A list of "Scientists who are not 'evolutionists'"

[Ashles]

In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100729) a poster called Radrook posted a familiar list:

For, um, those who tag people who aren't evolutionists as retarded, here is a list of people who are not evolutionists and who are scientist. This post is in response for a request for a list of evolutionist scientists eartlier in this thread.

Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith: Chemist / Lecturer / Creationist / Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941) / Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich / D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964) / F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) / Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc. / Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company / Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford / Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages / Dr. Wilder-Smith was also a NATO three-star general. He was featured in the motion picture series ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be.

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer
Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist
Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
John Grebe (chemist
Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
George F. Howe (botanist
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist
Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

As posted by Foster Zygote:
Francis Bacon died in 1626.
Georges Cuvier died in 1832. He wrote "Why has not anyone seen that fossils alone gave birth to a theory about the formation of the earth, that without them, no one would have ever dreamed that there were successive epochs in the formation of the globe."
Robert Boyle died in 1691.
Humphry Davey died in 1829.
William Herschel died in 1822.
Johannes Kepler died in 1630.
Carolus Linnaeus died in 1778. He once wrote that he wished someone would show him a single generic feature by which to distinguish humans from apes, because he could not find one.
Isaac Newton died in 1727.
Blaise Pascal died in 1662.
John Ray died in 1705.
Nicholas Steno died in 1686.
Leonardo da Vinci died in 1519.
John Woodward died in 1728.


Wow! All those guys on the list died before Darwin published Origin of Species. Then there's the fact that most of the people on that list are not biologists...

So that is instantly a reason to remove the pre-Darwin guys from the list.

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in looking at some of these other scientists to see if any of them have been involved in any research that has called any part of evolution into question, or developed any alternative theories.

In short, is there any scientific reason that they have ever provided to object to evolution, or is it simply a personally held belief that is no more relevent to their profession than if they were a baker, stationer or jetskier?

In particular there are a few on the list who, judging by their fields of study, it seems bizarre that they would not accept evolution.

[Michael Redman]

Based on the credibility of those who present such lists, perhaps the first task should be finding out whether the listed names are, in fact:

1) Real people
2) Scientists
3) Evolution deniers

Assuming, of course, that you want to get into this argument-from-authority to begin with. It would be easier if these posters would just present the arguments against, and then stay around long enough to discuss the ensuing critiques.

[Fnord]

Just because a person does not believe in evolution, it does not necessarily mean that he or she believes in creationism. It may also mean that they have not committed either way -- maybe they just don't care.

[Michael Redman]

Carolus Linnaeus died in 1778. He once wrote that he wished someone would show him a single generic feature by which to distinguish humans from apes, because he could not find one.

So I guess Linnaeus denies human evolution because we're still apes?



Duane T. Gish (biochemist)

Not Duane Gish!

[ravdin]

Just because a person does not believe in evolution, it does not necessarily mean that he or she believes in creationism. It may also mean that they have not committed either way -- maybe they just don't care.

Maybe so, but it would be awfully feeble for a scientist not to have an opinion or not to care.

[Fnord]

Maybe so, but it would be awfully feeble for a scientist not to have an opinion or not to care.


Or that the scientist does have an opinion, but does not believe it necessary to share.

[joobz]

I think you also have to account for the fact that prior to molecular biology, there wasn't a known underlying mechanism that clearly explains how mutation and natural selection result in evolution.

Shall we create a list of famous bright scientists that believed in the theory of the 4 humors? Does this prove the Humors theory?

[Foster Zygote]

I think you also have to account for the fact that prior to molecular biology, there wasn't a known underlying mechanism that clearly explains how mutation and natural selection result in evolution.

Shall we create a list of famous bright scientists that believed in the theory of the 4 humors? Does this prove the Humors theory?

That's the thing. If we limit this list to modern biologists it's not nearly as impressive looking to the scientifically ignorant and it becomes clear that scientific opposition to evolutionary theory is a small fringe movement without any convincing arguments.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Who cares what a billion scientists think?

Try thinking for yourself.
Read Darwin's Origin of Species. Read current popular texts on evolutionary theory.
Examine the evidence.
Try thinking for yourself.

[bokonon]

Well, A.E.Wilder-Smith apparently debated Dawkins back in the 80s at Oxford, so I assume he has some kind of theory. I've ordered the MP3 CD of the debate from someplace in New Zealand, so I should know something about his position in a few weeks. I'll look at some of the other names as time permits.

[cyborg]

Try thinking for yourself.

Awww man, that seems like a hell of a lot of work - can't I just get someone else to do it for me?

[sol invictus]

Francis Bacon?? Hahaha... creationists are really dumb, aren't they?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I would say remove anyone who is dead. They are not around to defend themselves.

~~ Paul

[CapelDodger]

Assuming, of course, that you want to get into this argument-from-authority to begin with. It would be easier if these posters would just present the arguments against, and then stay around long enough to discuss the ensuing critiques.

And if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak.

As I understand Ashles, the point is to avoid constant re-invention of the wheel, and at the same time discover something about these scientists and why they're included in this creationist list. All discovery is good.

bokonon:, you've entered into the spirit of things as I see it :). A.E.Wilder-Smith : who and what is he? Done much since, has he? I'm thinking this was an Oxford Union debate, and those are sadly Philosophical affairs. Smith may have shone on the night, but who remembers him?

I'll try to do my bit as well.

[CapelDodger]

I would say remove anyone who is dead. They are not around to defend themselves.

~~ Paul

We can defend them if the creationist argument is defamatory. We know how much creationists exploit selective quotation.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So let's consider Charles Babbage. Here's something about him at AnswersinGenesis:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/babbage.asp

The only mention of "creation" is:


He was the author of many published works on mathematical and scientific topics. In 1837, he also wrote one of the Bridgewater Treatises. These were papers On the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as Manifested in the Creation, published by the Royal Society with money provided by the Earl of Bridgewater.
which is immediately followed by:

Anthony Hyman writes in his biography of Babbage: 'Babbage came to believe that scientific method pursued to its uttermost limit was entirely compatible with revealed religion and he wrote his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise to prove the point.'
The words "evolution" and "Bible" do not appear in the article.

It appears that Babbage was a theistic evolutionist:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114_4.html

Wikipedia agrees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We can defend them if the creationist argument is defamatory. We know how much creationists exploit selective quotation.
By all means (see above). I was suggesting that the Creationists remove them from the list.

~~ Paul

[CapelDodger]

Maybe so, but it would be awfully feeble for a scientist not to have an opinion or not to care.

It's in no way feeble if it has nothing to do with their field of study. Most people don't care about evolution, life presents more pressing problems. Science presents equally interesting questions.

I only get engaged because I enjoy it, and have more pressing issues under control. And it's cheap entertainment :).

[Worm]

Not Duane Gish!

The man himself.

A creationist, and a liar....well, he's certainly not an 'evolutionist' - the only question is - does he qualify as a 'scientist' ?

[Prometheus]

About Louis Agassiz:

"His finding of parallels between ontogeny, paleontology, and morphology was rapidly adopted by biologists like Haeckel and used to support evolution. Today, these parallels are known not to be exact correspondences, but the links between development and evolution remain an area of active research. Perhaps Agassiz's greatest lasting insight was the realization that paleontology, embryology, ecology, and biogeography had to contribute to any classification that purported to show the true relationships of organisms -- even if those relationships, to Agassiz, existed only in the mind of God."

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html

So, even though he didn't believe in evolution, himself, his work has nevertheless supported it.

[Foster Zygote]

This is a list of those who have been alive some time during the last 50 years:

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
John Grebe (chemist)
George F. Howe (botanist)
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)

This is what's left when you filter out all the people who were dead before Origin was even published or could not possibly have any knowledge from the last fifty years regarding genetic research. I must confess I was a bit surprised to discover that when doing a Google search of their names they result in links to sites like Answers in Genesis, Christian Answers, Institute for Creation Research etc. within the first few hits. Every single one of them. The only one who didn't result in such search engine hits was Wernher von Braun who listed his religious beliefs among the reasons he opposed Darwin's theory.

So what we have here is a list of Christian creationists, only seven of whom work in he field of biology in any way, who have been augmented with a bunch of famous names of people who either died before Darwin's work was even published, or died long before they could know of modern advances that confirm Darwin's theory. In attempting to convince us that a large portion of the scientific community rejects evolutionary theory, Radrook (or whomever assembled this list) has instead confirmed that only a tiny minority of scientists reject evolutionary theory, and usually for religious, not scientific reasons.

[rocketdodger]

The only one who didn't result in such search engine hits was Wernher von Braun who listed his religious beliefs among the reasons he opposed Darwin's theory.

Just the thought of someone dragging good ol' "Verner" into this debate made me laugh out loud.

[CapelDodger]

Regarding Charles Babbage and his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise (1838):

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/bridgewater/babbage_intro.htm


and the treatises in general :

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/bridgewater.html

(I've already gained from this exercise; I've discovered The Victorian Web :))

"
"The Right Honourable and Reverend Francis Henry, Earl of Bridgewater, died in the month of February, 1829 ; and, by his last will and testament, bearing date the 25th of February, 1825, he directed certain Trustees therein named, to invest in the public funds the sum of eight thousand pounds sterling ; this sum, with the accruing dividends thereon," to be held at the disposal of the President, for the time being, of the Royal Society of London, to be paid to the person or persons nominated by him. The testator further directed, that the person or persons selected by the said President should be appointed to write, print, and publish, one thousand copies of a work 'On the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation ;' illustrating such work by all reasonable arguments, as, for instance, the variety and formation of God's creatures in the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms ; the effect of digestion, and thereby of conversion ; the construction of the hand of man, and an infinite variety of other arguments : as also by discoveries, ancient and modern, in arts, sciences, and the whole extent of literature. He desired, moreover, that the profits arising from the sale of the works so published should be paid to the authors of the works."


Look ye upon the Templeton Prize and realise there is nothing new under the Sun.

Bridgewater died in 1829, and was already engaged in defence of what had been unquestioned dogma fifty years before. Babbage : 1838. On The Origin Of Species was yet to gestate, let alone be born.

On the title page of Babbage's treatise is this :

""We may thus, with the greatest propriety, deny to the mechanical philosophers and mathematicians of recent times any authority with regard to their views of the administration of the universe ; we have no reason whatever to expect from their speculations any help, when we ascend to the first cause and supreme ruler of the universe. But we might perhaps go farther, and assert that they.are in some respects less likely than men employed in other pursuits, to make any clear advance towards such a subject of speculation."—Bridgewater Treatise, by the REV. WM. WHEWELL, p. 334."

Towards such speculation. Such speculation as Science had already shrugged off - pointless speculation as to "first causes" and "administration of the Universe".

Before Darwin, they're already on the defensive, and evolution was part of what they were defending against. Fossils and geology shout evolution, and that point was made before Charles Darwin provided the mechanism. Erasmus Darwin was involved in the recognition of it.

This is not a weapon we should let lie idle. Recognition of evolution pre-dated Charles Darwin's masterpiece by two generations at least.

[CapelDodger]

"His finding of parallels between ontogeny, paleontology, and morphology was rapidly adopted by biologists like Haeckel and used to support evolution. Today, these parallels are known not to be exact correspondences, but the links between development and evolution remain an area of active research. Perhaps Agassiz's greatest lasting insight was the realization that paleontology, embryology, ecology, and biogeography had to contribute to any classification that purported to show the true relationships of organisms -- even if those relationships, to Agassiz, existed only in the mind of God."

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html

So, even though he didn't believe in evolution, himself, his work has nevertheless supported it.

(My emphasis)

It doesn't really matter what he thought was at the end of the path, what mattered to him was that he stuck to the right path, which Agassiz thought was revealed by Science. His wasn't a belief that was assaulted by observation and reason, it was one that would ultimately be revealed by it.

Not at all like creationism. Creationists believe in a textbook that already explains it all. It has some good stuff about stoning people as well.

[CapelDodger]

Just the thought of someone dragging good ol' "Verner" into this debate made me laugh out loud.

Give it a few more years and it could happen. There's some lingering sensitivity to his Nazi-pandering, and Godwin's Law still carries a sting.

[CapelDodger]

By all means (see above). I was suggesting that the Creationists remove them from the list.

~~ Paul

Like that's gonna happen :).

Creationists have opened up a long front with their scientist references, and I don't think we should feel restricted in where we strike along it. Dead, alive, got a web-site and email address, it all has potential.

[Radrook]

Just because a person does not believe in evolution, it does not necessarily mean that he or she believes in creationism. It may also mean that they have not committed either way -- maybe they just don't care.

Exactly! It is and should be as clear as day. Yet subject is continually directed toward creationism while it can be discussed from a purely logical or scientific perspective.

BTW

I never intended to include pre-Darwinian sacientists. The two lists got jumbled together after my computer crashed. Despite this explanation the accusation that I purposefully included pre-Darwinians continues. Which leads me to believe that deletion makes no difference as well. So why even bother.

[cyborg]

I never intended to include pre-Darwinian sacientists. The two lists got jumbled together after my computer crashed.

Uhh... what was the second list for then?

I find this story about as convincing as, "a dog ate my homework."

I would sure like to know how a "computer crash" is supposed to jumble lists together in such a way.

[Radrook]

In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100729) a poster called Radrook posted a familiar list:



As posted by Foster Zygote:


So that is instantly a reason to remove the pre-Darwin guys from the list.

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in looking at some of these other scientists to see if any of them have been involved in any research that has called any part of evolution into question, or developed any alternative theories.

In short, is there any scientific reason that they have ever provided to object to evolution, or is it simply a personally held belief that is no more relevent to their profession than if they were a baker, stationer or jetskier?

In particular there are a few on the list who, judging by their fields of study, it seems bizarre that they would not accept evolution.


It seems bizarre because your premise is skewered.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here as to why I presented the list. The purpose of the list is simply to demonstrate that not all scientists subscribe to the Godless evolution theory requiring abiogenesis. Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory. Nevertheless, their inclusion was accidental.

Furthermore, and as I have repeatedly stated to no avail, no specialization is needed in order to evaluate whether science is being practiced in accord with the scientific method or whether the scientific method is being violated or ignored or being applied inconsistently. Neither is specialization needed in order to detect flaws in logic when employee on behalf of a theory.

[Hokulele]

I see, an "accidental" inclusion. When I pointed out this problem, why was this your response?

Not at all, an typical childish ineffective idiotic reaction like focusing only on the pre-Darwnians and ignoring everyone else which proves NOTHING except your bias and refusal to discuss the matter rationally. But hey. Keep hammering away. Maybe if you throw a tantrum often and long enough the creationists will go away. Who knows. LOL

[cyborg]

The purpose of the list is simply to demonstrate that not all scientists subscribe to the Godless evolution theory requiring abiogenesis.

No, really?

Thanks Radrook! I was totally ignorant of this before you posted your list!

Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory.

Yeah! Just like Darwin, a believer in God(s), rejected his atheist theory!

Oh wait...

Neither is specialization needed in order to detect flaws in logic when employee on behalf of a theory.

Just as well then because the logic flaws are coming thick and fast from the employee of the non-evolutionary theories. (That would be you).

[Radrook]

[
QUOTE=cyborg;3246137]Uhh... what was the second list for then?

I find this story about as convincing as, "a dog ate my homework."

I would sure like to know how a "computer crash" is supposed to jumble lists together in such a way.[/QUOTE]

Your premise seems to be that I was ignorant of the possible reaction to such an inclusion? That premise is founded on what? Your low opinion of anyone who isn't an evolutionist?
I didn't say the computer crash literally jumbled the lists. You need to be an imbecile to offer that kind of crap explanation to computer savvy people and expect them to believe it.

I meant, and it should be obvious to those who aren't inclined to jump to conclusions, that the confusion which ensued after the crash was the reason. The two lists were adjacent to each other. I had to reboot. When I rebooted I mistakenly copied and pasted both because I forgot they were meshed together. The second list was copied from the website for future reference and to facilitate faster copy and paste procedure. Now you can take issue with that as well.

In any case, the first list does provide a list of scientists who were not atheists and who nevertheles made significant contributions to science. A situation which evolutionists seem to find ludicrous and intolerable.

[kjkent1]

It seems bizarre because your premise is skewered.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here as to why I presented the list. The purpose of the list is simply to demonstrate that not all scientists subscribe to the Godless evolution theory requiring abiogenesis. Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory. Nevertheless, their inclusion was accidental.

Furthermore, and as I have repeatedly stated to no avail, no specialization is needed in order to evaluate whether science is being practiced in accord with the scientific method or whether the scientific method is being violated or ignored or being applied inconsistently. Neither is specialization needed in order to detect flaws in logic when employee on behalf of a theory.You make it seem as though acceptance of "Godless evolution" is evil.

Is that your view?

[fuelair]

Who cares what a billion scientists think?

Try thinking for yourself.
Read Darwin's Origin of Species. Read current popular texts on evolutionary theory.
Examine the evidence.
Try thinking for yourself.
Surely thee jesteth!:)

[Radrook]

No, really?

Thanks Radrook! I was totally ignorant of this before you posted your list!



Yeah! Just like Darwin, a believer in God(s), rejected his atheist theory!

Oh wait...



Just as well then because the logic flaws are coming thick and fast from the employee of the non-evolutionary theories. (That would be you).

If you weren't ignorant you sure arfe doing a good job of looking that way. In fact, your Darwin statement proves you are ignorant since Dawrin didn't require atheisim to be part of his theory. Yet go about claiming he did. Now that's a humdinger of an example of illogical thought based on ignorance if I ever saw one!

BTW
Your constant mindlessly frenetic ad hominem attacks add nothing to this thread. Since they asd nothing they won't be missed. At least not by me.

[Foster Zygote]

I never intended to include pre-Darwinian sacientists. The two lists got jumbled together after my computer crashed.
That makes no sense. You're telling us that your computer "jumbled together" two lists of names without any further jumbling of individual words and letters?

Despite this explanation the accusation that I purposefully included pre-Darwinians continues.
Despite the explanation offered in this very post, in the sentence immediately proceeding your announcement that the accusations continue?

Which leads me to believe that deletion makes no difference as well. So why even bother.
The deletion makes a huge difference. Without those other famous names you are left with a small fringe group who start with a conclusion and then look for evidence to support in rather than following the evidence to a conclusion.

[Foster Zygote]

If you weren't ignorant you sure arfe doing a good job of looking that way. In fact, your Darwin statement proves you are ignorant since Dawrin didn't require atheisim to be part of his theory. Yet go about claiming he did. Now that's a humdinger of an example of illogical thought based on ignorance if I ever saw one!

BTW
Your constant mindlessly frenetic ad hominem attacks add nothing to this thread. Since they asd nothing they won't be missed. At least not by me.

You do realize that he was being sarcastic, yes? He was pointing out your erroneous statement about "godless evolution".

[cyborg]

Your premise seems to be that I was ignorant of the possible reaction to such an inclusion?

Ignorant, careless, lazy, sloppy - so many to choose from.

"Computer crash jumbles my data," - nuh uh. But anyway, you explain:

I didn't say the computer crash literally jumbled the lists. You need to be an imbecile to offer that kind of crap explanation to computer savvy people and expect them to believe it.

So it was basically a poorly worded statement then?

I could live with that...

When I rebooted I mistakenly copied and pasted both because I forgot they were meshed together. The second list was copied from the website for future reference and to facilitate faster copy and paste procedure. Now you can take issue with that as well.

If they were separate lists copied and pasted together into a single one then one might presume that one list was pre and the other post Darwin. The ordering of the final list does not suggest such a thing unless you - for some bizarre reason - copied and pasted them together in an interleaved manner.

If you gathered them from two separate websites and copied into two separate lists where the websites made no differentiation by pre and post Darwin then that doesn't work much better as far as having different lists where jamming them together would cause such an error since posting either would be sufficient.

Uh... so laziness? Incompetence? I don't think blaming the computer is fair really.

those who aren't inclined to jump to conclusions,

You have a problem with such people?

In any case, the first list does provide a list of scientists who were not atheists and who nevertheles made significant contributions to science. A situation which evolutionists seem to find ludicrous and intolerable.

Hmmm.... jumped to any conclusions recently?

[cyborg]

If you weren't ignorant you sure arfe doing a good job of looking that way.

Thanks. I aim to deceive.

In fact, your Darwin statement proves you are ignorant since Dawrin didn't require atheisim to be part of his theory. Yet go about claiming he did.

Got it!

Darwin required theism to be part of his theory. Therefore pre-Darwin creationists would accept evolution implicitly.

Therefore your list is a list of evolution supporters.

Now that's a humdinger of an example of illogical thought based on ignorance if I ever saw one!

They're the best kind don't you think?

Your constant mindlessly frenetic ad hominem attacks add nothing to this thread.

Guys - I think he's new to this trolling lark. Oh well. Time for school.

Since they asd nothing they won't be missed.

Well I never try to asd anything - nice to know that won't be missed.

At least not by me.

Breakin' my heart one sentence at a time.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Surely thee jesteth!:)

Sorrieth I am for my postingeth. I had had too much . . . mead. Yes. That's what it was -- mead. :o

[joobz]

In any case, the first list does provide a list of scientists who were not atheists and who nevertheles made significant contributions to science. A situation which evolutionists seem to find ludicrous and intolerable.
Did you poll many "evolutionists" to see if they find such a premise ludicrous? I somehow doubt any atheist/evolutionist/science buff would be shocked to know that much of science was conducted by men of faith. I think the onerous is on you to prove why you think thier faith is relevant in the first place in a discussion on evolution.

So, do you have any reason to question evolution outside your disire for it not to be true?

[Radrook]

You do realize that he was being sarcastic, yes? He was pointing out your erroneous statement about "godless evolution".

Well, if you understood what he meant and feel it deserves repetition in a more direct manner then post it and we can decently discuss it if you wish. Sarcasm, hecklings anf jecklings, snide remarkjs, mockery, veiled insults and the like I consider irrelevant to the subject and a clutter to the thread. So to prevent unnecessary clutter, at least from the vantage point of my computor screen, I weed habitual users of such tactics via my ignore option. This keeps things nicely in what I personally considere a healthful equilibrium.

[cyborg]

Sarcasm, hecklings anf jecklings, snide remarkjs, mockery, veiled insults and the like I consider irrelevant to the subject and a clutter to the thread. So to prevent unnecessary clutter, at least from the vantage point of my computor screen, I weed habitual users of such tactics via my ignore option.

Ah. Radrook has himself on "ignore".

That explains a lot.

[Radrook]

Did you poll many "evolutionists" to see if they find such a premise ludicrous? I somehow doubt any atheist/evolutionist/science buff would be shocked to know that much of science was conducted by men of faith. I think the onerous is on you to prove why you think thier faith is relevant in the first place in a discussion on evolution.

So, do you have any reason to question evolution outside your disire for it not to be true?



Your premise that I question evolution merely because I desire it to be untrue is an insult to my intelligence baesed on a faulty premise. If you really want want to discuss the reason for my opinion, why not simply request an explanation instead of barbing your statements with barely veiled insults?

BTW
The only ones who have made faith relevant to this discussion are the evolutionists themselves by repeatedly bringing in creationism despite my repeated requests that the subject be strictly kept at the logical and scientific level.

[fuelair]

Sorrieth I am for my postingeth. I had had too much . . . mead. Yes. That's what it was -- mead. :o
Mead is good in sooth (better in mouth though)!!

[cyborg]

If you really want want to discuss the reason for my opinion, why not simply request an explanation instead of barbing your statements with barely veiled insults?

You are hereby requested for an explanation - in your own words if you please. We don't really need endless cut & paste jobs.

(I am probably on ignore by now. If someone would quote me that would be dandy).

[X]

So you have a list of scientist who do not support the theory of evolution.

May I, then, counter with a far more entry-restrictive list of scientist who do support evolution?
Behold: Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp)
A list of scientist whose first name begins with Stephen, or a dericvative thereof, and who support the theory of evolution.

What does this list prove?
Absolutely nothing. Which is precisely the same amount that your list proves.

To counter the statement made in the OP, I do not thing any of the individuals listed are retarded. Ignorant, perhaps. Willfully blind to be certain. I would also suspect that they all have non-scientific ulterior motives behind their rejeciton of evolution.

Unless you can point me to some secular scientists who do not support evolution?
There's bound to be a few.

[Radrook]

;3246289']So you have a list of scientist who do not support the theory of evolution.

May I, then, counter with a far more entry-restrictive list of scientist who do support evolution?
Behold: Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp)
A list of scientist whose first name begins with Stephen, or a dericvative thereof, and who support the theory of evolution.

What does this list prove?
Absolutely nothing. Which is precisely the same amount that your list proves.

To counter the statement made in the OP, I do not thing any of the individuals listed are retarded. Ignorant, perhaps. Willfully blind to be certain. I would also suspect that they all have non-scientific ulterior motives behind their rejeciton of evolution.

Unless you can point me to some secular scientists who do not support evolution?
There's bound to be a few.


What was I trying to prove?
I'm not quite sure on what you mean by secular scientist.
Also, you seem to think that scientists who are not atheists or agnostics are somehow biased in their evaluation of evolution theory. Ironically, the same can be said of atheist evolutionists when it comes to objectively evaluating data. I don't think they can be trusted. In fact, their record provides amplke proof thatthey are quite capable of forgeries, illogical conclusions, double standards, and bias in their evaluations.


BTW
I have my suspicions that evolutionist scientists have other agendas beside science in their manner of interpreting data. So I guess we are similar in that respect.

[Acleron]

I can only see one "Steve" on the list.

Project Steve (http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp) had 854 "Steves" yesterday, if this list is the best the id/creationists can produce their support among scientists is very minimal.

And what happened to Dembski and Behe, don't the id/creationists consider them as scientists anymore?

[cyborg]

I have my suspicions that evolutionist scientists have other agendas beside science in their manner of interpreting data.

Such as...?

[joobz]

Your premise that I question evolution merely because I desire it to be untrue is an insult to my intelligence baesed on a faulty premise. If you really want want to discuss the reason for my opinion, why not simply request an explanation instead of barbing your statements with barely veiled insults?

Sorry, I failed to see your previous post whee you ask the question without a barb. So I'll answer it there.
I've followed your arguments, and I haven't seen anything presented that is a compelling argument.

perhaps you'd like to present one.

Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

[X]

What was I trying to prove?

Buggered if I know. If you don't know either, then I'm not even going to try to figure it out.


I'm not quite sure on what you mean by secular scientist.

Not aligned to a literal interpreataion of a doctrine that may, shall we say, influence their views.


Also, you seem to think that scientists who are not atheists or agnostics are somehow biased in their evaluation of evolution theory.

I apologize if it came across that way. I merely intended to point out that a list of people affiliated with very conservative Christian groups may have other reasons to reject evolution than scientists from more liberal strains of belief, or with no belief whatsoever. I have no doubt that many scientists who accept evolution are religious, and most don't seem to see a conflict. But creationism is, after all, a religious belief. Thus, I must be susicious of strict adherents to these religions who proclaim that all contrary evidence and ideas are wrong.


Ironically, the same can be said of atheist evolutionists when it comes to objectively evaluating data. I don't think they can be trusted. In fact, their record provides ample proof that they are quite capable of forgeries, illogical conclusions, double standards, and bias in their evaluations.[/url]

This is true. And so far, science has exposed the frauds. That's one advantage of having so many people independantly involved. Everyone has their own ideas and interpretations. Everybody finds answers in their own way. Just take a look at some midterms from a science course. You can pick the level. I guarantee you will see different approaches from different people.


[QUOTE=Radrook;3246299]BTW
I have my suspicions that evolutionist scientists have other agendas beside science in their manner of interpreting data. So I guess we are similar in that respect.

I think Cyborg responded to this quite nicely.

[Radrook]

I've followed your arguments, and I haven't seen anything presented that is a compelling argument.

perhaps you'd like to present one.

Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

Why not prove to me first your abiogenesis claim? If the foundation is unprovable, then all following arguments based on it are moot.

[Shalamar]

Why not prove to me first your abiogenesis claim? If the foundation is unprovable, then all following arguments based on it are moot.

Abiogenesis has no bearing on the Theory of Evolution.

[X]

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

Joobz is not asking you to prove anything outside of evolution.
You post, quoted in the OP, mentions evolution, not abiogenesis. As such, Joobz request seems more than reasonable.

They are not related anymore than evolution and the big bang theory are.

Just so's ya know.

[cyborg]

Yawn. This is standard run-book stuff.

1) Shift goal-posts wildly: is it abiogenesis that's the problem? Morphological shifts too absurd? How long till the Big Bang is involved?
2) Lists. More argument is better.
3) Accuse your opponents of hidden agendas, ignorance, closed-mindeness yada yada
4) "Evolution is obviously stupid you idiots. Damn I'm smart."

[joobz]

Why not prove to me first your abiogenesis claim? If the foundation is unprovable, then all following arguments based on it are moot.
Doesn't work that way. You doubt evolution, so we talk evolution.
all listed items I gave do not require abiogenesis. They simply require the existence of evolution.


Secondly, your claim that abiogenesis is the foundation of evolution, this is untrue. Evolution simlpy discusses the process of speciation and diversification of populations.

