Post Reply
Page 1 of 30  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 30 Next
Switch to Forum Live View 150+ years of scientific hard work has not resulted in "mere speculation"
2 years ago  ::  Jul 04, 2012 - 4:28PM #1
steven_guy
Posts: 11,740
Everyone with any sense and honesty knows that the vast amount of scientific research and even vaster amounts of evidence and observation has established the very firm scientific credentials of evolution and the solid and uncontroversial theory of evolution that explains what we see in nature.

The only people who have any objection to evolution and the scientific theory of evolution are people with a dubious religious agenda. Even the passingly small number of "scientists" and more usually engineers who have objections to evolution, like the poor wretched Michael Behe, do so because their theology has them by the short and curlies.

 
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 04, 2012 - 4:38PM #2
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jul 4, 2012 -- 4:28PM, steven_guy wrote:

Everyone with any sense and honesty knows that the vast amount of scientific research and even vaster amounts of evidence and observation has established the very firm scientific credentials of evolution and the solid and uncontroversial theory of evolution that explains what we see in nature.

The only people who have any objection to evolution and the scientific theory of evolution are people with a dubious religious agenda. Even the passingly small number of "scientists" and more usually engineers who have objections to evolution, like the poor wretched Michael Behe, do so because their theology has them by the short and curlies.

 


Right. Anyone who has been acquainted with the facts and still objects to evolution should be considered either grossly dishonest or mentally impaired. It is not possible for an educated person to sincerely reject evolution and be in full possession of his or her mental faculties.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 04, 2012 - 7:20PM #3
McAtheist
Posts: 8,074

I could respect someone who says they know that the evidence doesn't support their position but choose to stick with the Bible anyway --- I don't agree, but it is at least honest.


But for someone to repeatedly claim that evidence and science support their position when they don't and to then resort to magic to fix their "scientific mode" is just blatant dishonesty.  I see nothing to respect in that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 06, 2012 - 6:50PM #4
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,552

Jul 4, 2012 -- 7:20PM, McAtheist wrote:



McAtheist: I could respect someone who says they know that the evidence doesn't support their position but choose to stick with the Bible anyway --- I don't agree, but it is at least honest.


But for someone to repeatedly claim that evidence and science support their position when they don't and to then resort to magic to fix their "scientific mode" is just blatant dishonesty.  I see nothing to respect in that.



iama:  I thought, therefore, that you might appreciate the following article:


A Tale of Two Scientists: What Really Happened 'In the Beginning'


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 06, 2012 - 7:14PM #5
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jul 6, 2012 -- 6:50PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Jul 4, 2012 -- 7:20PM, McAtheist wrote:

I could respect someone who says they know that the evidence doesn't support their position but choose to stick with the Bible anyway --- I don't agree, but it is at least honest.


But for someone to repeatedly claim that evidence and science support their position when they don't and to then resort to magic to fix their "scientific mode" is just blatant dishonesty.  I see nothing to respect in that.



I thought, therefore, that you might appreciate the following article:


A Tale of Two Scientists: What Really Happened 'In the Beginning'




One of those "scientists" - Todd Wood - is not a scientist and will never make the slightest contribution to science.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 06, 2012 - 7:57PM #6
McAtheist
Posts: 8,074

Iam,


I don't see what in your article was supposed to be of interest.  I searched further about baraminology and didn't find  the methods used to to form these classifications, especially for extinct groups.  Nor did I see any indication that YEC researchers are looking for the biological mechanisms that allowed the super-rapid diversification, reproduction and migration needed to fit your story into known historical parameters.  Also missing was the work that explains why all species descended from the ark kinds fail to show that genetic bottleneck and how a breeding population with 10 alleles per gene bootstrapped up to 1000+ alleles, especially since you very incorrectly claim mutations can't add information.


Unfortunately for any claim for the scientific nature of this work, I did find the following statement on CreationWiki: "Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah's ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them


That stuff in red is the conclusion they decided on before they ever started the study.   So what they are doing in the baramin lab is simply cherry-picking data that says what they need it to say so their pre-determined conclusion is never challenged. 


This isn't science; this is busy work. 


As I said earlier, using this method I can easily prove that all fundamental Christians are sexual predators; do you think that would be an honest representation/interpretation of the available data?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 06, 2012 - 8:03PM #7
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jul 6, 2012 -- 7:57PM, McAtheist wrote:

I searched further about baraminology and didn't find  the methods used to to form these classifications, especially for extinct groups. 


There's no such thing as baraminology.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 06, 2012 - 8:25PM #8
McAtheist
Posts: 8,074

ken: There's no such thing as baraminology.


Well, there is something, it just doesn't seem to be scientific.  I don't know what to call it --- pseudo-scientific theology?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 06, 2012 - 10:03PM #9
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jul 6, 2012 -- 8:25PM, McAtheist wrote:


ken: There's no such thing as baraminology.


Well, there is something, it just doesn't seem to be scientific.  I don't know what to call it --- pseudo-scientific theology?



Too long. Think in terms of words of one syllable. A single four-letter word should do it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 06, 2012 - 10:32PM #10
steven_guy
Posts: 11,740

Jul 6, 2012 -- 10:03PM, Ken wrote:


Jul 6, 2012 -- 8:25PM, McAtheist wrote:


ken: There's no such thing as baraminology.


Well, there is something, it just doesn't seem to be scientific.  I don't know what to call it --- pseudo-scientific theology?



Too long. Think in terms of words of one syllable. A single four-letter word should do it.




"Crap"? "Shit"? "Pooh"?


I was going to say "balls", but that has five letters.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 30  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 30 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook