It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debate still rages over Darwin

page: 16
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
shall we skip all the ad-homonyms and more of your atheist hate blather and get straight to the things i made up section?


Originally posted by Aermacchi
Here is your Scientific Method Mel and THIS by the way is REAL Science! This is not meant as a Joke but as a real illustration and irony of what YOUR So called Science uses as it's Scientific Method.

..... The Way it is.


did you see what you said there

this is real, it is not a joke, it is real and a honest solid description,

then you did something unusual and actually put a source for your excerpts

and what do we find when we go to that Website ...


Short Pieces
These were published long ago (1990's) in various newsletters of skeptic groups, plus the British magazine The Skeptic.

"Fallacies About Fallacies?"
"Equality and Liberty" (review).
"A Buddhist Critique of the Christian Concept of God" (review).
"In Praise of Bias"
"The Real Scientific Method" (humor).
www2.truman.edu...

wait so the real and not a joke article thats is the way it is, is a joke and not real and not the way it is and you just lied about it ? ...


I think Amazon just mailed you again, another shipment of fail has arrived

and just for comedy value a video that reminds me of some of the anti-atheist anti-evolution anti-theistic evolutionist nonsense in the thread






[edit on 23/2/09 by noobfun]




posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Heh. Perhaps the conmeister should read the book Taner Edis cowrote:

"Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism".



i dont think we even need the book Mel

when he realises he is in the humor section and stops pretending it is an honest piece of academic writting then presses his browsers back button he will get several interesting things to read

Intelligent Design: A Blind Alley

"Why 'Intelligent Design' is More Interesting than Old-fashioned Creationism

"The Return of the Design Argument,"

"Darwin in Mind: `Intelligent Design' Meets Artificial Intelligence,"

and theres plenmty on good ole fashioned creationism, this time its islamic creationism ...and by that i mean exactly the same arguments they jut change god for allah and let fly the crazy like the flying monkies of the wicked witch



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
when he realises he is in the humor section and stops pretending it is an honest piece of academic writting then presses his browsers back button he will get several interesting things to read


lol, never noticed that. Did appear like one of the funnies that fly around science departments. Even using Bauer was laughable, I read his book years ago - he essentially points out that there is no real uniform 'scientific method' per se, as science involves numerous approaches to gaining knowledge.

Which I pointed out earlier, lol.

Pity about Bauer, though, once he went emeritus and took on the search for Nessie he showed what can be called 'crank magnetism', and now pushes all sorts of denialist pseudoscientific nonsense.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by atoms.2008
 


One must enjoy whales running the open woods with bigfoot then explain why they went back into the water. Woodpeckers hiting heads on trees till they developed complex means to feed and the best. Bats hiting their legs on the ground for ages till wings developed with the means to fly. It just gets more and more loony. Then for some unexplained reason it all stoped.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Markafeller
 

im not sure which is funnier the mental image of a whale with two legs stuck on the back running around by kiss chase with sasafras

or that you think this is how ANYONE thinks whale evolution happened, whales went for a swim and thier legs fell off ...the end



yes this is an actual documentary made by scientists to show just how whale evolution happened



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


noob, you have GOT to be kidding me!!!!

What, was this nonsense shown at that stupid 'Creationism Museum' I've heard about???

Or....sorry....."intelligent design" 'Museum'???

Since we probably have someone's attention, by now....head on over to YouTube (a place I don't often cite) for a video titled 'Stupid Design'......enjoy!!!!



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

noob, you have GOT to be kidding me!!!!

What, was this nonsense shown at that stupid 'Creationism Museum' I've heard about???
no its somthing someone made for some god only knows insane reason.. i was looking for a different video on whale evolution its a comedy one that describes whale evolution ... similar to how our friend above thinks it happened

if your that bat dodo insane to believe whale evolution means blue whales had legs and ran around on land .. nothing we ay or show will help may as well just smile wave and have fun with it

no no no the creation mueum is even better then the whale and dinosaur tea party, they now propose SUPER EVOLUTION!!

yes you heard it right, it great because they have made uch a short time span for the super evolution to have happened they use Kind ..obviously but now its a super kind now its not sopecies or genus ...no no for super evolution a kind becomes a family

so a kind of felidae wonders off the ark and then every time it gives birth, it needs to give birth to a breeding pair of a different species of feline practically to keep up

theres a thread around here about evolution and theres a quote by ken ham and he says 'yeah we dont believe in evolution what we believe i ....' and then gives an almost perfect deffinition of evolution for what he believes instead of evolution

heres what the cretinism museum teaches



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Seriously noob...check out the video that weed is referring to by Neil D. Tyson called Stupid Design. If that doesn't sum it up in a logical manner I don't know what will. It's fantastic.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Hmmm.

The real debate over Darwin is about nature v/s nurture - given that adaptation and evolution are clearly part of the 'divine' plan.

Since the Genome Project revealed the dearth of human genes, and proved that everything is emphatically NOT genetic - and cannot be - much interesting research has resulted in a revisitation of LaMarkian principles.

New research has proved LaMarck's main contention - that environmental change, and a mother's exposures during pregnancy, actually can change the fetus's genes to cause 'mutations.'. More interesting, other research shows that "nurture" can override genetic mutations, and prevent their expression.

...And even more interesting: If the environment is restored to remain healthy and nurturing through several generations, then the mutations disappear, the DNA recalls its "normal" structure, and the mutated genes un-mutate to go back to their previous, healthy form.



Called "Evo-Devo," or Evolutionary Development, this new science is well worth some serious attention.


.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by griffinrl
 


yeah it makes a few very relevant points

incompitent design might be a better title,

only an incompitant designer/engineer could wire the human eye backwards as the supreme ultimate of all creation and yet octopi and squid with the same eye style get the wiring right ... i mean they are just blobby things in the ocean ... they arnt even the designers favorites

theres another one he should have mentioned ....seriously why do creationists and Id'er prattle on about the human eye so much, its lousy compared to most mammals and completley abysmal when compared to many aves

although he did meantion how narrow the bandwidth of our visable spectrum .. although there are an emerging population of tetrachromatic women that are bieng born with the ability to see in to some of the ultraviolet spectrum ...... maybe the incompetent designer is slowing fixing the problem .. and doing it in such a way it looks exactly as if evolution is doing it .....

not only incompetent but also sneaky



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


evo devo ... so much simpler then neo-neo-neo-lamarkism

this ime its cut down so rather then be an alternative to evolution this one sits inside it and acts like a fast forward on gene expression

if it pans out it could get really interesting, just needs some bigger longer tests then the few small scale tests already done



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Funny thing is that even those of us who believe in evolution can provide references to experiments/observations to support the theory, creationists and ID'ers still don't provide any sort of the same type of evidence. Though they will endlessly quote and copy and paste results from tests/observations concerning evolution.

I've been waiting on the same sort of information on these ideas (creation/ID) to be posted but have yet to see any. Are there any type of tests/observations with verifiable sources available to compare? And please don't quote the bible...that's not a verifiable source. It's a tad bit biased.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by griffinrl
 

Which Universities support ID research?
Which ones give grants for it?
Where is the Smithsonian on this?
Oh, that's right, separation of church and state. So, you wonder why no research?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


So you're saying the only credible research is that done by universities or federal grants? It's a very simple question.

I would think the reasons are pretty straight forward as to why no money is put forward to advance these ideas. And it's not a consipiracy.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by griffinrl
 


You have to have monies for these things.
It's the same thing as when atheist say there are no peer-reviewed papers on ID.
Because of separation of church and state.
How credible would I be if I invented the cure for cancer in my bathtub?
Would the scientific community open their arms to me?
They may steal my idea....
But I have to ask Melatonin, since he knows more about the procedures.
How are peripheral studies treated within the science realms?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


I get what you're saying Clearskies. But if you did invent the cure for cancer in your bathtub that cure would get out to the public stolen or not. Same thing for anyone with absolute evididence for ID.

For scientific theories I'm not a theorist so I can't speak on it with authority. But for all scientific postulations the ability to prove or disprove them is there. All scientific theories are open to the input of new data whether that data supports or negates that theory.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by griffinrl
 


Not really, it might not get out.
Like when Tesla died and the CIA or whomever stole his papers and research or the nurse from Canada, Mrs. Caisse, who used an Ojibwa indian remedy for cancer with fantastic results, but was forbidden to practice it and her stuff was allegedly stolen, too.
Only through a friend of hers was the recipe saved.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Again this is my personal opinion but I don't really believe that Tesla and others had such huge breakthroughs that would change technology or medicine. Other private individuals have done the same thing and their inventions/discoveries changed the world. I personally can't buy into worldwide consipiracy ideas as humans have absolutely no ability to keep things secret...especially among large groups. It goes against basic human nature.

