesis over another, simply because they have been educated to understand (and therefore trust) some lines of evidence over others. The story is still usually not about individual scientists, but about standards of evidence in different fields.

And therefore trust, which is exactly what I have been saying all along, your trust leads to belief and faith. While you might not say you do, you do.

And, whereas it does little service to profile scientists who are on different sides of an issue, and personalize and polarize their arguments for students to choose between, it is perfectly useful to profile individual scientists who have pioneered concepts in a field, as well as including other people who have worked with them, to show how science is a cooperative enterprise. After all, most present-day scientific problems are advanced not by lone individuals but by teams of people from many institutions who take years to propose hypotheses, make research plans, and carry out interdisciplinary research.

So please tell me you would reject an Intelligent Design scientist who examines the same evidence, performs the same models, replicates the same tests. They are on the other side of the issue, but the secular scientist who approaches the evidence with the dogmatic a priori of "there is no God, just the evidence" has already looked that the evidence in that worldview.

And the accusation displayed on this thread is that we are all Biblical literalists and only the Creationists are involved in this scheme to undermine science, well look at this one...

Other historical figures, respected scientists who rejected Darwin’s views, or the ideas of evolution advanced in their times, were not necessarily creationists, and not usually in the strict sense of biblical literalism that we understand it today.

If I find any scientist that is not a Creationist who presents contradictory evidence, then you have little room to dismiss that scientist by calling him a pseudoscientist.

We like to say that ‘science is open-minded, not empty-headed’: trying to advance solutions to problems, based on what we already have found and want to know next, is why scientists get up in the morning. Scientific propositions are supposed to be testable, and ‘Science’ does not equal ‘Truth’, a word that should not be used in science.

At no point now can you say evolution is true, you simply can't. You can say it has some evidence, but you can't even say the evidence is true, because there are too many contradictory facts about the evidence itself.

There is only conflict between science and religion if people want it; or rather, there is conflict when people want it. That conflict comes from either side saying more than it reasonably can about its domain. But the non-theistic axiom of science (see below) means that it does not favor or disfavor any particular religious or other supernatural beliefs. In return, its statements about the natural world should not be contradicted on the basis of any sectarian religious beliefs

Now point to any post of mine where I said "the evidence is there of God". Nope, I said "this guy says".

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: WarminIndy


Of all you said, this is the most disturbing..

It doesn't matter if some of his ideas were incomplete, or even wrong.

It absolutely does matter when teaching students. And why is it that if he is wrong and you can embrace that, why do you say it matters for anything else you think is wrong?

What this means is that you are comfortable with building on the wrong premise and continuing it. A wrong premise never turns into right outcome. That's the foundation, so if the foundation has cracks in it, then the whole building is in danger of collapsing.

What were you taught as truth that later was found out to not be true?

No, what it means is your mind is battling so hard against a fact based reality as it attempts to maintain its religious paradigm that you refuse to read all the words people are writing. This has been replicated ad infinitum throughout this thread in your replies. Nobody said that the incorrect portions of what Charles Darwin postulated a century and a half ago are being taught as true, correct or factual today. In fact most professors are all to happy to point out what he got wrong and demonstrate how far science has come since then. Heck, even in 10th grade biology back in the late 80's it was a frequent topic of discussion so I honestly don't know where you're drawing these notions from but you keep ranting about how you know what evolution is, how it works and how it's taught while simultaneously demonstrating the exact opposite. I'm getting a little worried about you because your replies get more disjointed as the thread continues. You might want to take a day or two and point your mind towards something more positive.

Please point out to me where I said "The evidence proves God" or even where I said "this is true because my religion says it is true". When asked about what I personally believe and was baited, I gave my own personal views, against the preconceived ideas about what I actually believe. Yes, it is in this thread.

You know, I had to do a lot of reading, but the point I have maintained all along is that young people are being taught to accept it as fact. Then you come along and tell me about the multi-disciplinary facets of all the scientific fields. But I never once said Intelligent Design is the absolute truth, did I?

You would like to believe that I did, so jump on the bandwagon and think I have presented this. If you read through my posts about personal beliefs, I never used Intelligent Design and never once did I use anything from Intelligent Design to make my points. EVERY source was from a secular view.