Thirdly, your claim that an argument with an "unprovable" premise renders all subsequent arguments moot is patently false.

Thermodynamics is derived off of 4 postulates, which are by definition unprovable. Does this render thermodynamics false?

Gravity describes an observation, but an underlying mechanism remains unproven. Do you doubt the existence of gravity?

The navier-stokes equation, which is the foundation of fluid mechanics and used to design airplanes, cars, piping systems, has still not been proven to be continuous and smooth under all conditions. In other words, we don't know if it is a fully valid description. Does this mean airplanes can't fly?

Newton laws of motion aren't valid in all conditions, does this mean they no longer apply?

[skeptigirl]

For, um, those who tag people who aren't evolutionists as retarded, here is a list of people who are not evolutionists and who are scientist. This post is in response for a request for a list of evolutionist scientists eartlier in this thread.

[snip] ....Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating) ....[snip]

Now the expected knee-jerk reaction to this list is an immediate
irrelevant accusation accompanied by barely repressed laughter
that these are mere creationist scientist and thast therefor they aren't really scientists because if they were they would be evolutionists.

Well, I guess in that respect we hold similar views but in opposite directions. : )Just taking the biologists or related fields because I don't have the time to waste on all these religious fundamentalists who also went to school...

Duane Gish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish)Gish's arguments against evolution have been criticized by various members of the scientific community as being incorrect. Examples include:

* Claiming there are no fossil precursors to the dinosaur,Triceratops, a claim Gish has made since 1987.[11] Examples of Triceratops precursors include Monoclonius and Protoceratops with changes in bony frill, size and number of horns predicted by the theory of evolution.[11] Gish has made other, similar errors about the fossil record, including claims about transitional forms, the fossil record for birds and the status of the Archaeopteryx as a reptile or bird.[11] Gish has rebutted this criticism,[12] which were rebutted in turn.[13]
* Claiming that Solly Zuckerman had access to modern knowledge of Australopithecus yet still stated they were not ancestors of Homo sapiens; Zuckerman's original conclusions were based on evidence available before Lucy was discovered, a fossil which revolutionized the field of physical anthropology.[11]
* Claiming that Neanderthals were modern humans of 'fully human Homo sapiens just like you and me', which Richard Trott pointed out was false given the morphological difference between modern humans and Neanderthals.[11]
* Claiming that evolution by natural selection is rendered impossible by the second law of thermodynamics.[14] The overwhelming scientific consensus is that Gish's claim is false.[15]

Gish appeared on Penn and Teller's Showtime television show ********! in 2004, stating that creation and evolution were equally scientific, that both were in fact non-scientific, offering as proof his belief that the Grand Canyon was created by the rupture of a natural dam, cutting through layers deposited during the Biblical flood. In the same episode, Eugenie Scott noted that Gish had not kept up with the relevant literature and had not done any professional research in his field since his work at Upjohn, instead producing only creationism-related work for a popular audience.




John W. Klotz (http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp1no2.htm) The entire page is about this guy's belief the Bible is a literal work. His only reference to genetic science is thin one quoting a 1950s book. Yet he claims to be a geneticist??On the other hand, I believe that the evolutionist has a major problem in describing the mechanism of evolution and also in presenting a reasonable picture of the stages of human evolution. It is simply a fact that we do not have a satisfactory mechanism for change of the degree required by the theory of evolution. By far, the vast majority of mutations are lethal. Winchester, Glass, and H. J. Muller are all agreed that over 99 per cent of all mutations that have been studied are harmful in some degree: (Albert M. Winchester Genetics, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1951 p. 290; Bentley Glass "The Genetic Hazards of Radiation" Science 126, 1957, 243; H. J. Muller "Genetic Damage Produced by Radiation" Science 121, 1955, 837).




I can't read the Russian links but this comment on talk origins addresses the false listing of this name on the Creation Science list. I notice the guy died last year as well. Maybe he can't defend the accusation now. Leonid Korochkin (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov05.html)While Korochkin is a Christian (and wrote several books on Christian topics), and may be (according to an unconfirmed source) a member of some sort of "creation society", by no means he is a YECist or even an anti-evolutionist.

It is true that Korochkin is critical of neo-Darwinism. He holds an opinion opposite to that of Dobzhansky - he wrote that if the evolutionary theory was stricken from biology, the biological science would not change significantly and while the new substantive gap would appear, it wouldn't be catastrophic (his point was that genetics played the role of biology's backbone, not evolution). See his 1999 article at http://magazines.russ.ru/novyi_mi/1999/4/nauka.html

In the same article he also writes:

"The more organism is specialized, [i.e.] the higher the step of the evolutionary ladder, on which it stands, the more these changes are deeper and irreversible."

"... erythrocytes of the mammals, who evolution-wise are higher than the birds ..."

In another article, written in 1982 [sic] for a Soviet journal ( http://www.goldentime.ru/hrs_text_025.htm ), he criticized Darwinism, and some claims about natural selection. He also engaged in some quote mining in favor of the claim that transitional fossils are almost lacking. This article is very unprofessional, especially coming from such a good scientist (which he really is). In it he frequently refers to Soviet structuralist L.S. Berg, which shows where he sympathies lie.

Finally, in 2002 review article "Ontogeny, evolution and genes" ( http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/NATURE/07_02/ONTO.HTM ) Korochkin again makes some polemical points against the STE, but the article is clearly written from an evolutionary perspective. In fact, he begins one sentence: "Being an adherent of the macromutation evolution...".

Here's another passage:

"Looking attentively at different evolutionary lines and spotting similar forms (wings for birds, bats, insects, ancient reptiles; likeness of wings in some fish) one begins to suspect the existence of a program in the very DNA structure of philogeny (and ontogeny), as if it was directed through some "pre-formed" channel; about these matters Berg was talking in his nomogenesis theory."

It is clear then, that while Korochkin's leanings are "heterodox", and he may be sympatethical to some kind of ID theory, and may be even supporting of creationism in "let a hundred flowers bloom" way (the infamous D. Kuznetsov once thanked Korochkin for assistance), he is not a YEC or even an anti-evolutionist.

Why, then, AIG claims the opposite?




Lane P. Lester (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html), in his own words.My own speculation is that Darwin's ideas were immediately adopted because they gave fallen men a justification for ignoring their Creator, even for denying His existence. But by the end of the 19th century, other research had so clearly confirmed the principles discovered by Mendel that evolutionists had to incorporate these principles into their theories. They did so, and have continued to do so, on a very selective basis. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.

Having said the above, I do not plan to say much more about evolution. I would prefer to talk about creation and the testimony of genetics to the power and glory of the Creator. Too long have creationists concentrated on pointing out the fallacies of evolution, and spent too little time demonstrating the truth of creation. Indeed with some justification, the evangelists of evolution prefer to call us anti-evolutionists rather than creationists.


I'm tired of this exercise. This is religious proselytizing, not science.

[joobz]

;3246351']Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

Joobz is not asking you to prove anything outside of evolution.
You post, quoted in the OP, mentions evolution, not abiogenesis. As such, Joobz request seems more than reasonable.

They are not related anymore than evolution and the big bang theory are.

Just so's ya know.
You beat me to it. I take too long to type.

[skeptigirl]

I think Radrook's list of people is worth looking at - this seems to be a combination of at least 2 lists that Creationists wheel out quite regularly.

If I start a new thread about this would anyone be interested in having a look at each one individually to see if any of them have at any point in their career produced any work or been involved in any study that would be considered as having any weight to question evolution, or provide any alternative.

In the future when this list is dragged out again it would be nice if there was a thread we could direct people to.

Or, you know, if not then we don't have to. It's all good.

ETA: Have set up the thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101253)I'll copy my post over there. I looked up a couple. But I'm pretty sure talk origins has dealt with the whole list. Not to mention the Steve project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve).

Looks like this thread is already derailed. Maybe the Mods can help.

[UnrepentantSinner]

So I guess Linnaeus denies human evolution because we're still apes?

Even more interestingly Linnaeus considered chimpanzees a species of human - Homo troglodytes.

[Radrook]

;3246338']Buggered if I know. If you don't know either, then I'm not even going to try to figure it out.


I only ask because I keep posting my reasons and they are continually ignored. Then I am accused of trying to devastate the evolution theory with the list. So since each is forming his own explanation of what my motive was and rejects my explanation, then any explanation of my motives is as good as the other.


Not aligned to a literal interpretation of a doctrine that may, shall we say, influence their views.

Source does not affect truth.

When one comes across a scientist and his opinions, one has to evaluate his claims objectively. If the scientist's arguments adhere to the principles of the scientific method, then they can be accepted. If they violate them then they are rejected. There is no way that
you or anyone else can be mislead in the manner you seem to be suggesting. Actually, what you really are saying is that you don't trust a certain group of scientist regardless of what they say because they are religious. That is a subjective evaluation and does not conform to the objectivity required of a person who sincerely seek truth no matter what its source might be.


I apologize if it came across that way. I merely intended to point out that a list of people affiliated with very conservative Christian groups may have other reasons to reject evolution than scientists from more liberal strains of belief, or with no belief whatsoever. I have no doubt that many scientists who accept evolution are religious, and most don't seem to see a conflict. But creationism is, after all, a religious belief. Thus, I must be suspicious of strict adherents to these religions who proclaim that all contrary evidence and ideas are wrong.

Again we come to religion and creationism which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the reason why I don't accept evolutionary claims. This is becoming tiresome.


Ironically, the same can be said of atheist evolutionists when it comes to objectively evaluating data. I don't think they can be trusted. In fact, their record provides ample proof that they are quite capable of forgeries, illogical conclusions, double standards, and bias in their evaluations.[/url]

This is true. And so far, science has exposed the frauds. That's one advantage of having so many people independently involved. Everyone has their own ideas and interpretations. Everybody finds answers in their own way. Just take a look at some midterms from a science course. You can pick the level. I guarantee you will see different approaches from different people. I think Cyborg responded to this quite nicely.


I know most sciences and scientists try to keep things from getting out of hand. However, evolutionists have gained a reputation for letting things get out of control. But this in itself doesn't provide a reason for rejecting evolution ideas. I never claimed that it did. In fact, I only initially brought up the dishonesty issue in response to a poster who claimed that evolutionists are the epitome of honesty. In response I offered proof to the contrary whereupon it was taken as the reason why I reject evolution and from that point on all my explanations to the contrary have been ignored.

[Radrook]

You beat me to it. I take too long to type.

I am referring to atheistric evolution not the supposed God initiated one.

If indeed abiogenesis is completely unrelated to non-intelligence-guided evolution, then why the evolutionist objection to creationists? There is a constant attack against people who believe in an intelligent guiding force on this forum. Which of course, by default means that abiogenesis is seen as the means for the emergeance of life. No initial life = no evolution. So one is impossible without the other. Impossibility of abiogenesis= impossibility of evolution since no life would have initially emerged upon which the evolutionary process could commence.

[cyborg]

If indeed abiogenesis is completely unrelated to evolution, then why the evolutionist objection to creationists?

1) They lie.
2) They're stupid.
3) They deny evolution.

[cyborg]

I know most sciences and scientists try to keep things from getting out of hand. However, evolutionists have gained a reputation for letting things get out of control.

What in the **** is that supposed to mean?

[Shalamar]

If indeed abiogenesis is completely unrelated to evolution, then why the evolutionist objection to creationists?

They are indeed unrelated. The hypothesis of Abiogenesis, and the Theory of Evolution have nothing to do with each, save biology.

The objecttion to creationists, is that creationism is not science. Creationism requires a supernatural creator, which can not be proven, or disproven. Now, some of it depends on which flavour of creationism you are talking about.

There's 'Theistic Evolution', where a creator created life, a couple billion years ago, and then evolution took over, carefully guided, so to speak. Most scientists roll their eyes at this, but pretty much seem to let it pass.

The real bile, and hatred is given to young earth creationists. Where the answer tends to be 'God did it'. The earth was created 6000 years ago, and all creatures on earth now have always been this way. Anything that may suggest that the earth is older, or that evolution took place, was put there as a test from god, or placed by satan, or some other hooey.

Creationists tell a great deal of lies. They cherry pick information, claim that they are scientists as well, (Though the rather overwhelming lack of evidence... of any kind hurts them) but they pretty much use the bible as their proofs. And they want this taught in public schools. Thus the bile. When one lies about belief, and science, it gets many many people VERY upset.

[joobz]

If indeed abiogenesis is completely unrelated to evolution, then why the evolutionist objection to creationists?
You ignored my other points, and are confused by the order of events. Creationists hate evolution.

also you said.
Again we come to religion and creationism which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the reason why I don't accept evolutionary claims. This is becoming tiresome.
You are contradicting yourself. If you have a complaint with evolution, state it. Otherwise, it seems your ONLY complaint is a creationist argument.


So, please answer my original question:

Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

[Morrigan]

You guys do know you won't get a reasonable answer, right?

[cyborg]

I'm on ignore! So yes.

[joobz]

You guys do know you won't get a reasonable answer, right?
I'm always willing to give people a chance.

[X]

I only ask because I keep posting my reasons and they are continually ignored. Then I am accused of trying to devastate the evolution theory with the list. So since each is forming his own explanation of what my motive was and rejects my explanation, then any explanation of my motives is as good as the other.

You posted a list for people who think "people who aren't evolutionists as retarded".
I don't know the purpose behind this, and am disinclined to try to find out. It matters very little to me, and I have finals to worry about. Your reasons seem to be a personal dislike of evolution, hence you are grasping at whatever straws you can to hold up your belief in other theories.
It still doesn't explain the purpose of the list, or why we should care.


Source does not affect truth.

I never claimed it did. But perhaps, just possible, it can blind you to truth, no?
Most of the individuals on your list have the Bible as a source. Inherent in the presumption that the Bible is a factual text is belief in a religion.


When one comes across a scientist and his opinions, one has to evaluate his claims objectively.

I believe that's what "peer review" is for.


If the scientist's arguments adhere to the principles of the scientific method, then they can be accepted. If they violate them then they are rejected.

So, by extension, you reject the arguments posed by the scientists on your list, yes?
Or are they not subject to the same requirements as everyone else?


There is no way that you or anyone else can be mislead in the manner you seem to be suggesting.

You do realize that what I was saying is that people can be misled by strict belief in religious doctrines. By claiming this cannot happen, you have automatically labelled every person who ever believed in any religion/faith doctrine as being right. Even the mutually contradictory ones.
Care to re-state what you wrote?


Actually, what you really are saying is that you don't trust a certain group of scientist regardless of what they say because they are religious. That is a subjective evaluation and does not conform to the objectivity required of a person who sincerely seek truth no matter what its source might be.

You slightly misrepresent my opinion here. Possible I was again unclear. Permit me to clarify:
I don't trust a certain group of scientists because they point to their religion as the absolute truth, in spite of overwhelming evidence that points to a contrary system.


Again we come to religion and creationism which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the reason why I don't accept evolutionary claims. This is becoming tiresome.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, then. It's just that, well, most of the (currently living) scientists on your list hold their views, in spite of evidence to the contrary, out of obligation to their religious beliefs.

I know most sciences and scientists try to keep things from getting out of hand. However, evolutionists have gained a reputation for letting things get out of control. But this in itself doesn't provide a reason for rejecting evolution ideas. I never claimed that it did. In fact, I only initially brought up the dishonesty issue in response to a poster who claimed that evolutionists are the epitome of honesty. In response I offered proof to the contrary whereupon it was taken as the reason why I reject evolution and from that point on all my explanations to the contrary have been ignored.


Ah. So then where is the problem? As I stated earlier, thus far the scientific method has been sufficient to uncover these frauds. I see no reason to let the actions of a few individuals taint the whole structure of scientific inquiry.


At any rate, this thread has drifted away from what I thing the OP was meant to follow. I'm not going to contribute to further digression.

Besides, I have an exam in 2 days, and need to learn about 80% of the course material by then. Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls: Procrastination is bad.

[Radrook]

You ignored my other points, and are confused by the order of events. Creationists hate evolution.

also you said.

You are contradicting yourself. If you have a complaint with evolution, state it. Otherwise, it seems your ONLY complaint is a creationist argument.


So, please answer my original question:

Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

Well, there are many points to be considered here. Let's take two..

First, you need to start life for it to evolve-right. The way atheistic evolutionists say it started is via abiogenesis.


Second: Isn't it a bit weird to believe that a comparatively simple SETI code indicates organizing intelligence while the infinitely more complex DNA code doesn't?


It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!

Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334).

Refusal to apply the same criteria is called inconsistency of policy and is very unscientific.

"DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised." Bill Gates

[cyborg]

Second: Isn't it a bit weird to believe that a comparatively simple SETI code indicates organizing intelligence while the infinitely more complex DNA code doesn't?

No.

I would explain but I'm on ignore.

I guess the fact that SETI looks for simple rather than complex signals ain't enough of a clue eh? I guess SIMPLE = INTELLIGENT, COMPLEX = INTELLIGENT and... uh, there's no room for anything not intelligent on this scale!

Oh well - GOD did it!

[joobz]

Well, there are many points to be considered here. Let's take one.

Really? But you need to start life for it to evolve-right. ANd the way artheistic evolutionists say it started is via abiogenesis. Not related? Not by a long shot! Also, Isn't it a bit weird to believe that a comparatively simple SETI code indicates organizing intelligence while the infinitely more complex DNA code doesn't?


Refusal to apply the same criteria is called inconsistency of policy and is very unscientific. If you can show a signal that is generated through a mechanism of natural selection and mutation, then you are right. It wouldn't prove the existence of life. However as it stands you are simply comparing apples and oranges.
Besides, why do you keep dwelling on abiogenesis?
I've already addressed this silliness as being unrelated to the question at hand.
Secondly, your claim that abiogenesis is the foundation of evolution, this is untrue. Evolution simlpy discusses the process of speciation and diversification of populations.

Thirdly, your claim that an argument with an "unprovable" premise renders all subsequent arguments moot is patently false.

Thermodynamics is derived off of 4 postulates, which are by definition unprovable. Does this render thermodynamics false?

Gravity describes an observation, but an underlying mechanism remains unproven. Do you doubt the existence of gravity?

The navier-stokes equation, which is the foundation of fluid mechanics and used to design airplanes, cars, piping systems, has still not been proven to be continuous and smooth under all conditions. In other words, we don't know if it is a fully valid description. Does this mean airplanes can't fly?

Newton laws of motion aren't valid in all conditions, does this mean they no longer apply?

I'm asking you very specifically. If evolution doesn't exist, why do all 10 of those points fit the evolutionary model so well?

You are the one claiming you have a non-creationist reason against evolution. I'm giving you a perfect chance to present it.

[Radrook]

You guys do know you won't get a reasonable answer, right?

It just seems that way from your particular viewpoint which is pro-evolution and pro atheist.

[joobz]

No.

I would explain but I'm on ignore.

I guess the fact that SETI looks for simple rather than complex signals ain't enough of a clue eh? I guess SIMPLE = INTELLIGENT, COMPLEX = INTELLIGENT and... uh, there's no room for anything not intelligent on this scale!

Oh well - GOD did it!
and as I mentioned, if we can conceive of a method to generate that signal in a natural selection/mutation type way, it would raise doubts about the proof of life from the signal. However, the signals that are being searched are of a mathematical importance and evolutionary type methods have no need to generate such signals.

[Radrook]

;3246432']You posted a list for people who think "people who aren't evolutionists as retarded".
I don't know the purpose behind this, and am disinclined to try to find out. It matters very little to me, and I have finals to worry about. Your reasons seem to be a personal dislike of evolution, hence you are grasping at whatever straws you can to hold up your belief in other theories.
It still doesn't explain the purpose of the list, or why we should care.

I have never stated that personally dislike is the reason for not accepting evolution. I clearly stated that evolution doesn't offer me the necessary evidence to convince me.

I never claimed it did. But perhaps, just possible, it can blind you to truth, no?
Most of the individuals on your list have the Bible as a source. Inherent in the presumption that the Bible is a factual text is belief in a religion.

Most evolutionists have Darwinian texts in there libraries and other such textbooks they follow religiously. But I don't judge them on that. I focus on their claims and the validity of the evidence they present which I find unconvincing.


I believe that's what "peer review" is for.

Peer review by other evolutionists.
So, by extension, you reject the arguments posed by the scientists on your list, yes?
Or are they not subject to the same requirements as everyone else?

I don't depend on the arguments on any specific scientist list for my conclusions.

You do realize that what I was saying is that people can be misled by strict belief in religious doctrines. By claiming this cannot happen, you have automatically labeled every person who ever believed in any religion/faith doctrine as being right. Even the mutually contradictory ones. Care to restate what you wrote?

This has nothing to do with religious affiliation, beliefs, quackery ad infinitum. It has to do with the quality of evidence, applicability of logic, and the adherence or lack of adherence to the scientific method.

You slightly misrepresent my opinion here. Possible I was again unclear. Permit me to clarify: I don't trust a certain group of scientists because they point to their religion as the absolute truth, in spite of overwhelming evidence that points to a contrary system.

If a scientist points to a religious book then he is speaking religion not science. It is his scientific statements that concern me-not his religious ones.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, then. It's just that, well, most of the (currently living) scientists on your list hold their views, in spite of evidence to the contrary, out of obligation to their religious beliefs.

That is a common assumption. What I have found instead are well thought out scientific arguments and counterarguments by qualified scientists who are speaking science and not religion.

Ah. So then where is the problem? As I stated earlier, thus far the scientific method has been sufficient to uncover these frauds. I see no reason to let the actions of a few individuals taint the whole structure of scientific inquiry.

I am not quite convinced that what evolutionists are practicing is true science. It gives me the impression of being a quasi science based on assumptions leading to unjustified conclusions.


At any rate, this thread has drifted away from what I thing the OP was meant to follow. I'm not going to contribute to further digression.

Besides, I have an exam in 2 days, and need to learn about 80% of the course material by then. Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls: Procrastination is bad.


Wish you success on your exam. Thanks for the exchange of ideas.

[UnrepentantSinner]

It just seems that way from your particular viewpoint which is pro-evolution and pro atheist.

Evolution, as science, must adhere to strict methodological naturalism in order to be studied. Being pro-science and accepting evolution has nothing to do with atheism. I know loads of theistic evolutionists who are both.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Peer review by other evolutionists.

Who then, other than their peers should review articles? Concert pianists? Romance novelists? Hydrological engineers?

[Cantab]

So if I'm reading this right, the reason the pre-Darwin names are listed with the post-Darwin names is because of an accidental cut-and-paste of 2 lists. Sounds reasonable to me. Can happen to anyone.

However, 2 questions come to mind.

1. How did the pre and post names get jumbled together in a simple cut-and-paste?
2. Why is this list identical (including the 'jumbled' order and description of contribution to science) to one found here:

www (dot) christiananswers (dot) net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

(sorry, I can't post links yet)

I'm no mathematician, so maybe someone can tell me what the odds are of accidentally cutting and pasting 2 separate lists into a jumbled single list that is identical to someone else's list?

[cyborg]

I'm no mathematician, so maybe someone can tell me what the odds are of accidentally cutting and pasting 2 separate lists into a jumbled single list that is identical to someone else's list?

Less than the odds that he's plain out lying and trying to cover his ass by pretending he, "would not be so stupid," by assuming we are.

(You'll note I covered this earlier - it does not ring true at all does it?)

[m_huber]

Most evolutionists have Darwinian texts in there libraries and other such textbooks they follow religiously. But I don't judge them on that. I focus on their claims and the validity of the evidence they present which I find unconvincing.


Interesting. I have quite a number of books behind me in my room, and I read many of them from decades past just to see how ideas have changed over time. Sometimes, I read textbooks and think, "This has been shown to be inaccurate," and sometimes I read an example and think, "This argument is completely unbased."

I can provide examples, if you want, but if not, I'll let it go at the statement.

I would be very interested to know, however, which specific arguments you doubt. Which journals do you read to get your information? What books have you read by currently working scientists that you found issue with, and why?

Please keep in mind that the difference between the origin of life and evolution is analogous to the start of this thread and the way it has evolved. We don't know how life started, and if you want to say that God did it, that's acceptable at this point, and you could find a fair number of scientists who say that God started life. It is not acceptable at this point to state that evolution has not, does not, or cannot happen.

Evolution is what happens after a thing starts. The origin of life is how life started. Different questions.

[Cantab]

Less than the odds that he's plain out lying and trying to cover his ass by pretending he, "would not be so stupid," by assuming we are.

(You'll note I covered this earlier - it does not ring true at all does it?)

Nope, doesn't ring true at all. Especially since the original list can be seen on that christiananswers webpage.

Radrook:
Your premise seems to be that I was ignorant of the possible reaction to such an inclusion? That premise is founded on what? Your low opinion of anyone who isn't an evolutionist?
I didn't say the computer crash literally jumbled the lists. You need to be an imbecile to offer that kind of crap explanation to computer savvy people and expect them to believe it.

I meant, and it should be obvious to those who aren't inclined to jump to conclusions, that the confusion which ensued after the crash was the reason. The two lists were adjacent to each other. I had to reboot. When I rebooted I mistakenly copied and pasted both because I forgot they were meshed together. The second list was copied from the website for future reference and to facilitate faster copy and paste procedure. Now you can take issue with that as well.


You'd also have to be an imbecile to offer the crap explanation that you eventually came up with to computer-savvy people capable of using google.

You're a liar:
www (dot) christiananswers (dot) net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

Lying for Jesus seems to be on the increase.

[joobz]

I clearly stated that evolution doesn't offer me the necessary evidence to convince me.I've given you a chance to prove this statement. I'm still waiting to see why you are doubtful.


But I don't judge them on that. I focus on their claims and the validity of the evidence they present which I find unconvincing.Such as?


I am not quite convinced that what evolutionists are practicing is true science. It gives me the impression of being a quasi science based on assumptions leading to unjustified conclusions.
This is a pure assertion with no proof.

I'm giving you a chance to prove that your argument is more than just incredulity. Provide substance, and people will listen.

To discount evolution, you'll have to come up with alternative, self-consistent, rational explanations for
Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

This list is far from exaustive. It is purely 10 I came up with in 5 minutes.
give me another two minutes and
11.) vestigal organs
12.) prions
13.) protein multifunctionality
14.) protein polymorphisms
15.) symbiosis
16.) interspecies viable offspring
17.) nylon-eating bacteria
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell

[UnrepentantSinner]

Radrook has said he's not a Creationist so this is for entertainment purposes only.

{Creationist mode}

Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

1. What about Piltdown man?/Fossils only prove something alive died.
2. Common design.
3. Fairy tale and wishful thinking.
4. Common design!
5. ERVs in chimps and gorillas that are not in humans.
6. Common design!!!
7. Microevolution.
8. Common Design!!!111!
9. Everything with a mother had MtDNA so what?
10. Fruit flies are still fruit flies!!!


11.) vestigal organs
12.) prions
13.) protein multifunctionality
14.) protein polymorphisms
15.) symbiosis
16.) interspecies viable offspring
17.) nylon-eating bacteria
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell

11. Still functional, not useless.
12. Common design.
13. Common design!
14. Common design!!!
15. Evolution can't explain sybiotic relationships.
16. Microevolution.
17. Microevolution.
18. The Fall!!111!1!11!!!

{/Creationist mode}

[UnrepentantSinner]

This is a little tangental, but I wanted to post this message I found on another forum on a recent Crevo thread here. Apparently there are religious scholars who are 'evolutionists'.

Shalom,

I don't think any of you here know me ( I don't venture often outside Jewish related threads ) but I had an experince the other day and I wanted to know what the folks here thought of it.

I'm a Librarian by training in addition to holding a degree in Jewish Philosphy. One Library I work at, caters largely to Catholic and Orthodox seminary students, although secular and protestant students often come in, looking for hard to find texts.

Now, this Library has a great deal of literature dealing with the Ancient Near East. My knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and to a lesser extent of Arabic and German, allows me to help just about anyone find the works of an old dead Rabbi, publications from Jerusalem, German higher biblical criticism, etc, etc. I encounter people of all stripes on a daily basis and the ones who I always seem to get into long conversations with, are Protestants. I just encountered for the first time, what I think people would call a Young Earth Creationist.

I live a bit of a blissfully ignorant life. I don't follow controversy, scandals or anything of that nature. In fact, I didn't even know really what creationism was really, until yesterday.

For those of you, who are not familiar with Orthodox Judaism, I'm what many secular people call "Fundamentalist". I'm the guy who wears the fedora, with a black coat and beard who refuses to start a car on shabbat or carry coins in his pocket on shabbat. If anyone could be called a Literalist, it would be me. Most Christians would not hesitate in calling my faith overtly legalistic to a fault.

Yet, I have never encountered Creationism before and now that I have, I must admit, I am stunned. I've never encountered a problem with the Theroy of Evolution. I've sent my children to private Jewish schools and they were taught the Theroy as well. It's never got in the way of my conservative, fundamentalist beliefs at all.

Now the fella I encountered was a bit on the younger side ( No older then 20 ) and the topic came up when he was looking for English versions of Rabbincal commentaries on Genesis. I inquired what his project was so I could better help him. He was looking for Jewish understanding on Genesis Creation, so he could write a paper in support of a literal interpetation of Creation and figured Jewish works might offer a new insight. Needless to say, the only authors who he might find helpful all predate modern science.

Did I encounter a rarity or is this more common place? Is there actually a controversy over Evolution? How many Christians actually read Genesis in that plain and literal of a meaning? What exactly offends their senses, logic and theology?

Many thanks in advance. Shabbat starts tonight at sun down and I'm having my grandchildren over, so I won't be around again till Sunday.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here as to why I presented the list. The purpose of the list is simply to demonstrate that not all scientists subscribe to the Godless evolution theory requiring abiogenesis. Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory. Nevertheless, their inclusion was accidental.
Sweet Jesus on a pogostick! This is the most tendentious paragraph I've read in some time. Apparently you've never heard of theistic evolution.

~~ Paul

[Michael Redman]

Even more interestingly Linnaeus considered chimpanzees a species of human - Homo troglodytes.

That is interesting.

Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory.

Well, no, it clearly does not follow that such brilliant men would reject the obvious when presented with overwhelming evidence. However . . .

BTW
The only ones who have made faith relevant to this discussion are the evolutionists themselves by repeatedly bringing in creationism despite my repeated requests that the subject be strictly kept at the logical and scientific level.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You'd also have to be an imbecile to offer the crap explanation that you eventually came up with to computer-savvy people capable of using google.
Now now, Cantab, I think Radrook's explanation is plausible. If his computer crash had merged the two lists in an arbitrary order, that would be one thing, but it is in alphabetical order. That's clearly evidence of one of those mysterious alpha-beta computer crashes we've heard so much about.

And welcome!

~~ Paul

[Acleron]

I have never stated that personally dislike is the reason for not accepting evolution. I clearly stated that evolution doesn't offer me the necessary evidence to convince me.

Most evolutionists have Darwinian texts in there libraries and other such textbooks they follow religiously. But I don't judge them on that. I focus on their claims and the validity of the evidence they present which I find unconvincing.

Peer review by other evolutionists.

I don't depend on the arguments on any specific scientist list for my conclusions.

This has nothing to do with religious affiliation, beliefs, quackery ad infinitum. It has to do with the quality of evidence, applicability of logic, and the adherence or lack of adherence to the scientific method..

Which part of the overwhelming evidence offered by joobz does not convince you?



If a scientist points to a religious book then he is speaking religion not science. It is his scientific statements that concern me-not his religious ones.

That is a common assumption. What I have found instead are well thought out scientific arguments and counterarguments by qualified scientists who are speaking science and not religion.

The vast majority of scientists accept evolution by the known mechanisms as correct and the best way to explain all of the evidence. The only modern scientists who dispute this are the id/creationists who have been discredited by their lack of a viable alternative theory, deliberately ignoring vast swathes of evidence that destroy their arguments and even lying about data when it doesn't suit them. So which scientists have proposed counter theories to evolution?

I am not quite convinced that what evolutionists are practicing is true science. It gives me the impression of being a quasi science based on assumptions leading to unjustified conclusions.

Is it that you do not understand what a theory is in present day science? Good theories are falsifiable and will produce predictions. As Darwin himself pointed out, the description of an irreducibly complex structure would destroy the theory, no such structure has been found that cannot be explained in evolutionary terms. In 1999 Shubin and Daeschler predicted that if the fins of fish evolved into legs it should have taken place in the Devonian period so they concentrated their search on Ellsmere Island which is rich in Devonian rocks. They found Tiktaalik, perfectly fitting their prediction from the theory of evolution.

If you remain unconvinced by this evidence I can only conclude that you have a belief system that makes you uneasy with the evidence. Scientists prefer to go where the data takes them.

[cyborg]

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

"How to argue with an atheist" website + Creation "science" website + zero understanding = Radrook's debate style

Talk about rules of logic - don't follow them
Talk about scientific evidence - don't know what it is
Pretend you came up with this yourself - don't know that we're not morons who haven't seen the same damn thing a million times over

[joobz]

Radrook has said he's not a Creationist so this is for entertainment purposes only.

{Creationist mode}



1. What about Piltdown man?/Fossils only prove something alive died.
2. Common design.
3. Fairy tale and wishful thinking.
4. Common design!
5. ERVs in chimps and gorillas that are not in humans.
6. Common design!!!
7. Microevolution.
8. Common Design!!!111!
9. Everything with a mother had MtDNA so what?
10. Fruit flies are still fruit flies!!!



11. Still functional, not useless.
12. Common design.
13. Common design!
14. Common design!!!
15. Evolution can't explain sybiotic relationships.
16. Microevolution.
17. Microevolution.
18. The Fall!!111!1!11!!!

{/Creationist mode}Ah, yes. The "common design" hand wave used. As soon as someone can come up with a testable hypothesis off of that theory, I'd be willing to consider it.

Oh, yes, they tried with irreducible complexity. That didn't work. Oops.:)


As you say, though, Radrook has said he has scientific reasons to doubt evolution. However, he has still failed to present them.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Explain this, ye Creationists!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/7/7723/67027


~~ Paul

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ah, yes. The "common design" hand wave used. As soon as someone can come up with a testable hypothesis off of that theory, I'd be willing to consider it.

Oh, yes, they tried with irreducible complexity. That didn't work. Oops.:)

I have seen many "Ooooh snap!" moments on the Internet when a C/IDer would suggest homology or whatever was explained by "common design" and the response was 'what about the cephalapod eye/giraffe neck nerves/human lumbar region/human female pelvis' to which the response was either silence or desperate ad hockery.

As you say, though, Radrook has said he has scientific reasons to doubt evolution. However, he has still failed to present them.

I'm holding my breath, but only because I have the hicoughs (sic?) and am trying to get rid of them. :D

[fuelair]

So if I'm reading this right, the reason the pre-Darwin names are listed with the post-Darwin names is because of an accidental cut-and-paste of 2 lists. Sounds reasonable to me. Can happen to anyone.

However, 2 questions come to mind.

1. How did the pre and post names get jumbled together in a simple cut-and-paste?
2. Why is this list identical (including the 'jumbled' order and description of contribution to science) to one found here:

www (dot) christiananswers (dot) net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

(sorry, I can't post links yet)

I'm no mathematician, so maybe someone can tell me what the odds are of accidentally cutting and pasting 2 separate lists into a jumbled single list that is identical to someone else's list?
My suspicion is that they are some similar to the odds of finding a creationist with hard scientific evidence proving each step of his version of the appearance/changes in life on earth (or better).

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Well, if you understood what he meant and feel it deserves repetition in a more direct manner then post it and we can decently discuss it if you wish. Sarcasm, hecklings anf jecklings, snide remarkjs, mockery, veiled insults and the like I consider irrelevant to the subject and a clutter to the thread. So to prevent unnecessary clutter, at least from the vantage point of my computor screen, I weed habitual users of such tactics via my ignore option. This keeps things nicely in what I personally considere a healthful equilibrium.

Funny. Those are the only reason I am reading this thread.

In the meantime I am channeling one of the scientists on your list who died before Darwin published. I won't say which one because he says he doesn't want to be bothered by spirit readers. I have been reading him sections of Origin of Species. He says, "If I had read that whilest I was on your plane, I would be an evilutionist too". :D

[Foster Zygote]

So if I'm reading this right, the reason the pre-Darwin names are listed with the post-Darwin names is because of an accidental cut-and-paste of 2 lists. Sounds reasonable to me. Can happen to anyone.

However, 2 questions come to mind.

1. How did the pre and post names get jumbled together in a simple cut-and-paste?
2. Why is this list identical (including the 'jumbled' order and description of contribution to science) to one found here:

www (dot) christiananswers (dot) net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

(sorry, I can't post links yet)

I'm no mathematician, so maybe someone can tell me what the odds are of accidentally cutting and pasting 2 separate lists into a jumbled single list that is identical to someone else's list?

Nice catch Cantab, and welcome.

So how 'bout it Radrook, why did you lie? You could have easily stated that this list was not compiled by you, but you came up with an elaborate and ridiculously improbable lie rather than admit the simple truth. Instead of admitting the honest mistake of not checking the list, you have now been caught in an outright lie. Why should we not consider your integrity compromised?

[joobz]

Nice catch Cantab, and welcome.

So how 'bout it Radrook, why did you lie? You could have easily stated that this list was not compiled by you, but you came up with an elaborate and ridiculously improbable lie rather than admit the simple truth. Instead of admitting the honest mistake of not checking the list, you have now been caught in an outright lie. Why should we not consider your integrity compromised?
I would be completely happy to forgive such an obvious lie if he 1.) was willing to apologize or 2.) was willing to actually present a viable scientific argument against evolution.


BTW, is that your guitar in your avatar? It looks familiar.

[qayak]

I would be completely happy to forgive such an obvious lie if he 1.) was willing to apologize or 2.) was willing to actually present a viable scientific argument against evolution.

Well, they could always use the scrap yard + hurricane = jumbo jet argument to explain the list problems. Would that be good enough? :eye-poppi

[joobz]

Well, they could always use the scrap yard + hurricane = jumbo jet argument to explain the list problems. Would that be good enough? :eye-poppi
Good enough for a laugh. ;)

The fact is, as I know you are aware, there have been too many subtle facts supporting the current model of evolution that it is highly unlikely that a radically different hypothesis would fit the data equally well.

No scientist would be against such a proposition, and would even welcome the idea. But for it to be even considered, it must perform as well as the current theory. The list of 18 points I gave are simply a small sampling of all the kinds of data that must be accounted for before an alternate theory is taken seriously.

The anti-evolutionist movement is purely anti-science.

[qayak]

Good enough for a laugh. ;)

The fact is, as I know you are aware, there have been too many subtle facts supporting the current model of evolution that it is highly unlikely that a radically different hypothesis would fit the data equally well.

No scientist would be against such a proposition, and would even welcome the idea. But for it to be even considered, it must perform as well as the current theory. The list of 18 points I gave are simply a small sampling of all the kinds of data that must be accounted for before an alternate theory is taken seriously.

The anti-evolutionist movement is purely anti-science.

I agree completely. I think that creationists get their understanding of science from newspapers and have little or no knowledge of the underlying mechanisms or supporting evidence. This is what leads to their wacked out, alternative theories.

[bokonon]

I think Radrook's explanation is plausible. If his computer crash had merged the two lists in an arbitrary order, that would be one thing, but it is in alphabetical order. That's clearly evidence of one of those mysterious alpha-beta computer crashes we've heard so much about.
Is that the crash that's caused by the deus ex machiavelli virus?

[Foster Zygote]

BTW, is that your guitar in your avatar? It looks familiar.

Yup, that's Mikey.

[CapelDodger]

Just taking the biologists or related fields because I don't have the time to waste on all these religious fundamentalists who also went to school...

Duane Gish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish)




John W. Klotz (http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp1no2.htm) The entire page is about this guy's belief the Bible is a literal work. His only reference to genetic science is thin one quoting a 1950s book. Yet he claims to be a geneticist??




I can't read the Russian links but this comment on talk origins addresses the false listing of this name on the Creation Science list. I notice the guy died last year as well. Maybe he can't defend the accusation now. Leonid Korochkin (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov05.html)




Lane P. Lester (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html), in his own words.


I'm tired of this exercise. This is religious proselytizing, not science.

I still think the list is worth examining and discussing, even though talkorigins seems to have done most of the legwork already.

I don't think it's worth engaging with Radrook here, except regarding specific scientists in the list. It's not actually Radrook's list (cut and pasted, who ever thought otherwise?), and he's all over another thread already.

[Shalamar]

It seems Radrooks real problem seems to be with Abiogenesis, not with actual Evolution, though he thinks that the two are one and the same?

[CapelDodger]

It seems Radrooks real problem seems to be with Abiogenesis, not with actual Evolution, though he thinks that the two are one and the same?

No, that's just ducking and weaving. The real problem with the Radrook approach (and he's far from unique) is that it depends on selected authority - thus the list that a selected authority presents as yet more authorities. There's no independent thought in evidence, but plenty of conviction.

[Acleron]

Helloo Radrook, where are you?

[Radrook]

No, that's just ducking and weaving. The real problem with the Radrook approach (and he's far from unique) is that it depends on selected authority - thus the list that a selected authority presents as yet more authorities. There's no independent thought in evidence, but plenty of conviction.

That's a total misrepresentation of the reasons I gave. If that's all you have, the twisting of a person's ideas, then you have nothing. If you wish to address the issues, then do so. But misrepresentation is really of no value whatsoever. In fact, it only indicates, that you are either going by the statements of other misrepresenters and haven't read my explanations at all or else are making noise for the sake of joining in. Which will eventually lead to my having to avoid the irrelevant clutter via ignoring and focus on responses and posters who are really conversant with the issues involved.

[Radrook]

In the meantime here is more grist for your teeth grinding:



Great post!
The biggest argument against ID is that is isn't necessary! Essentially Occam's Razor. Natural selection all by it very own self can explain everything. So why postulate intelligent design?


Necessity? Wonder what makes evolution as an explanation necessary? Non-evolutionist scientists view it as unnecessary since ID explains everything to their satisfaction. So the knife cuts both ways-I guess.

Can explain?

Maybe this person has a different definition for the word "explanation." Perhaps he means satisfactory explanation. But that doesn't work either since ID is quite satisfactory explanation for non-evolutionist scientists. So what he really means is that the only explanation which satisfies him and should satisfy everyone else is an atheistic one.


I think people who are drawn to ID are people who invoke "the argument from personal incredulity." Essentially they cannot imagine that natural selection could have resulted in the present world, despite hard scientific evidence to the contrary, hence they believe in ID.

Inability to imagine? Hard scientific evidence?

Well, conversely evolutionists are seen an imagination deficit and can be accused as basing their conclusions on incredulity. There are scientists who don't consider the evolutionary claims as based on hard scientific evidence for very valid reasons-the violation of the scientific method motivated by biased irrational thinking.

Here is an example:

Roger Lewin PhD Biochemistry News Editor of Science Magazine Amazon GP

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. Science November 21 1980 p. 883


How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones the cranial fragments and "see" a clear simian signature in them; and see in an apes jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity. The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientist's' expectations and their effects on the interpretation of the data. Bones of Contention (1987) p.61


It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we've seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions. Bones of Contention (1987) p.68

The key issue is the ability correctly to infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in appearance, at gross and detailed levels of anatomy. Sometimes this approach...can be deceptive, partly because similarity does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar. Bones of Contention (1987) p.123

Here is part of a letter written to Darwin by one of his scientist contemporaries:

Adam Sedgwick (1785 – 1873) Woodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge Web GP

I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly' parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous -- You have deserted – after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction -- & started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin's locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction? Letter to Charles Darwin November 24, 1859



[Personally I find it much more appealing to take the simplest explanation. The biggest problem with ID is that it doesn't explain where the designer came from, so it is fundamentally circular.
Ole

I see no simplicity in the convoluted evolutionary explanations. Perhaps this is another case of definition to suit purpose scenario. Neither does the BB theory explain where everything prior to it ultimately came from. No big problem here though. Not circular anymore? Strange! Called inconsistency of policy.


Posted by: Ole Eichhorn at September 12, 2003 09:45 PM
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyJyzoWRHp1AA5BtrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=120add0m5/EXP=1197863731/**http%3a//www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001006.html

BTW
Before the mindles chortling and murual congratulatory back-slapping starts, I don't consider the quotes as reason in themselves to believe in ID. So that inane accusation doesn't fly. I also suggest a cessation of strawman since it only leadss to my discarding posts which are imediately recognized as drivel and to go about my business with the truly relevant ones. So if it's mutaul back-slapping your after. go ahead. Biut if its an exchange of ideas based on YOUR false accusations, you aren't going to get it from me.

[Radrook]

It seems Radrooks real problem seems to be with Abiogenesis, not with actual Evolution, though he thinks that the two are one and the same?

Another MF false accusation-right? No problem.

[Foster Zygote]

Which will eventually lead to my having to avoid the irrelevant clutter via ignoring and focus on responses and posters who are really conversant with the issues involved.

Joobz asked some excellent questions regarding the issues involved...

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So that is instantly a reason to remove the pre-Darwin guys from the list.

It would be more honest to move back in time to Lamarck (1801) or Buffon (1749).

One could even make the argument that Aristotle (350 BC) initiated the scientific discourse with his ideas of natural selection.

[Foster Zygote]

Another MF false accusation-right? No problem.

I noticed that Shalamar used the word "seems" and put a question mark at the end of his sentence. You obviously did not.

[joobz]

That's a total misrepresentation of the reasons I gave. If that's all you have, the twisting of a person's ideas, then you have nothing. If you wish to address the issues, then do so. But misrepresentation is really of no value whatsoever. In fact, it only indicates, that you are either going by the statements of other misrepresenters and haven't read my explanations at all or else are making noise for the sake of joining in. Which will eventually lead to my having to avoid the irrelevant clutter via ignoring and focus on responses and posters who are really conversant with the issues involved.
It seems you may have overlooked my question.

You've claimed a non-creationist reason to question evolution. I am giving you a chance to present it.
See below.
I've given you a chance to prove this statement. I'm still waiting to see why you are doubtful.


Such as?

This is a pure assertion with no proof.

I'm giving you a chance to prove that your argument is more than just incredulity. Provide substance, and people will listen.

To discount evolution, you'll have to come up with alternative, self-consistent, rational explanations for
Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

This list is far from exaustive. It is purely 10 I came up with in 5 minutes.
give me another two minutes and
11.) vestigal organs
12.) prions
13.) protein multifunctionality
14.) protein polymorphisms
15.) symbiosis
16.) interspecies viable offspring
17.) nylon-eating bacteria
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell

[Radrook]

I agree completely. I think that creationists get their understanding of science from newspapers and have little or no knowledge of the underlying mechanisms or supporting evidence. This is what leads to their wacked out, alternative theories.

That's exactly the way IDs view you.

[Terry]

That's exactly the way IDs view you.

But the situation is not symmetric. Because one side really is much better supported by the evidence.

[Radrook]

It seems you may have overlooked my question.

You've claimed a non-creationist reason to question evolution. I am giving you a chance to present it.
See below.


I responded to two points on your list yesterday. Are you requiring multiple responses to the same post? Are you even reading what I am saying is a better question. Doesn't seem like it to me since you just ignore and plow ahead like the majority on this thread. But two can play at that game-unfortunately.

[Radrook]

But the situation is not symmetric. Because one side really is much better supported by the evidence.

Your accusation requires that the scientists disagreeing with you be a bunch of ignoramuses unable to tell the difference between good science and quackery. That is not the case.

[Shalamar]

So, Radrook IS a creationist then?

He's just.. denying it?

Otherwise, Radook, if not evolution, then what do YOU think occured to explain the variety of life, the fossil record and so on. And what evidence do you have for it?

[joobz]

I responded to two points on your list yesterday. Are you requiring multiple responses to the same post? Are you even reading what I am saying is a better question. Doesn't seem like it to me since you just ignore and plow ahead like the majority on this thread. But two can play at that game-unfortunately.
Can you show me where you answered "two" of the points? All I have seen was your referencing of abiogenesis, claiming we can't accept evolution until we know how it started. However, this argument is irrelevant. there are multiple examples in science where portions of a theory aren't fully known and the theory is still effective enough to be considered legitimate.

Doesn't work that way. You doubt evolution, so we talk evolution.
all listed items I gave do not require abiogenesis. They simply require the existence of evolution.


Secondly, your claim that abiogenesis is the foundation of evolution, this is untrue. Evolution simlpy discusses the process of speciation and diversification of populations.

Thirdly, your claim that an argument with an "unprovable" premise renders all subsequent arguments moot is patently false.

Thermodynamics is derived off of 4 postulates, which are by definition unprovable. Does this render thermodynamics false?

Gravity describes an observation, but an underlying mechanism remains unproven. Do you doubt the existence of gravity?

The navier-stokes equation, which is the foundation of fluid mechanics and used to design airplanes, cars, piping systems, has still not been proven to be continuous and smooth under all conditions. In other words, we don't know if it is a fully valid description. Does this mean airplanes can't fly?

Newton laws of motion aren't valid in all conditions, does this mean they no longer apply?


If you have made other answers to this question, please link to those posts, for I must have missed them.

[Radrook]

I noticed that Shalamar used the word "seems" and put a question mark at the end of his sentence. You obviously did not.

I clearly gave my reasons. So that remark is inexcusable. If he wants to chortle with other hecklers, he is free to do so at his pleasure, but I am not obligated to clutter my computer screen with irrelevant comments. It slows me down and my time is limited.

[Foster Zygote]

There are multiple examples in science where portions of a theory aren't fully known and the theory is still effective enough to be considered legitimate.

Gravity comes to mind. We still haven't the slightest idea what the mechanism behind gravity is. That hasn't stopped scientists from plotting missions to other planets.

[Terry]

Your accusation requires that the scientists disagreeing with you be a bunch of ignoramuses unable to tell the difference between good science and quackery. That is not the case.

Mistaken, rather than ignoramuses. Although if the shoe fits... and although truth is not a popularity contest, there sure are a heck of a lot more scientists who think the evidence for evolution is good than there are scientists who think the evidence for creationism Intelligent Design is good.

[Shalamar]

Gravity comes to mind. We still haven't the slightest idea what the mechanism behind gravity is. That hasn't stopped scientists from plotting missions to other planets.

Obviously, you are an evil gravitationalist, and your false 'knowledge' of your 'theory' is only backed up by other gravitationalists, and thus, should be suspect. In which case, gravity can't possibly be real!

[Foster Zygote]

Obviously, you are an evil gravitationalist, and your false 'knowledge' of your 'theory' is only backed up by other gravitationalists, and thus, should be suspect. In which case, gravity can't possibly be real!

Well I happen to know for a fact that the Executor was destroyed at the battle of the second Death Star. So I've caught you in a lie!

[joobz]

Gravity comes to mind. We still haven't the slightest idea what the mechanism behind gravity is. That hasn't stopped scientists from plotting missions to other planets.
Even Thermodynamics. The entire concept is built upon 4 basic postulates, concepts that are obvious yet unprovable. Are we to scrap the entire concept of thermodynamics because of that "shakey" foundation?

[Shalamar]

Well I happen to know for a fact that the Executor was destroyed at the battle of the second Death Star. So I've caught you in a lie!

Uhm.. It got better....

[Radrook]

Can you show me where you answered "two" of the points? All I have seen was your referencing of abiogenesis, claiming we can't accept evolution until we know how it started. However, this argument is irrelevant. there are multiple examples in science where portions of a theory aren't fully known and the theory is still effective enough to be considered legitimate.


If you have made other answers to this question, please link to those posts, for I must have missed them.

I do hope you realize that I am not willing to keep repeating myself only to be misunderstood and continuously misquoted --right? It makes for lousy discussion and becomes an endless "I didn't say that!" "Yes you did!" droning after a while and begs for evasion. So for the last time-I am not saying that abiogenesis is part of the evolutionary process. I am saying in plain English that without it atheistic evolutionary theory cannot exist as a concept. Also, and I'm only going to say this once, I am not out to convert anyone here to believe as I believe. Each can continue as he or she wishes. Neither do I idiotically consider the scanty info I post as a comprehensive refutation of all possible scientifically based evolution counterarguments.

My sole effort is to show that the basis for ATHEISTIC evolutionary acceptance violates cogent reasoning.

In this respect I offered the inconsistency of policy in referece to evidence interpretation as proof and gave the DNA code as opposed to the SETI code as an example. I also memntioned abiogewnesis becasue withoiot it ATEHISSTIC evolution cannot
commence. Something which seems beyond the comprehension of most people on this forum for some mysterious reason which perhaps only a shrink or a mentalist can decipher. Since I am neither I won't even attempt to try.

If people here want scientific arguments then they will have to access articles written by scientists in reference to why they reject evolution.

As for the lists, they were originally posted in response to the anti-intellectual accusations against anyone who doesn't believe in evolution. So I offered the list as evidence that such a conclusions don't logically follow and are based on a false premise. That is all.

Now, if that doesn't clear it up then I guess we just aren't on the same language wavelength and further discussion is useless.

[Foster Zygote]

I clearly gave my reasons. So that remark is inexcusable. If he wants to chortle with other hecklers, he is free to do so at his pleasure, but I am not obligated to clutter my computer screen with irrelevant comments. It slows me down and my time is limited.

Do you want to know what I find inexcusable? Implying that evolutionary biologists lie and then being caught in an outright lie of your own.

I'll ask you again: What are we to make of your integrity now that you have been caught in a lie?

[PixyMisa]

Your accusation requires that the scientists disagreeing with you be a bunch of ignoramuses unable to tell the difference between good science and quackery. That is not the case.
Unable to tell the difference between good biological theory and quackery.

There are many reasons for this. One is that scientists often presume expertise outside their own fields. Another is they they will assume that something presented as scientific research follows at least the basic precepts of science. Another is that some creationism / ID researchers are just plain dishonest.

And remember, there are more biologists named Steve who support evolution than there are scientists of any name in any field who disagree with it. So trotting out a list of people, many of whom died before Darwin published On the Origin of Species, and most of those remaining not trained in biology at all, is remarkably unconvincing.

Now, if you could present some evidence contradicting evolution, you'd have a case. We'll be right here if you should ever find any.

[Foster Zygote]

Even Thermodynamics. The entire concept is built upon 4 basic postulates, concepts that are obvious yet unprovable. Are we to scrap the entire concept of thermodynamics because of that "shakey" foundation?

That depends: Does this "thur-moe-die-man-icks" say we come from monkeys?

[PixyMisa]

I do hope you realize that I am not willing to keep repeating myself only to be misunderstood and misquoted repeatedly--right? It makews for lousey discussiion and becomes an endless "I didn't say that! Yes you did! Drone after a while and begs for evasion. So for the last time-I am not saying that abiogenesis is part of the evolutionary process. I am saying in plain English that without it athesistic evoltionary theory cannot exist as a concept.
Well, you're wrong.

My sole effort is to show that the basis for ATHEISTIC evolutionary acceptance violates cogent reasoning.
You're not doing too well with that, then.

As for the lists, they were originally posted in response to the antiintellectual accusations aganist anyone who doesn't believe in evolution. So I offered the list as evidence that such a conclusions don't logically follow and are based on a false premise. That is all.
No such accusation was made. You just popped in with your list all by yourself.

[Shalamar]

My sole effort is to show that the basis for ATHEISTIC evolutionary acceptance violates cogent reasoning. If people here want scientific arguments then they will have to access articles written by scientists in reference to why they reject evolution.


Why do you assume that Evolution is atheistic? What does religion have to do with Evolution?

[joobz]

I do hope you realize that I am not willing to keep repeating myself only to be misunderstood and misquoted repeatedly--right? It makews for lousey discussiion and becomes an endless "I didn't say that! Yes you did! Drone after a while and begs for evasion. So for the last time-I am not saying that abiogenesis is part of the evolutionary process. I am saying in plain English that without it athesistic evoltionary theory cannot exist as a concept. Also, and I'm only going to say this once, I am not out to convertt anyone here to believe as I be;lieve. Each can continue as he or she wishes. Neither do I idiotically consider the scanty info I post as a comprehensive refutation of all possible scientifically based evolution counterarguments.

My sole effort is to show that the basis for ATHEISTIC evolutionary acceptance violates cogent reasoning. If people here want scientific arguments then they will have to accesss articles written by scientists in reference to why they reject evolution.*

Now, if that doesn't claer it up then I guess we just aren't on the same language wavelength and furtyterr discussion is useless.I've been rather polite. to start, I did not misquote you. I was simply challenging your claim that evolution is wrong.
Now if you are claiming that you believe in evolution but that there was a creator to start everything, that's completely fine. In that case, I just do not see why you were initially were making challenges that was obviously against the theory of evolution in general.


*bolding mine: I will admit though, I have no clue what you were trying to say in the bolded section

[Foster Zygote]

I am not saying that abiogenesis is part of the evolutionary process. I am saying in plain English that without it atheistic evolutionary theory cannot exist as a concept.

So without an understanding of the mechanism behind gravity we can't calculate trajectories for space missions?

A police detective cannot investigate a murder unless he first knows who committed the crime and why?

Everything in science is an incomplete answer. Every time we learn something it leads to more questions. Science is far more about what we don't know than what we do know. That's what makes it so exciting.

[Foster Zygote]

Why do you assume that Evolution is atheistic? What does religion have to do with Evolution?

Monkeys!!!

[Radrook]

Mistaken, rather than ignoramuses. Although if the shoe fits... and although truth is not a popularity contest, there sure are a heck of a lot more scientists who think the evidence for evolution is good than there are scientists who think the evidence for creationism Intelligent Design is good.

That's the fallacy of bandwagon. Majority opinion doesn't guarantee proof as numerous historical examples clearly demonstrate. So your premise is off. In fact, rthe majority have been woefully wrong in relation to the earth's position in the univverse and such a basic thing as the shape of the earth. That they be wrong again is noit as impossible as you seem to think. In any case, bad premise.

[Foster Zygote]

As for the lists, they were originally posted in response to the anti-intellectual accusations against anyone who doesn't believe in evolution. So I offered the list as evidence that such a conclusions don't logically follow and are based on a false premise. That is all.