If anyone anywhere had a cure for cancer they'd be bazillionaire's many times over.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies

Which Universities support ID research?
Which ones give grants for it?
Where is the Smithsonian on this?
Oh, that's right, separation of church and state. So, you wonder why no research?


it doesnt even get to the point where you might need to ask for a grant

there is simply nothing testable that hasnt already been tested and shown to say the exact opposite

Behe freely admits IC is not testable in any way shape or form, you can merley infer things about it from observations,

nothing to do with church and state, if you cant test somthing becasue you need an external magical force that cant be produced on cue or show to have ever existed then how do you test any of it even if your doing the testing a theoretical uing computer models?

and if you cant formulate a test method then you cant apply a grant proposal for funding for the teting

no testing or grants you cant write scientific literature based on your findings to get them peer reviewed

cant get it peer reviewed as it doesnt exist cant get it published in scientific journals

its like a 800 pound bed riddden guy whinning the olympic comittie is against him becasue they wont just give him medals even though he says his bed is a seperate country to the rest of his house so he should be allowed on those grounds and then he cant get out of said bed to make it to the events to try and compete ... but stil claims he is bieng victamised

Behe works at a university he has all thier bio chem lab at his disposal, if only he could actually come up with a test he might just get some grant money for it, and hey the templeton institue will help out and the discovery institue ... if the christian community of america can stump up 20 million in donation to create AIG's flintstones museum ..... then really think getting enough money to start scientific research projects to prove creationism or ID is ever going to be a problem in the real world?

funding isnt the issue, having NOTHING to fund is

ask someone to show eveidence evolution is correct ... they pull out evidence for evolution

ask someone to prove ID or cretinism is correct they pull out lots of reasons they think evolution is wrong, or jut pull out actual cientific data and say well i ont like what this ays so im just going to make up what it shows

seperation of church and state means religeon cannot be taught in a none religeous class

seperation of church and state means the state should function outside the powers of any one specific religeon and should promote no specific religeon either

seperation of church from state is not a valid excuse to pull out and wave around when no one in the ID/cretinim community has the ability to come up with any testable method to prove what they either pass off as acurate scientific data or offer as an alternative to ACTUAL accurate scientific data



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by griffinrl
 


You have to have monies for these things.


They've had lots of money. Creationist organisations have been coining it for years. But they just spend it on apologetic propoganda, church basement meetings, and museums. Even AIG was pulling in millions per year*.


A review of tax documents on guidestar.org,[92] a Web site that collects data on foundations, showed grants and gifts totaling $1.4 million in 1997.

In 2001, the Baptist Press reported, "Discovery Institute ... with its $4 million annual budget ($1.2 million of which is for the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) is heavily funded by evangelical Christians. Maclellan Foundation of Chattanooga, Tenn., for example, awarded $350,000 to the institute with the hope researchers would be able to prove evolution to be a false theory. Fieldstead & Co., owned by Howard and Robert Ahmanson of Irvine, Calif., pledged $2.8 million through 2003 to support the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture."[93]

In 2003, guidestar.org,[92] records showed grants and gifts totaling $4.1 million. Included in the supporter were 22 foundations. At least two-thirds of the foundations stated explicitly religious missions.

...

According to Charity Navigator, in FYE 2005, the Discovery Institute had $2,989,608 in total revenue and $3,878,186 in expenses.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...


Biologic Institute

The Biologic Institute is a tax-exempt organization with offices in Redmond, Washington and laboratories in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle, Washington.[1] It is funded by the Discovery Institute[2][3] with the stated purpose of doing biological research. The main goal of the Biologic Institute is to produce experimental evidence of intelligent design.


Dey can haz cargo cult science?



No-one with an ounce of nous is going to put their cash into such research, it's a waste of money. But the likes of the DI and AIG have been coining it for years. Templeton also fund research which crosses boundaries between science and theology. Did you know Templeton gave cash to Dembski to write a book? They're still waiting, lol.

*

Financing and fundraising has been an important part of the ministry. Its US revenue in 2005 was $13.7M.[18] According to Charity Navigator, in FYE 2006, Answers in Genesis had $13,675,653 in total revenue and $12,257,713 in expenses.[19] In 2006, Answers in Genesis was also listed by Ministry Watch, an independent organization which reviews Christian ministries for transparency and financial accountability among other things, as one of their Shining Lights "top thirty" exemplary ministries.[20]
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 25-2-2009 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join