When I questioned those things, people couldn't answer the direct points with direct evidence without going through the whole "Creationist alert!" Then it turns out that there are contradictory evidences shown within the educational systems, you guys still resorted to the old "you don't think science is real or true". I never once said that, all I was showing was that there are many contradictions within science itself.

I never once pointed out any religious views of scientists. You seem to think I did, and yet every piece of evidence offered by me was from a secular scientist. David Berlinski doesn't even do that, and he is an agnostic, which I heard from other people on this thread that they are as well. Berlinski noted that same contradiction.

I mentioned Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, not because of their lack of belief or their atheism, but how they are leading the charge against any opposing viewpoint to their secularism. I said that many young people are influenced by them and repeat their mantras. They need to address the contradictions from the scientific community before opposing, but yet they don't. And you don't see that as a problem?

My OP was addressing simple questions. Can you show me any resolve to these questions without any contradiction? No, you can't, that's why I offered to you the contradictions, from the secular side, not the Intelligent Design side.

I remember you from the banana thread, but the most important thing I mentioned in respect to you is your work with certain species and how you were yourself opposed in your career.

But why is it that the ad hominims against Creationists and Intelligent Design are permitted and yet the knee jerk reaction when it is perceived to be tossed back?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I mentioned Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, not because of their lack of belief or their atheism, but how they are leading the charge against any opposing viewpoint to their secularism. I said that many young people are influenced by them and repeat their mantras. They need to address the contradictions from the scientific community before opposing, but yet they don't. And you don't see that as a problem?

So you think anyone that's secular/atheist/non-theist has to address 'contradictions from the scientific community' before opposing religion or ID?

How about you address the conformations and verifications presented by the scientific community before you accept religion?

a reply to: WarminIndy

One trait we haven't lost thru evolution is our ability to
sling crap. Natural selection?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I mentioned Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, not because of their lack of belief or their atheism, but how they are leading the charge against any opposing viewpoint to their secularism. I said that many young people are influenced by them and repeat their mantras. They need to address the contradictions from the scientific community before opposing, but yet they don't. And you don't see that as a problem?

So you think anyone that's secular/atheist/non-theist has to address 'contradictions from the scientific community' before opposing religion or ID?

How about you address the conformations and verifications presented by the scientific community before you accept religion?

When an educator says something is a truth, then they need to show the evidence of the truth. And shouldn't they be doing this before a billion children are taught it?

I just gave the thread a long example from an educator at Berkeley who points out these flaws from within the educational system itself. If he feels it is an issue that needs to be corrected, then why is my agreement with him subjected to the same thing you just did?

The professor and I said the same thing, and yet the professor is secular. We both see the same issue. So if you agree with the professor then you agree with me. But if you disagree with the professor simply because I agree with him, then you throw that professor under the bus.

I do not disagree with scientific endeavors. Heck, I even follow NASA on Twitter. I do not disagree with educating children in science, but you all assume that people like me do not. If I didn't agree with science, I would not have had my genome tested. The problem that I have with science are the very things the professor pointed out, which is that the scientific community created the current problems because science is no longer being taught effectively.

From the same link in my previous post.

Avoid giving the impression that evolution is atheistic, or that evolutionists must be atheists
All science is non-theistic, by which is meant that it does not entail or require any concept of a god or other supernatural being or force. In fact, science is completely independent of any ideas about gods or other supernatural beliefs. But science is not anti-theistic: it does not deny such beings or forces, any more than it accepts them (or leprechauns or unicorns), because these things are not within the purview of science. There are many meanings of ‘atheism’ (literally, ‘without god’). We too often lump together various permutations of non-belief, and in so doing we allow religious fundamentalists (anti-anti-theists, so to speak) to treat scientists and others, who simply operate without reference to any particular deity, as if they were anti-religion (Figure 8; Onfray 2011).

The mere fact that you are attempting to bludgeon any Creationist or Intelligent Design proponent means that you are doing this very thing the author mentions. Science might not be theistic, but science can not be anti-theistic either.

The problem is in writing as if you were ascribing the ‘favoring’ of a trait to an actual, personified third party, rather than explaining the circumstances by which it was favored. Language like this is really not much different than that used by the advocates of ‘Intelligent Design’. Yet Darwin used it many times himself in The Origin of Species.

The following thought pattern described has led people, including Richard Dawkins himself, to conclude that bats and man are related solely because the bat has five sets of finger bones, like man.

We all know that structures do not ‘evolve for’ some function. But this sloppy diction gives the uninitiated the impression that there is a direction to evolution that is manifestly teleological.

As it has been assumed that I know nothing about evolution, everything the good professor is saying is acceptable and agrees with what I have said about selective breeding. But yet what happened after I mentioned selective breeding? The whole argument steered back to "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" when even this professor has said the interpretations offered to me were not even correct.

‘Many scientists believe’ is a phrase with three fundamental difficulties
This phraseology, and others like it (‘Some scientists think’), is not as prevalent as it used to be in K-12 texts, but its permutations persist. It poses a triple threat to science education (Figure 4). First, ‘many’: science is not decided by vote, so it does not matter how many scientists accept an idea. It is about the quality of the evidence. Second, ‘scientists’: in one sense, certainly, scientists are doing this work, not milkmen or stockbrokers. And presumably scientists are better trained than milkmen or stockbrokers to analyze scientific evidence. Again, it is the quality of the evidence. But even so, science is a very heterogeneous business. A physicist is likely to have little expertise in the complexity of paleontological problems, and this is reciprocally true for paleontologists and string theory.

So, I do not even have to accept what the majority of scientists claim. If I find a contradiction with a scientific assessment, then I am not only allowed, but to encouraged to not agree with him. However, small children that are taught this are not permitted to question them.

Instead of saying ‘many scientists believe’ or ‘some scientists think’, it is more productive to talk about the evidence. What evidence (if any) supports a certain hypothesis, and what evidence (if any) seems to contradict it? And two more things: first, discuss what else we would have to know before we can advance the question further; and second, be clear about how we would know if a hypothesis were wrong. This, more than anything else, shows students what the process of science is all about. It takes a little more work on the part of the writer, but it is worth it in raising student interest and understanding.

I would encourage you to go read the article. The man even gives in his credits the famous Eugenie Scott. Now even if she advised the author, then it is apparent that there is a crisis in teaching evolution to school children and my point has been all along, that unfactual things are taught to children as truth without the children being allowed to question anything, just accept it and go on. That has been my point and yet people tried to debunk my points, even asking me to show the textbooks, when a professor of some type of science says plainly that those wrong things are still being taught.

originally posted by: WarminIndy


Please point out to me where I said "The evidence proves God" or even where I said "this is true because my religion says it is true". When asked about what I personally believe and was baited, I gave my own personal views, against the preconceived ideas about what I actually believe. Yes, it is in this thread.

I just don't see how anyofthis pertains to what you quoted of me which was an explanation regarding your misunderstanding if how Darwin is taught in both high school and college from my personal experience. Perhaps its a matter of geography.

You know, I had to do a lot of reading, but the point I have maintained all along is that young people are being taught to accept it as fact. Then you come along and tell me about the multi-disciplinary facets of all the scientific fields. But I never once said Intelligent Design is the absolute truth, did I?

Nor have I stated you did so.

You would like to believe that I did, so jump on the bandwagon and think I have presented this. If you read through my posts about personal beliefs, I never used Intelligent Design and never once did I use anything from Intelligent Design to make my points. EVERY source was from a secular view.

Did I make the claim that you did? I'm simply pointing out that your personal leanings are very apparent and no amount of evidence is going to convince you otherwise. That's fine, its your life.

When I questioned those things, people couldn't answer the direct points with direct evidence without going through the whole "Creationist alert!" Then it turns out that there are contradictory evidences shown within the educational systems, you guys still resorted to the old "you don't think science is real or true". I never once said that, all I was showing was that there are many contradictions within science itself.

Call a senator or write to the dept of education because I'm not responsible for how children are taught. I'm responsible for my own children. You have made a multitude of claims however that are patently false or in many instances taken statements entirely out of context to create strawman arguments. You have repeatedly stomped your feet and pouted about how you know all about evolution while demonstrating within the same sentence that you actually didn't and then claim its an ad hominem attack. Either you want to educate yourself on the topic or you don't.

I never once pointed out any religious views of scientists. You seem to think I did, and yet every piece of evidence offered by me was from a secular scientist. David Berlinski doesn't even do that, and he is an agnostic, which I heard from other people on this thread that they are as well. Berlinski noted that same contradiction.

Which contradiction is that?

