It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Aermacchi
bold mine writtings
The PBS series purports to be a thoughtful, accurate instructional aid for a troubled and important field. Unfortunately, it is committed to the idea that the vindication of evolution against Creationism requires the valorization of Darwin as evolution's hero. This, I believe, is a grave misrecognition of how science works, and thus is a bad lesson for students.
Let us repeat it six times before breakfast: science does not depend on authority. then please ask *cough*Dr.hovind to stop calling him self doctor as he isnt, and please stop claiming things in the bible are accurate despite a lack of evidence which i an appeal from authority, and please stop saying god did it when you clearly cant prove that and its an appeal to authority as well
On the contrary, clinging to authority is another way of evading the force of evidence.
Ernst Mayr and the Darwin Cult
The PBS series comes with the endorsement of leading evolutionists. I wondered whether anyone, scientist or historian, had challenged its egregious disregard for fact.
A Google search turned up criticisms, but all were from the Intelligent Design and Creationist camp. The sample I read complained of misrepresentations of their case;
maybe if the discorvery institute hadnt twice tried to apply for an Amicus brief by intentionally ignoring all the rules to secure one becasue they would have to release information they just didnt want to too gain them, then becasue they couldnt get the amicus briefs and would have to testify in court jut like everyone else and would get asked quetions about what it i they are saying they decided not to turn up and accuratley portray ID. but hey yeah it not thier fault obviously that there was no one there to give an accurate represention.
and then just maybe if they read the actuial court transcripts of what hapened they might realise its firaly accurate
and when they are all sitting around complaining about the judge maybe they should think back to the discoevry institues website hailing it as great news that this perticular judge was placed in charge of the case as he was a friend of bush and bush loves creationim .. i mean ID sorry so there was no way they could lose
they did not touch on the issues I am raising. The negative result of the Google search is of course no proof of the absence of criticism by scientists or historians in the evolution camp.
so becasue there were no results found you going to make stuff up? and then pretend its real and not just stuff you felt like making up and writting down on paper? wow
The circumstance that such criticism is liable to be appropriated by religionists in their on-going struggle with science would tend to discourage pro-evolution critics from going public. Who wants to be quoted by a Creationist, against evolution, why let that stop you usually just quote mine or misrepresent quotes from Darwin, Dawkins, Einstein, Hawkins, Feduccia Et AL so a direct honest quote would be a nice change
at the next meeting of the Kansas Board of Education? However that may be, I know from the printed word and from personal knowledge that some senior evolutionists concur with the PBS baloney. hmmm but no examples of that written word? .... i think someone may be making stuff up judging from his own written word and admission of doing so above
I shall discuss one case, chosen because of this scholar's golden credentials, because of his numerous publications on the history of evolutionary thought, and because he is the paradigm of Darwin worship.
I refer to the recently deceased Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard, Ernst Mayr. i also pick him becasue theres no way he can defend him elf from my cowardly attack on a recently deceased person
I watched the documentary several times now and always find it interesting how Ken Miller uses the mouse trap as a tie clip suggesting it as some clever anecdote for how IC gets trumped by natural selection but fails to explain how natural selection works for the mouse trap missing a part when Ken Miller isn't there to act as the mindless aimless mechanism called Natural Selection.
udel.edu... < - listing sources how novel
"If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled. Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex." (Behe, 1996).
What Ken Miller did is the same mistake Richard Dawkins has made trying to explain Natuarl Selection when he came out with his computer algorthm for his "me thinks it's a weasel software to illustrate a mindless. aimless natural selection process.
ummm ..... you do realise your even thinking the wrong way round about the time frame?
Ken Miller is not there to figure out what other way the now useless mousetrap can be used for something else.
no but as clearly shown by evolutionary biology chemical biology and natural selection its self it has a habbit of altering and recombining existant parts to change the functionality as Ken Miller demonstrated
Never mind that in nature and according to natural selection's own definition, that it wouldn't even care to find another use for it because natural selection is not Ken Miller and is not trying to win an argument.
PBS displays this as a classic response to the fool Michael Behe is when what Ken Miller did was prove Behe's point.
no jut to how that without all its component parts it still has ome functionality so the ireducably complex argument i a crock of nonsense
The fact is the the mouse trap needed a damn college educated scientist as the guiding hand ie(god) to give that mouse trap a purpose.
Originally posted by Aermacchi
This is also the reason Dawkins little program has now been terminated as an accurate illustration for natural selection and why they depend so much on the plausibility of mutation to fill in where Natural Selection fails to be logically explained. It simply doesn't work. Prof. Lennox shut out Dawkins using mathmatics pure science this way also.
umm which one of the many species/subspecies?
I give you the fruit flys failures
in a misrepresentational Argument by false analogy kinda way that doesnt really say anything about either of the mechanisms
There is both of your mechanism's
try again without the false anologies and bits you made up?
that if we didnt care for facts figures context or relevance we could make up such wonderful tall tales as well?
Does that occur to anyone out there in Atheist land??
yepp we just dont want to follow in the footsteps, if were calling creationists dishonest in thier tactics and portrayl of practically everything they talk about then it doesnt do for us to follow thier tactics and be a dishonest
so the question is WHY wasnt it crossexamined? not that it wasnt but why did the defence NOT question it like it DIDNT cross examine Miller either
1) Scientists lawyers from several firms including the ACLU were gave questions and answered un-challenged by a cross examination of any kind. More of a yes man argument.
when your experts claims that NO peer reviewed literature exists on the subject he is talking about but then is supplied with multipul peer reviewed papers several college text book covering it and several high school texts that also cover it ......
2) ID had Michael Behe and an adversarial court system that used tactics so bombastic even going as far as stacking a pile of books infront of someone the court recognised as an "expert witness".
ooops no they didnt do that sorry they asked if he HAD read ANY of them, with thier bieng such a wide array easily available from high school upwards which contradict the claim that NO papers exist on the topic of the evolution of the immune system
can you imagine everytime an expert witness took the stand all anyone would have to do is buy a stack of books and overwhelm the expert by suggesting he read all those books.
of the over 5000 words in that statement 98% were written by the ACLU and as supiciously strange as that is, it is not illegal but using it, to justify decisions on rulings during a trial is indicative of a Judge who not only didn't know how to speak for himself, but never cared enough to give this a serious impartial trial making up his mind well before the trial was even half way through.
if only the discovery intitue wasnt so scared of bieng asked questions .....
The documentary on PBS is not an accurate depiction of ID but is more of the same liberal media that wants to use the media and science to effect public policy and elect Presidents.
Originally posted by Hellish-D
For those interested, there was a great NOVA documentary recently on just this topic. Since so few of us here are actually biologists, I suggest you watch it.
Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
The rural community of Dover, Pennsylvania is torn apart in the latest battle over the teaching of evolution, and parents file a lawsuit against the town's school board in federal court.
This documentary is a fantastic example of the objective look at Intelligent Design vs Evolution. As I watched, I expected to be floored by the arguments on both sides, and the arguments in court. One side lived up to this expectation, the other side did not.
Judgment Day has full of reenactments and interviews with proponents of both sides of the debate. I highly recommend this documentary to anyone interested in this topic.
Originally posted by Bringer In order to prove there is no god or there is a god you would have to be omniscient omnipotent and omnipresent.
Originally posted by Hellish-D
Engrossing isn't it? It was really amazing how biologists were able to dissect and dismiss every point that the ID folks presented.
But that wasn't the most interesting part. All that the ID folks needed to do to win their case was present a viable scientific theory that could produce testable and predictable results so that it could be taught along side evolution. Not one single ID proponent was able to do it. As a matter of fact, several witnesses for the ID team failed to appear!
It was really amazing how biologists were able to dissect and dismiss every point that the ID folks presented.
Consider the difference between these two questions: "When was the Declaration of Independence signed?" and "When do most historians say the Declaration of Independence was signed?" The phrasing of the question affects how the answer is proved to be true or false.
If one gives the answer "1776" to the first question, one merely needs to cite the date on the document as proof. If one gives the answer "1776" to the second question, then one needs to cite a survey of historians. In the second case, it doesn't matter if the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 or not. All that matters is how many historians think that it was signed in that year.
Their example of drug interruption therapy for HIV illustrates an important point that PBS chose to ignore. It has been noted by some people that the "super bugs" (the most drug resistant bacteria), tend to exist primarily in hospitals. There is an explanation for this observation which is consistent with the facts.
According to this explanation, ordinary bacteria don't survive well in the antiseptic environment of a hospital. Only the antiseptic-resistant varieties are able to survive there. The reason why they survive is that they don't absorb antibiotics very well. The reason why they don't absorb antibiotics very well is that they don't absorb anything well, including nutrients. Outside the hospital environment, they have to compete with other bacteria that do absorb nutrients well. Consequently, the super bugs starve to death when they have to compete with ordinary bacteria because they are less fit for survival under normal circumstances.
That, according to the theory, is why drug interruption therapy sometimes works for AIDS patients. Stopping the drug treatment for a while allows the non-resistant HIV virus to compete with the drug-resistant HIV virus. The resistant HIV loses the competition to the ordinary HIV. Once the resistant strain has lost the battle of survival, then large doses of the HIV drug are given to wipe out the ordinary variants of HIV.
Drugs do not create new forms of viruses or bacteria. Drugs merely eliminate some variants, allowing existing variants to become more plentiful. It is the relative numbers of the various kinds of critters that change, not the critters themselves