You offered the list and we demonstrated that it was flawed. The real problem for you regarding the list started when you lied about it.

[Shalamar]

Monkeys!!!

Be quiet you evil gravitationalist!

:boxedin:

[Foster Zygote]

That's the fallacy of bandwagon. Majority opinion doesn't guarantee proof as numerous historical examples clearly demonstrate. So your premise is off.
Yet you have used the same fallacy in your use of that deceptive list.

In fact, rthe majority have been woefully wrong in relation to the earth's position in the univverse and such a basic thing as the shape of the earth. That they be wrong again is noit as impossible as you seem to think. In any case, bad premise.
In the debates over the location and shape of the Earth, tell us, which side was occupied by religious dogma and which side by science?

[Radrook]

So without an understanding of the mechanism behind gravity we can't calculate trajectories for space missions?

A police detective cannot investigate a murder unless he first knows who committed the crime and why?

Everything in science is an incomplete answer. Every time we learn something it leads to more questions. Science is far more about what we don't know than what we do know. That's what makes it so exciting.


Are you saying that I can deny abiogenesis took place and still claim that abiogenbesis took place and that this eventually led to evolution?

BTW
The comparisons made between gravity and evolution is a false analogy since they differ in one very important aspect-one is demonstrably at work and the other is inferred to be at work via subjective interpretation of data. Big difference.

[PixyMisa]

That's the fallacy of bandwagon. Majority opinion doesn't guarantee proof as numerous historical examples clearly demonstrate.
No, but mountains of evidence does.

Hang on, I think I said that already.

So your premise is off. In fact, rthe majority have been woefully wrong in relation to the earth's position in the univverse and such a basic thing as the shape of the earth.No. Not if you're talking about scientists, anyway. If you're saying "a majority of ignorant people who have made no attempt to study the subject have often proved to be wrong" then, well, duh.

That they be wrong again is noit as impossible as you seem to think. In any case, bad premise.What about the evidence, Radrook? Would you care to address the evidence?

[Shalamar]

That's the fallacy of bandwagon. Majority opinion doesn't guarantee proof as numerous historical examples clearly demonstrate. So your premise is off. In fact, rthe majority have been woefully wrong in relation to the earth's position in the univverse and such a basic thing as the shape of the earth. That they be wrong again is noit as impossible as you seem to think. In any case, bad premise.

Excect that Scientists DO check each others work (peer review), and someone who's work is flawed is called out on it. This happens a fair amount. However, since when a biologist comments, or says the work is valid, then by your reasoning, thats wrong, since both scientists have the same background, and may think in the same way. By this reasoning ALL SCIENCE IS WRONG. All of it. Every single theory in existance, anywhere, and everywhere.


It is certainly possible that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, in which case, it will come to light, and a new theory will replace it. Hooray for Science! Such scientists who advances a different theory for Evolution would likely end up with the Nobel Prize for Biology. Scientists should not have pre-conceived notions on what the outcome would be. Pre-conceived notions are reserved for creationists.

[Radrook]

You offered the list and we demonstrated that it was flawed. The real problem for you regarding the list started when you lied about it.

The only thing you demonstrate is an inability to understand plain english! As for lying, YOU are the lyer via false accusations and false attributions of dishonesty. Goodby and good riddance!

[Shalamar]

Are you saying that I can deny abiogenesis took place and still claim that abiogenbesis took place and that this eventually led to evolution?

BTW
The comparisons made between gravity and evolution is a false analogy since they differ in one very important aspect-one is demonstrably at work and the other is inferred to be at work via subjective interpretation of data. Big difference.

Ahh... So its direct observation of evolution that you want?

Gravity, afterall, is just a theory. You are obviously a gravitationalist.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why do you assume that Evolution is atheistic? What does religion have to do with Evolution?

Because he apparently missed this post by me earlier.
Evolution, as science, must adhere to strict methodological naturalism in order to be studied. Being pro-science and accepting evolution has nothing to do with atheism. I know loads of theistic evolutionists who are both.

The comparisons made between gravity and evolution is a false analogy since they differ in one very important aspect-one is demonstrably at work and the other is inferred to be at work via subjective interpretation of data. Big difference.

Really? We know what the mechanism is for evolution (mutation). We can even measure it, test it, predict it, etc.

What is the mechanism for gravity and what units do we measure it in (note, I'm not asking about "g", I'm asking what causes gravity and how do we measure it)?

[joobz]

The comparisons made between gravity and evolution is a false analogy since they differ in one very important aspect-one is demonstrably at work and the other is inferred to be at work via subjective interpretation of data. Big difference.
are you claiming that no data of exists showinig evolution?
Please google "Directed evolution" to see that no only is evolutionary processes observable "demonstrably" but can be harnessed as a technology.

[PixyMisa]

Are you saying that I can deny abiogenesis took place and still claim that abiogenbesis took place and that this eventually led to evolution?
No. Just that evolution does not assume or require abiogenesis, as has been explained to you a dozen times already.

The comparisons made between gravity and evolution is a false analogy since they differ in one very important aspect-one is demonstrably at work and the other is inferred to be at work via subjective interpretation of data. Big difference.
Wrong. We have seen evolution happening. We have observed new species arising, on multiple occasions. We have compared the fossil record with the genetic record, and found these two entirely separate bodies of data to be entirely consistent. That's not "subjective interpretation", that's hard data.

[Foster Zygote]

The only thing you demonstrate is an inability to understand plain english! As for lying, YOU are the lyer via false accusations and false attributions of dishonesty. Goodby and good riddance!

I kind of figured it would come to this. Your emotional indignation and dismissal does not obscure the fact that you plainly lied to us. It's right there for everyone to see, in plain English.:rolleyes:

[Radrook]

No, but mountains of evidence does.

Hang on, I think I said that alrady.[/b]

What you choose to accept as evidence isn't considered evidence by =certain qualified scientists. That you choose to ignore them and prefer calling them ignorant does not refute their arguments nor does it prove them scientifically deficient or wrong. It only demonstrates your decision to reject. Nothing more.


[quote]No. Not if you're talking about scientists, anyway. If you're saying "a majority of ignorant people who have made no attempt to study the subject have often proved to be wrong" then, well, duh.

Duh, these are scientists fully qualified to evaluate quackery of modus operandi. No need to investigate as deeply as you imagine. Perhaps you need to read up on logical principles and scientific method in order to appreciate what they are talking about.


What about the evidence, Radrook? Would you care to address the evidence?

Sure, and have you shoot back with incomprehension and false accusations? Nahhh! I'll pass and use my time more productively.

BTW
Here is what one of your so-admired evolutionist scientists has to say about evolutinary beliefs:



Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion.This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000

[PixyMisa]

What you choose to accept as evidenbce isn't considered evidence by =certain qualified scientists.
Name one such qualified scientist, and specify the evidence that he or she rejects.

That you choose to ignore them and prefer calling them ignornt does not refute their arguments nor does it prove them scientifically wrtonf. It only demoinstrates your decision to reject. Nothing more.I don't ignore them, or call them ignorant. Or ignornt, for that matter. They're scientifically wrong because they are scientifically wrong.

Take the argument of irreducible complexity, for example. Not only is this entire argument invalid as a case against evolution - because evolution can produce irreducibly complex structures - but every example offered has been specifically falsified. The bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting cascade, the eye, not only could have evolved from hypothetical simpler systems, but could have evolved from simpler systems that actually exist.

Duh, these are scientists fulkly qualified to evaklluate quackery of modyus operandi. No need to investigate as deeply as you imahine. Perhaps you need to read up on logical principles and scientific ethod in order to apreciate whast they are talkking about.Well, no. Scientists are trained to do science. They are not trained to seek out and expose fraud, dishonesty, and foolishness. This is not a problem because scientific discoveries are held as tentative until they are independently replicated, preferably multiple times using different experiments. This never happens with creationism / ID.

SUre, and have you shoot back with incomprehension and false accusations? Nahhh! I'll passs and use my time more productively.What did I not understand? What false accusation did I make?

[mijopaalmc]

Here is what one of your so-admired evolutionist scientists has to say about evolutinary beliefs:

Nice misdirection!!

Michael Ruse is a philosopher of science and not a zoologist as you claim. He also appear not to understand very much about religion or evolution.

[Radrook]

No. Just that evolution does not assume or require abiogenesis, as has been explained to you a dozen times already

Not at all. I have merely been told what you are telling me now. That atheistic evolution doesn't require abiogenesis to happen. Please illuminate me then and tell me what other mechanism is now being claimed as the causer or mechanism which leads to the emergence of life. Or am I being wrong in requiring the emergence of life in order for evolution to happen in reference to life. Please explain.


Wrong. We have seen evolution happening. We have observed new species arising, on multiple occasions. We have compared the fossil record with the genetic record, and found these two entirely separate bodies of data to be entirely consistent. That's not "subjective interpretation", that's hard data.


No, you haven't. What you have seen is something which can be explained by your theory.
Your interpretation of data is always done within the framework and exigencies of evolutionary theory. In short, the evidence is skewed to fit your preconceptions. My idea? Right?



Roger Lewin PhD Biochemistry News Editor of Science Magazine Amazon GP
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. Science November 21 1980 p. 883


How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones the cranial fragments and "see" a clear simian signature in them; and see in an apes jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity. The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientist's' expectations and their effects on the interpretation of the data. Bones of Contention (1987) p.61


It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we've seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions. Bones of Contention (1987) p.68

The key issue is the ability correctly to infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in appearance, at gross and detailed levels of anatomy. Sometimes this approach...can be deceptive, partly because similarity does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar. Bones of Contention (1987) p.123

[PixyMisa]

Here is what one of your so-admired evolutionist scientists has to say about evolutinary beliefs:
He is expressing his opinion on other people's opinions, and does not address the facts at all. Now I understand that this sort of thing is right up your alley, but you cannot get from there to a claim that evolution is in any way invalid. There is no logical connection between the two.

And as mijo noted, Ruse is a philosopher, and not any sort of biologist.

[Radrook]

Nice misdirection!!

Michael Ruse is a philosopher of science and not a zoologist as you claim. He also appear not to understand very much about religion or evolution.

Misdirection is an irrelevancy. What I posted does not meet that criterion. As gfor his qualifications, your accusation of dishonesty is unjustified. I posted rthe article exactly as I found it. So actually, it's your word against the article as posted not my word afgainst yours as you so hastily and conveniently conclude.

[Shalamar]

I think I have it. Radook dismisses Evolution.

If scientists get together, talk about it, do experiments, observe evidence, check each others work, come to the conclusion that evolution is plausible, and that the Theory of Evolution is valid, then it is collusion, and lies, and they were only looking for the conclusion to be valid.

If someone, who is not a biologist, dismisses evolution due to philosophical beliefs, and has no bearing on the science done... Then it is valid, and thus, Evolution is false! I get it now! Because thousands of scientists trust in the science... its obviously full of lies! If one man dismisses it, because they don;t understand the science, then you MUST believe that one person!

[Foster Zygote]

Not at all. I have merely been tolds what you are telling me now. That atheistic evolution doesn't require abiogenesis to happen. Please illuminate me then and tell me what other mechanism is now being claimed as the causer or mechanism which leads to the emergeance of life. Or am I being wrong in requiring the emergeance of life in order for evolution to happen in reference to life. Please explain.
You fail to comprehend. Evolutionary theory does not require that we presently understand how abiogenesis occurred to be a complete theory. Life obviously came about in some manner. But the theory of evolution by natural selection only deals with how life changes, not how it came to be. It's like calculating orbital trajectories without knowing the mechanism behind gravity.

[joobz]

No, you haven't. What you have seen is something which can be explained by your theory.
Your interpretation of data is always done within the framework and exigencies of evolutionary theory. In short, the evidence is skewed to fit your preconceptions. My idea? Right?
This is just not true. Eovlutionary theory is robust enough to have been expolited as a technology (directed evolution).

Also, I've given a list of 18 items, all of which substantiate evolution. Indeed, many of those were capable of generating hypotheses which could invalidate evolution. Instead, they only strengthed the case. For example, ERVS have been very effective at demonstrating man's descent from a common anscetor with the other great apes.

[Radrook]

He is expressing his opinion on other people's opinions, and does not address the facts at all. Now I understand that this sort of thing is right up your alley, but you cannot get from there to a claim that evolution is in any way invalid. There is no logical connection between the two.

And as mijo noted, Ruse is a philosopher, and not any sort of biologist.

Are you familiar with basic principles of argumentation. Because if you were you wouldn't be taking issue with quotations. Neither would you be demanding that a single quaote cover every conceovable issue. That is insane!

Also, as I told your buddy, I post the article as I find it. So your beef is with the article not with me. I will research your claims to dertermine if indeed his qualificatiuons are a misrepresentation, If it turns out that there is absolutely no basis for your claims I will assume that you are merely assuming things. Fair enough?

[PixyMisa]

Not at all. I have merely been told what you are telling me now. That atheistic evolution doesn't require abiogenesis to happen. Please illuminate me then and tell me what other mechanism is now being claimed as the causer or mechanism which leads to the emergence of life. Or am I being wrong in requiring the emergence of life in order for evolution to happen in reference to life. Please explain.
Evolution is not atheistic. It makes no reference to the existence or non-existence of deities. It is a scientific theory, that explains how new species arise from existing ones.

It does not address nor assume how life arose in the first place. It says that given the existence of life, and given variability of heritable characteristics, selective pressures will act to give rise to new species better suited to specific habitats.

No, you haven't. What you have seen is something which can be explained by your theory.We have seen new species arise. That is evolution. (Remember how I spoke of the fact of evolution as distinct from the Theory of Evolution?)

Every new species we have observed to arise has done so in a manner entirely consistent with the Theory of Evolution. This provides additional supporting evidence that the Theory is correct.

Now, if we had seen even one new species arise that could not be explained by the Theory of Evolution, that would serve to falsify the Theory. This has not happened.

Your interpretation of data is always done within the framework and exigencies of evolutionary theory.Wrong. We make the observations. The observations are what they are. We then check the observations against the Theory.

Every observation we make supports the Theory, but that just means that the Theory is the correct one.

In short, the evidence is skewed to fit your preconceptions.How?

How do you skew, say, the evolution of nylonase in Flavobacterium? We can see it working, we can analyse the biochemistry, we can even determine the exact frame-shift mutation that coded for this new enzyme. Where does interpretation come into it?

My idea? Right?Eh?

[PixyMisa]

Are you familiar with basic principles of argumentation. Because if you were you wouldn't be taking issue with quotations. Neither would you be demanding that a single quaote cover every conceovable issue. That is insane!
What's the problem? Your quote does not address, much less support, your argument. I'm just pointing this out to you.