I mentioned Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, not because of their lack of belief or their atheism, but how they are leading the charge against any opposing viewpoint to their secularism. I said that many young people are influenced by them and repeat their mantras. They need to address the contradictions from the scientific community before opposing, but yet they don't. And you don't see that as a problem?

I think that you've never been to a conference where its nothing but people bickering back and forth about who's right and why that's wrong and on and on. You have a very "mainstream"and sanitized view of the process and are trying to call things to task that actually happen a dozen times a day.

My OP was addressing simple questions. Can you show me any resolve to these questions without any contradiction? No, you can't, that's why I offered to you the contradictions, from the secular side, not the Intelligent Design side.

Actually I can, several other can and already have but you simply refuse to accept certain answers. That's not on me and I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

I remember you from the banana thread, but the most important thing I mentioned in respect to you is your work with certain species and how you were yourself opposed in your career.

Opposed might be a strong way to put it but certainly there are far more people working in science who are wrong 50 times before they're right and many more who have ideas that aren't readily accepted. Its a part of the process. If you have an new view on things or a new interpretation, you must have the data to back your mouth up which as a young student I sometimes didn't. I was arrogant and thought I was hot # and instead of collecting my data and waiting for the technology to catch up to what I needed it to do to prove my hypothesis I started my thesis anyway because I was cocky enough to think I'd pull it off in the end. What I learned from that experience was no matter how smart you think you are there's always someone smarter waiting to put you in your place so be prepared. Due dilligence is your best friend. Its that simple.

But why is it that the ad hominims against Creationists and Intelligent Design are permitted and yet the knee jerk reaction when it is perceived to be tossed back?

For one, Evolution, whether you believe in it or not, is a legitimate, fact based and supported Sientific Theory. The other two aren't based on any verifiable facts. They are barely hypothesis and have no supporting data.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

In general, I agree with your (and I suppose this professor's) sentiments. Science is not absolute, nor is it decided by majority. Science is not anti-theist in nature, it is secular. Therefore, science cannot disprove or even deal with gods/goddesses/deities. *(Thus intelligent design cannot be considered science.) Scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, and ID is not.

That said, I feel you are overlooking something in this secular nature of science. Just because we cannot disprove a higher power does not mean we cannot falsify (reasonably so) what a particular higher power was said to have done. For example, the God of Abraham was said to have flooded the Earth to the highest peaks of the mountaintops, right? If true, there would be evidence of this, but none exists. Therefore, we can (reasonably) falsify that claim as a literal event. If you are a bible literalist, this must also falsify the God of Abraham, or you must accept God as intentionally deceptive.

See the difference here? Science is not anti-theistic, it's just that certain claims made can be (reasonably) "falsified" (although I should say rejected, shouldn't I?) by insufficient (non-existent as far as I am aware) physical evidence of claims made in religious texts. See, I very much agree with the both of you (although one might argue you're using an argument from authority, I think it's fine here) that evidence IS what should be looked at. Evidence is king in science, and it has been thus for the entirety of my education.

Scientists are trained to look at evidence. We are graded on how well we support our arguments with evidence in universities and then they (can't say we, haven't done this yet) are judged by their peers by how sufficient their evidence is for new research. It is a deeply ingrained message in my college (liberal arts, not big university, so maybe this isn't so everywhere...) that one must support claims with evidence.

As for bats an man, we're also mammals... And we share other traits, like hair... I'm pretty sure genetics would confirm this as well (Although slightly a stretch, consider how many humans can be infected by viral diseases carried by bats... Now consider that humans catch very few mutated strains of viral disease from things like starfish?)
www.nature.com...

Again, I think you are misusing the professor's words here on what natural selection truly is. He isn't refuting it (from the excerpts quoted), but he is arguing over the language used to describe how it works. Rightly so, might I add. It isn't a matter of whether or not natural selection works (from what I read), the professor seemingly didn't like describing it as a goal oriented (progressive) force. He/She was arguing for the explanation of the environmental factors that led to the favoring of a certain trait, rather than to just say that that trait was favored by nature. (See the difference? One is giving nature the human characteristic of being able to favor something...) This isn't an argument against natural selection, this is an argument about semantics and descriptions of science.

Don't get me wrong, I agree the changes should be made (clearer language, more emphasis on evidence over authority). I just don't think this professor's "critique" really supports what you are claiming it does.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

And this type of argument is very civil and intellectual.

