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.

 

Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

page: 28
11
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Claim:
Evolution is a theory in crisis; it will soon be widely rejected.

Source:
See Morton 2002a, below.

Response:

1. Evolution is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It is nowhere near a theory in crisis.

2. This claim has been made constantly since even before Darwin. In all that time, the theory of evolution has only gotten stronger. Prior to the development of evolutionary theory, almost 100 percent of relevant scientists were creationists. Now the number is far less than 1 percent. The numbers continue to drop as the body of evidence supporting evolutionary theory continues to build. Thus, claims of scientists abandoning evolution theory for creationism are untrue.

3. This claim directly contradicts another common claim, that evolution cannot be falsified.

Links:
Morton, G. R. 2002a. The imminent demise of evolution: The longest running falsehood in creationism, home.entouch.net...

Morton, G. R. 2002b. Morton's Demon (Post of the month, Feb. 2002). www.talkorigins.org...




posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Triarchic
 


Claim:
More than 300 scientists (over 400 as of 7/18/2005) from all disciplines have signed a statement expressing skepticism of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
Source:

Discovery Institute, 2004. Doubts over evolution mount with over 300 scientists expressing skepticism with central tenet of Darwin's theory. www.discovery.org...

Discovery Institute, 2005. Eighty years after Scopes trial new scientific evidence convinces over 400 scientists that Darwinian evolution is deficient. www.discovery.org...
Response:

1. The criticisms of the general claim that many scientists reject evolution apply also to this list of scientists.
* Claims of skepticism are worthless without reliable evidence as a basis for the skepticism. Such evidence is lacking. Claims for such evidence by the Discovery Institute (DI) have been repeatedly examined and dismissed by those who understand evolutionary biology.
* Compared with all the scientists who accept evolution, 400 scientists is a minuscule amount. The National Center for Science Education has compiled, as a parody of lists such as that from the Discovery Institute, a list of more than 500 scientists all named Steve, or with variants of that name, who support evolution (NCSE 2003). There are only five Steves on the DI's list of 400.
* The DI's list is exaggerated as an anti-evolution document (see below).

2. The statement which the signatories agreed to is not anti-evolution. It says,

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. (Discovery Institute 2004)

Since scientists are trained to examine evidence and to be skeptical of everything, even ardent evolutionists could sign such a statement. Indeed, it is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms such as genetic drift and symbiosis are important, too. The statement signed by the scientists of "Project Steve" is more more specific:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. (NCSE 2003)

Although many of the people on the Discovery Institute's list are anti-evolutionists, it is likely that most of them would disagree with fixity of "kinds" and a young earth (Evans 2001). In another list, the Discovery Institute put out a bibliography of publications that "represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism . . ., discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins." When the authors of the publications were contacted, none said that their works support "intelligent design" or challenge evolution (Branch 2002). Bob Davidson, one of the signators of the DI's list of 400, says, "the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming" and now thinks the Discovery Institute is an affront to both science and religion (Westneat 2005).



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
(cont...)

3. Most of the signators to the DI's list (about 80%) are not biologists; some are not even scientists. Generally speaking, mathematicians, electrical engineers, philosophers, and so forth are only marginally more qualified to comment on the validity of evolution than the average person on the street.

Links:
Evans, Skip. 2001. Doubting Darwinism through creative license. www.ncseweb.org...

NCSE. 2003. Project Steve, www.ncseweb.org...

Schafersman, Steven. 2003. Texas Citizens for Science responds to latest Discovery Institute challenge. www.texscience.org...
References:

1. Branch, Glenn. 2002. Analysis of the Discovery Institute's "Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Instruction." Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22(4): 12-18,23-24. www.ncseweb.org...
2. Evans, Skip. 2001. Doubting Darwinism through creative license. www.ncseweb.org...
3. NCSE. 2003. Project Steve, www.ncseweb.org...
4. Westneat, Danny. 2005. Evolving opinion of one man. Seattle Times, Aug. 24, 2005. seattletimes.nwsource.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


You should u2u welfhard, he's your UK counterpart friend...smart, young, exciting, ready to conquer the world!!!!!!


but NIAVE!

Naive? That's rich - you even spelled it wrong!


Also I'm not from the UK....

Praying for you OT..... To get a bloody grip.


UK? NZ? oh well? sorry....

Bloody grip, huh? www.youtube.com...

You can't even watch BLOOD for 8 minutes.....why use that term? Wonder where it came from



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Triarchic
 


And just a little bit more... OWNAGE!

# Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.

www.talkorigins.org...

# There have been many famous scientists who believed in special creation in the past. In particular, the following scientists were creationists:

* Louis Agassiz (1807-1873; glacial geology)
* Charles Babbage (1792-1871; computer science)
* Francis Bacon (1561-1626; scientific method)
* Robert Boyle (1627-1691; gas dynamics)
* David Brewster (1781-1868; optical mineralogy)
* Georges Cuvier (1769-1832; comparative anatomy)
* Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519; hydraulics)
* Humphrey Davy (1778-1829; thermokinetics)
* Henri Fabre (1823-1915; entomology of living insects)
* Michael Faraday (1791-1867; electromagnetics)
* John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945; electronics)
* Joseph Henry (1797-1878; inventor)
* William Herschel (1738-1822; galactic astronomy)
* James Joule (1818-1889; reversible thermodynamics)
* Lord Kelvin (1824-1907; energetics)
* Johann Kepler (1571-1630; celestial mechanics)
* Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778; systematic biology)
* Joseph Lister (1827-1912; antiseptic surgery)
* Matthew Maury (1806-1873; oceanography)
* James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879; electrodynamics)
* Gregor Mendel (1822-1884; genetics)
* Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872; telegraph inventor)
* Isaac Newton (1642-1727; calculus)
* Blaise Pascal (1623-1662; hydrostatics)
* Louis Pasteur (1822-1895; bacteriology)
* William Ramsay (1852-1916; isotopic chemistry)
* John Ray (1627-1705; natural history)
* Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919; dimensional analysis)
* Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866; non-Euclidean geometry)
* James Simpson (1811-1870; gynecology)
* Nicholas Steno (1631-1686; stratigraphy)
* George Stokes (1819-1903; fluid mechanics)
* Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902; pathology)
* John Woodward (1665-1728; paleontology)


Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, and Fleming were strong opponents of evolution.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1982. Bible-believing scientists of the past. Impact 103 (Jan.), www.icr.org...
Response:

1. The validity of evolution rests on what the evidence says, not on what people say. There is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution and no valid arguments against it.

2. Many of the scientists in the above list lived before the theory of evolution was even proposed. Others knew the theory, but were not familiar with all the evidence for it. Evolution is outside the field of most of those scientists.

A couple hundred years ago, before the theory of evolution was developed and evidence for it was presented, virtually all scientists were creationists, including scientists in relevant fields such as biology and geology. Today, virtually all relevant scientists accept evolution. Such a turnabout could only be caused by overwhelming evidence. The alternative -- that almost all scientists today are thoroughly incompetent -- is preposterous.

3. Even if they did not believe in evolution, all these scientists were firmly committed to the scientific method, including methodological naturalism. They actually serve as counterexamples to the common creationist claim that a naturalistic practice of science is atheistic.

4. Evolution is entirely consistent with a belief in God, including even "special creation." Special creation need not refer to the creation of every animal; it can refer simply to creation of the universe, of the first life, or of the human soul, for example. Many of the above scientists were not creationists in the sense that Henry Morris uses the term.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Triarchic
 



Why all the references to the JEHOVAH WITNESSES?

OT

R-U-X?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


So in the spirit of persistence...

How goes your research into Sumer?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I am sorry but I don't quite get the reference to Jehovah's Witnesses? Where in that post did I reference Jehovah's Witnesses?

Also, the use of Ad Hominem attacking the poster is not helping your case. Neither is Welfhard innocent in this matter.

OT, You again used a logical fallacy in your reply. I would argue you used Ignoratio elenchi or making an irrelevant conclusion regarding Welfhard along with fallacy of relevance (Red Herring), thought-terminating cliche, false dichotomy or false dilemma... DUDE the list goes on! Just stop it... There is no reason to resort to logical fallacies.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 



Sumer? Freakin hot here...


You first, please articulate the Dr. Anthony Campolo, streaming audio..please enlighten...... how feeding the poor ISN'T worth it?


For those interested , here what the new neuroscience leaders are rejecting.....ya'll as cold too?
www.tonycampolo.org...


Lazy! lazy post my friend?

You ready to EDIT?????

OT



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triarchic
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I am sorry but I don't quite get the reference to Jehovah's Witnesses? Where in that post did I reference Jehovah's Witnesses?

Also, the use of Ad Hominem attacking the poster is not helping your case. Neither is Welfhard innocent in this matter.

OT, You again used a logical fallacy in your reply. I would argue you used Ignoratio elenchi or making an irrelevant conclusion regarding Welfhard along with fallacy of relevance (Red Herring), thought-terminating cliche, false dichotomy or false dilemma... DUDE the list goes on! Just stop it... There is no reason to resort to logical fallacies.




Ad Hominem ????????


Where?????????


Personal?????

Where?????????


Content, yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Re-evaluate....

OT

PS: JW reference? Come on now....you should look at your multiple references...do you really NOT know?




[edit on 24-8-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triarchic
.............Ignoratio elenchi .................


OT...high school, two years of LATIN!!!!!! 200 dollars!


college, two years of GREEK!!!!!! 2000 dollars!!!!


Never made a reference to either in 30 yrs..... PRICELESS!!!!!




posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


You first, please articulate the Dr. Anthony Campolo, streaming audio..please enlighten...... how feeding the poor ISN'T worth it?

I quite liked is talk about the phoniness the picture-perfect concept of romance in sight of the story of the old man glad that his wife died first saving her the trouble and pain of burying him instead.

Now, about you avoiding the ancient Sumerian creation myth....




Edit: Ignore the avatar, I'm in the process of fixing it.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


UK? NZ? oh well? sorry....

Bloody grip, huh? www.youtube.com...

You can't even watch BLOOD for 8 minutes.....why use that term? Wonder where it came from

"You can't even watch Blood", is an irrelevant conclusion of Welfhard's disposition. That same comment was also an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, i.e. Welfhard's views and argument, rather than responding to the argument put forth by Welfhard.

What is the relevance of the post? Does it forward your argument? Stating that Welfhard can't even watch blood for 8 minutes is forwarding your argument?

"why use that term?... Wonder where it came from?" is very similar to a thought terminating cliche or a appeal to ignorance in that it attempts at using folk wisdom to shut down possible roads of argument. False dilemma stems from your inference to the Passion of the Christ, in which an actor representing Jesus dies a bloody death. That bloody death does not have to have anything to do with the origin of the word or term bloody. Thus a false dilemma was invoked.

I still have no idea what your referring to with the whole Jehovah's Witness thing.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 



Avatar is fine, don't worry about it friend....


Nice post/acknowledgement of tony's sermon....I'll get to the Sumer text, later in the week...it after midnight here...and I've got a 5:freakin 30 wake up call tomorrow...good night welfhard....

OT

PS: I got the spelling right earlier, I think? no?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triarchic
.........Stating that Welfhard can't even watch blood for 8 minutes is forwarding your argument?
......

I still have no idea what your referring to with the whole Jehovah's Witness thing.


Relax, new comer ok?

OT's not mad/ugly to anyone.....


And your further denial of JW's is annoying...research your post/refernces..again.....

Come on????????

WATCHTOWER, huh??????????????



Sad.....

Good night young man!



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


OH! I see now what you where referencing. Dude you should have just pointed that out. Do you agree or disagree that the claims made by Watchtower are common among Christians? Does it matter if the reference comes from them or another version of Christianity? I don't really think it matters.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Nice post/acknowledgement of tony's sermon....I'll get to the Sumer text, later in the week...it after midnight here...and I've got a 5:freakin 30 wake up call tomorrow...good night welfhard....

I should hope so, especially after you had the audacity to tell me that you investigate things and I do not.


PS: I got the spelling right earlier, I think? no?

No, you didn't.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I agree, the word of God, shows God's humor....

Shows he's a sadistic prick if you ask me...


And anybody that can't understand that should read Job.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

Absolutely right. And for those of you who haven't, you really should; it's funny, very funny indeed.



I lol'd.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I agree, the word of God, shows God's humor....

Shows he's a sadistic prick if you ask me...


And anybody that can't understand that should read Job.

rnaa,

what's up?

Appreciate the respected foe designation!

OT


PS: Does Job's story bother you? How? Why?




top topics



 
11
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join