I don't simply agree with all of his assertions, just that certain assertions from the majority are held to non-scrutiny. Science is about scrutiny, I would think.

I didn't want to emphasize particular parts of his definition of evidence through natural selection. As we can see there is disagreement here as well. But as I would not be considered a Biblical literalist, per se, I do question why sea shells are found on mountain tops and why whales are found in deserts.

I also question why the Appalachian Mountains extend into Europe and the same composition of rock layers are found in North America and Scotland. To me, this suggests Pangea, of which is an hypothesis in itself. So see, I can appreciate that part of science. And the Great African Rift is still moving to this day and the Himalayas are getting taller. When I see Google Earth images, I see the evidence of ancient rivers and lakes that are no longer here for us to fish from.

The rising of the sea levels throughout time and the various Ice Ages just cause me to think there were very ancient people who lived within their environments but we will never know about because they have been buried under water. Just as Doggerland suggests, a civilization of people that are long gone. But Doggerland extended to what is the United Kingdom today. Then I see archaeologists pulling very European artifacts from the coast of Virginia, that they are having difficulty in dating. To me, I see that evidence of pre-Proto Native Americans that are more European, so I have to question if there were the same proto-Europeans here.

Whether or not there was a great flood as mentioned in the Bible, certainly there are over 2,000 documented reports from 277 cultures worldwide that mention a flood. Whether or not it happened to rain 40 days and 40 nights, we don't know. But the other part of that says "the fountains of the deep broke up". Whatever those fountains were comprised of, we don't know. So many theories swirl around it and a lot of good scientists do provide examples of this.

I don't know about this statement...

Therefore, we can (reasonably) falsify that claim as a literal event. If you are a bible literalist, this must also falsify the God of Abraham, or you must accept God as intentionally deceptive.

I am not a Young Earther, as I said early on. But the arguments are that it was a local flood, how water came over the Bosporous and flooded into the Black Sea, but not every ancient document agrees with location. But we know Noah from the Hebrew word given, however, Utnapishtim was the Akkadian name, Nuwe was the Chinese.

Would I be obliged to say Noah just because the Bible does? No, certainly not because he is also found in the Epic of Gilgamesh. I would then say "a person" instead of just Noah, but using Noah as mere identification in that sense. As the ancients were keen observers of their world and environment, it would not be unreasonable that a person could sense the changing weather patterns and observed birds that led him to the conclusion that something would happen. Today, it is done with Doppler radar that our weathermen can predict storms, in which even they get wrong sometimes.

Some people also believe the Farmer's Almanack gives accurate predictions. I don't think they always relied on scientific methods to make the predictions and I don't follow the Farmer's Almanack either. What I can think about is that the person that the Hebrews called Noah may just have been a scientist in his day and observed weather related phenomenon and was prepared for it, much like people who observe the weather today. There are visible signs they look to then interpret it.

It wouldn't falsify the God of Abraham to me, however that term is kind of misunderstood as I believe God is more than the God of Abraham. I made that statement early on. And we couldn't say that Noah (the person) didn't receive that knowledge from God or the god that the person believed in. To say "this particular god did this" may be how most Christians would view that, negating all other sources of history.

277 cultures with flood stories that are pre-Christian and have no Christian influence, leads me to suspect that some type of flood occurred. If massive glaciers did melt to such an extent that certain parts of the world were covered under water and remain to this day covered, then it could still be considered a flood, which is nothing more than a dry area covered by water. Of course, as I said, I am not a Young Earther and am not presenting anything from that perspective. I think the assumption has been made by others that I am. I simply don't know the age of the earth or the universe. What I do know is that the earth was here before I was born and will be here after. That much I can say.

At some point in history there must have been an event that caused the Appalachians to split between continents. Maybe that was shifting plates, but at the same time, there would have been at least one continent of North America and Europe. Do I think the Bible says "every animal on the planet" were taken into the ark? No, it mentions the clean and unclean, what those Hebrews considered clean and unclean. So that still would not negate anything, if what they considered clean and unclean still reside to this day in that area.

Another funny one is the unicorn misunderstanding. Do I think of unicorns in the mythical sense? No, I believe that the word unicorn simply meant an animal with some type of horn. The problem with the misunderstanding is that when people accuse us of Biblical literalism, it becomes a strawman, because certainly not all Christians believe in My Little Pony or some type of Pegasus that shoots rainbows out its rear end.

I do not think the Bible translators meant that type of unicorn. This is what could be more reasonably assumed as "unicorn" That's not out of the question for me.

I think this evidence of "unicorn" should be examined. Then it would become clearer that the strawman unicorn doesn't apply any more, because it hasn't been how the greater portions of Christianity has even thought. Maybe in the Middle Ages, but not even among all Christians at that time.

None of this removes God for me. I can look at the evidence and say "Oh, that's what the Bible was saying".

a reply to: WarminIndy

You didn't answer my question. I asked for you to cite a modern biology text book that stated abiogenesis was fact rather than a hypothesis. Instead you posted a professor's personal opinion on what they teach in the text books about evolution and its history.

So textbooks and educators have been punching up, or filling in the places where there is no evidence or not teaching the history of the science itself, leads to wrong conclusions, from those teaching evolution.

It didn't say that in the abstract you quoted. It said that scientists compare lamarkian evolution and Darwinian evolution when talking about its history. That has nothing to do with filling in places with no evidence. That is you making stuff up.

So please tell me you would reject an Intelligent Design scientist who examines the same evidence, performs the same models, replicates the same tests. They are on the other side of the issue, but the secular scientist who approaches the evidence with the dogmatic a priori of "there is no God, just the evidence" has already looked that the evidence in that worldview.

This is a fallacy. There is no such thing as an ID scientist and there isn't evidence for intelligent design. There is no way to experiment on anything related to it without using numerous assumptions. With evolution, you can analyze and measure the exact genetic mutations and show how the environment "selects" organisms. It's been done in a lab. There is no dogma necessary. There is direct evidence of evolution without numerous assumptions being made to make the evidence fit as with intelligent design.

If I find any scientist that is not a Creationist who presents contradictory evidence, then you have little room to dismiss that scientist by calling him a pseudoscientist.

But you can't find a scientist that presents contradictory evidence. Show me the experiments they run. Show me their evidence. It doesn't exist. You only have creationists making those claims. Some scientists have supported that view but it isn't based on evidence. There is no legit evidence for ID and there is no evidence that actually counters evolution. Evidence is not open to interpretation. It either proves something or it doesn't.

At no point now can you say evolution is true, you simply can't. You can say it has some evidence, but you can't even say the evidence is true, because there are too many contradictory facts about the evidence itself

That's like saying you can't say the earth is round is true. You can't say gravity is true. You can't say heliocentric solar system is true. Nothing is true ever. Evolution has MOUNTAINS Of evidence. It's been posted, it's been ignored and deflected by you.

Once again, you didn't address a single point in my post, you went off on a tangent about a professor's opinion on evolution text books.

a reply to: Barcs

Hmm, you didn't read the abstract, only my quote from it. OK here you go abiogenesis taught in textbooks

I'm sorry, but doesn't McGraw-Hill still publish textbooks for school?

a reply to: WarminIndy

But its presented as what it is, a hypothesis, one possibility for how life began. That's not the same as it being taught as a fact as you keep claiming it is.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Barcs

Hmm, you didn't read the abstract, only my quote from it. OK here you go abiogenesis taught in textbooks

I'm sorry, but doesn't McGraw-Hill still publish textbooks for school?

Um, that link described the Miller Urey experiment which ACTUALLY happened. It even says right at the bottom "hypothesized". Where does it say that abiogenesis is a fact? Every study you quote goes against what you claim. Why is that?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Barcs

Hmm, you didn't read the abstract, only my quote from it. OK here you go abiogenesis taught in textbooks

I'm sorry, but doesn't McGraw-Hill still publish textbooks for school?

Um, that link described the Miller Urey experiment which ACTUALLY happened. It even says right at the bottom "hypothesized". Where does it say that abiogenesis is a fact? Every study you quote goes against what you claim. Why is that?

Who do they say hypothesized? Neither Miiler nor Urey. Those two men merely tested the hypothesis.

What was the conclusion offered? Did they say the experiment didn't answer anything? Did they go on to say the hypothesis only worked for that experiment and yet wasn't that same experiment done to attempt to prove abiogenesis? And you are promoting the soft language.

Who hypothesized?
What was the purpose of the experiment?
What are the results of the experiment?
Did the experiment fail?
Where does the experiment lead to?
What do the results mean in understanding the process of evolution?
If it is not relevant, then why teach it?


But please, go on.