Also, as I told your buddy, I post the article as I find it.
You selected the quote. You posted it. Now, the question is why, since it does nothing for your case.

So your beef is with the article not with me. I will research your claims to dertermine if indeed his qualificatiuons are a misrepresentation, If it turns out that there is absolutely no basis for your claims I will assume that you are merely assuming things. Fair enough?
No.

[Foster Zygote]

And as mijo noted, Ruse is a philosopher, and not any sort of biologist.

It's funny how the internet works. I found a number of hits for "michael ruse philosophy and zoology" that linked to sites that claimed he is a zoologist. But his own web page makes no mention of any credentials in the field of zoology at all. I suspect that some website made the mistake originally and it has been repeated by a number of others do to shoddy fact checking.

[Radrook]

Here is an article which again tells us rthat Michel Ruse he is a zoologist. So much for your unfounded claims!

Ruse on Evolution
By Tony Dalmyn on August 13, 2005 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
In May, the Boston Globe (online) published an interview of zoologist, philosopher of science and popular writer Michael Ruse discussing his new book The Evolution-Creation Struggle. More recently, the American Scientist Online published another interview. The book expands on the arguments made in an article Is Evolution a Secular Religion, published in Science Magazine in March 2003.

http://www.sea-of-flowers.ca/weblog/sea/archives/2005/08/13/ruse-on-evoluti.php

BTW
I don't have the time to be chasing down unfounded suspicions.

[PixyMisa]

Yeah, I checked and found the same thing on Wikipedia - which may or may not be entirely accurate - and his own page. He did lecture in "History, Philosophy, and Zoology" at the University of Guelph, but his degrees are in philosophy and mathematics.

He has written extensively on the debate between evolution and creationism, coming down firmly on the side of evolution, but he is not a biologist by any qualification I can see.

[Radrook]

What's the problem? Your quote does not address, much less support, your argument. I'm just pointing this out to you.


You selected the quote. You posted it. Now, the question is why, since it does nothing for your case.


No.

Hey! Thanks for revealing your biased modus operandi. Since nothing is enough then OK. Bye!

[PixyMisa]

Here is an article which again tells us rthat Michel Ruse he is a zoologist. So much for your unfounded claims!
Ruse's CV is online here (http://www.fsu.edu/~philo/RuseCV.pdf).

Education: B.A., (Philosophy and Mathematics), University of Bristol, 1962
M.A., (Philosophy), McMaster University, 1964.
Ph.D., (Philosophy), University of Bristol, 1970.
I do not see any mention of zoology, or any related field.

I don't have the time to be chasing down unfounded suspicions.
You don't appear to have the time to do any fact-checking whatsoever.

[mijopaalmc]

Here is an article which again tells us rthat Michel Ruse he is a zoologist. So much for your unfounded claims!

And here is Ruse's CV (http://www.fsu.edu/~philo/RuseCV.pdf) in which it is clear that he doesn't have an advanced degree in biology.

[Radrook]

Yeah, I checked and found the same thing on Wikipedia - which may or may not be entirely accurate - and his own page. He did lecture in "History, Philosophy, and Zoology" at the University of Guelph, but his degrees are in philosophy and mathematics.

He has written extensively on the debate between evolution and creationism, coming down firmly on the side of evolution, but he is not a biologist by any qualification I can see.

Uh huh! sure! Sure! And I'm suppposed to now go chasing after that accusation? BTW your ad hominem arguments prove only one thing to me-you don't know how to think. Why? Well, maybne a basic course in logic will reveal that deep secret to you. I recommend you take the course and then come back and we can talk on more equitable terms.

SY

[PixyMisa]

Hey! Thanks for revealing your biased modus operandi. Since nothing is enough then OK. Bye!
I ask merely for you to address your own points. A coherent argument, or at least the semblance of one. Evidence would be nice too, should you stumble upon any.

[joobz]

Yeah, I checked and found the same thing on Wikipedia - which may or may not be entirely accurate - and his own page. He did lecture in "History, Philosophy, and Zoology" at the University of Guelph, but his degrees are in philosophy and mathematics.

He has written extensively on the debate between evolution and creationism, coming down firmly on the side of evolution, but he is not a biologist by any qualification I can see.
I'm not certain the point being made. Ruse seems to be saying that evolution has taken hold as a type of religion for some. I do not see how this matters.

The question on the table is whether evolution is real or not. All evidence suggests yes. I'm waiting for radrook to provide contrary evidence. Unless, of course, he doesn' actaully disagree with evolution, but rather atheistic evolution. To understand this, it must be made clear:

What is atheistic evolution and how does that relate to the theory of evolution as laid out by modern science?

[PixyMisa]

Uh huh! sure! Sure! And I'm suppposed to now go chasing after that accusation?
Well, yes and no. Yes, since it takes approximately two minutes to locate. No, since two people have already posted a direct link.

[Foster Zygote]

Here is an article which again tells us rthat Michel Ruse he is a zoologist. So much for your unfounded claims!

Ruse on Evolution
By Tony Dalmyn on August 13, 2005 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
In May, the Boston Globe (online) published an interview of zoologist, philosopher of science and popular writer Michael Ruse discussing his new book The Evolution-Creation Struggle. More recently, the American Scientist Online published another interview. The book expands on the arguments made in an article Is Evolution a Secular Religion, published in Science Magazine in March 2003.

http://www.sea-of-flowers.ca/weblog/sea/archives/2005/08/13/ruse-on-evoluti.php

And here (http://www.fsu.edu/~philo/new%20site/staff/ruse.htm) is a link to his FSU home page. No mention of zoology there.

And here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruse) is his Wikipedia entry. No mention of zoology.

If Radrook now has me on ignore others are welcome to quote this or re-post the links.

[PixyMisa]

I'm not certain the point being made. Ruse seems to be saying that evolution has taken hold as a type of religion for some. I do not see how this matters.
Nor do I. Apparently you too are unfamiliar with the basic principles of argumentation and demand that a single quote cover every conceivable issue. I'm sorry, that a single quaote cover every conceovable issue. Which is, I'm informed, insane.

Welcome, brother!

[Radrook]

WEll, folks, I've had enough for today. For those who decently responded and made the discussion relevant, lively and informative as well as invigoratingly challenging, thank you.

Peace!

[PixyMisa]

Uh huh! sure! Sure! And I'm suppposed to now go chasing after that accusation? BTW your ad hominem arguments prove only one thing to me-you don't know how to think. Why? Well, maybne a basic course in logic will reveal that deep secret to you. I recommend you take the course and then come back and we can talk on more equitable terms.
I missed this one. Surprising how often I get that response after pointing out factual flaws in people's arguments. :cool:

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not at all. I have merely been told what you are telling me now. That atheistic evolution doesn't require abiogenesis to happen. Please illuminate me then and tell me what other mechanism is now being claimed as the causer or mechanism which leads to the emergence of life. Or am I being wrong in requiring the emergence of life in order for evolution to happen in reference to life. Please explain.

I wouldn't matter if the source of life were abiogenesis, panspermia, fiat creation by a deity or a class experiment by hyper-dimensional teenagers - evolutionary theory would not be effected one bit by any of them being the source of life which evolved.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Misdirection is an irrelevancy. What I posted does not meet that criterion. As gfor his qualifications, your accusation of dishonesty is unjustified. I posted rthe article exactly as I found it. So actually, it's your word against the article as posted
not my word afgainst yours as you so hastily and conveniently conclude.

No you didn't. It appears you posted a snippet of an article that appears to have been cut from a webpage that has at least one factual error on it (Ruse's biography).

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ruse+how+evolution+became+a+religion

[rocketdodger]

Sure, and have you shoot back with incomprehension and false accusations? Nahhh! I'll pass and use my time more productively.

Translation:

"Sure, and have everyone realize that I am virtually clueless when it comes to the actual science and hard facts behind the theory of evolution? Nahhh! I'll pass and use my time more productively by posting the work of people who sound like they are smarter than me."

Radrook is sounding more and more like Kleinman with every post.

ETA: sorry misa, didn't even notice :(

[PixyMisa]

Um, could you tidy up the quoting there? I know that Radrook messed it up originally, but I can't ask you to fix that...

[m_huber]

Well, this entire discussion is getting tiresome. For anyone wanting comprehensive video of scientists doing science in a scientific forum that deals directly with ID/evolution, see http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SACKLER_evolution_program.

Radrook, I don't know what your educational background is, or why you have come to the conclusion that evolution is wrong. It would appear that you were exposed to mathematical arguments against abiogenesis, and then were led to believe that the lack of a first organisms meant evolution was impossible. If this is not correct, please let me know.

I find it extremely damning to your position that you choose to provide quotations from Creationist sources as your "evidence." Notice that very few scientists have been quoted on their opinion of evolution by those debating against you. Instead, numerous posts have been made that mention hard physical data that is in line with evolution (especially joobz' list).

I think anyone here would be willing to intelligently discuss any kind of real data that points against evolution. I know that I would. It would be quite interesting if you could find it. The problem thus far, however, in both this thread and the one that it was spawned from, is that you have only provided links that do nothing to advance your arguments or adequately counter arguments in opposition to you.

You have posted statistical calculations of how unlikely abiogenesis is, and when that article was dissected by the observant posters, you tried to downplay the importance of the article. You posted a list of scientists, lied about how you came up with it, and included as over half of the list scientists who could not have even known about evolution, and the remainder of the list comprised mainly of scientists who work for religious institutions. When this was pointed out, you tried to downplay the importance of the list, and then you moved on to quoting directly from the book Bones of Contention (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html), which is 15 years old and has been thoroughly treated by biologists, none of whom find it to have any value.

When someone posts a long, thorough argument against your statements, you ignore them or pick a snippet that is tangential to the main thrust and choose to attack that, thinking that you make the arguer look inept. When someone posts a short rebuttal of your claims (including personal claims), you say "ad hominem" and say you are going to put them on ignore.

If you were making a coherent argument against evolution, your tactics could be overlooked. Instead, you are posting bits that imply that evolution might not be right, you oppose something you call "atheistic evolution," and you seem to believe that evolution cannot happen if abiogenesis doesn't happen. What everyone here is waiting on is a coherent description of what you do believe. You seem to think that evolution is wrong, but you have yet to post what you think is right (though you have alluded to Creationism, though I know that this cannot be what you believe because you have so strongly argued against bringing religion into the discussion).

So what exactly is wrong with evolution? You have mentioned what is wrong with abiogenesis, and I have colleagues who would wholeheartedly agree and even go so far as to say that God made the first life. What about evolution, though? Is there something wrong with the idea that reptiles developed from amphibians? If so, then what exactly do you propose as an alternative explanation for the sudden appearance of reptiles in the Pennsylvanian (http://www.answers.com/topic/evolution-of-the-reptiles?cat=technology), and why were they not present before then?

I'm pretty confident that this will not be answered, because that would be out of character for Radrook. Nonetheless, I hold out hope that there is some redeeming quality in all of this so that I haven't wasted my time in reading and writing on this thread.

[PixyMisa]

Well said. We'll see what - if any - response that brings.

[cyborg]

Radrook is sounding more and more like Kleinman with every post.

I suspect the probability of his lists jumbling was greater than 1.

[UnrepentantSinner]

When this was pointed out, you tried to downplay the importance of the list, and then you moved on to quoting directly from the book Bones of Contention (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html), which is 15 years old and has been thoroughly treated by biologists, none of whom find it to have any value.

I did some checking on this earlier because I noticed the copywrite date of 1987 on the page citations for the quotes. I used to own a copy of Lubenow's Bones of Contention and remember it being published in the mid-90s so I knew something was up. Roger Lewin did indeed publish a book titled Bones of Contention in 1987.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Stupid double post, but as long as I have it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=roger+lewin+bones+of+contention

[Henners]

I recommend you take the course and then come back and we can talk on more equitable terms.

SY

You think Pixy is some form of limbo dancer?

[Henners]

The two lists got jumbled together after my computer crashed.

Your computer posted the list, without your knowledge, while it was crashed?

I can count a dozen shades of feeble in that excuse.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Uh huh! sure! Sure! And I'm suppposed to now go chasing after that accusation? BTW your ad hominem arguments prove only one thing to me-you don't know how to think. Why? Well, maybne a basic course in logic will reveal that deep secret to you. I recommend you take the course and then come back and we can talk on more equitable terms.
Okay now, this has to be the funniest thing I've read in quite some time.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Have we seen a coherent definition of atheistic evolution yet? Is Radrook simply suggesting that everyone should be a theistic evolutionist for some reason?

~~ Paul

[joobz]

Have we seen a coherent definition of atheistic evolution yet? Is Radrook simply suggesting that everyone should be a theistic evolutionist for some reason?

~~ Paul
None so far. I've asked, but it seemed that Radrook felt that complaiining about ad homs were a more beneficial method of debate.

It seems that he has not presented any argument that was his own original thought. That would explain his inability to address my (and everyone else's) questions. I think at this time Radrook's best course of action would be to actually learn about what the science shows and for him to determine what theory makes the most logical sense.

A good place to start would be to learn a bit more about the list of 18 I gave so he can see how all of those independant observations are nicely explained by modern theories of evolution.

[Radrook]

I did some checking on this earlier because I noticed the copywrite date of 1987 on the page citations for the quotes. I used to own a copy of Lubenow's Bones of Contention and remember it being published in the mid-90s so I knew something was up. Roger Lewin did indeed publish a book titled Bones of Contention in 1987.


You really expect evolutionist biolopgists to find a book containing quotations containing incriminating evidence against their cherished belief valuable? Isn't that a bit illogical? As for being published in the 90's iundicating something is up. Isn't that being a bit paranoid?

In wqhatever case, let me just place a quotation I consider valuable from that book here for the purpose of illucidation:

Before I am confronted by the perrenial:"Those are evolutionists you are quoting!" objection, let me provide you with an explanation of why it's beneficial:

Andrew Snelling (b.1953?) PhD Geology Web
Evolutionists have often protested 'unfair' to quoting an evolutionist as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point , and the value of The Revised QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable.

Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution. The Revised Quote Book (1990)

In short, If I am a creationist and express serious dopubt in creationism, then an evolutionist can quote me to demonstrate that even among creationist the concept suspect in certaion areas. Visa versa with creationistquoting evolutionist. An admission ofdoubrt remains an admission of doubt or lack of true evidence regardsless of what the evolutionist say later in the same publicartion. The statement remains an admission.

[Radrook]

None so far. I've asked, but it seemed that Radrook felt that complaining about ad homs were a more beneficial method of debate.

It seems that he has not presented any argument that was his own original thought. That would explain his inability to address my (and everyone else's) questions. I think at this time Radrook's best course of action would be to actually learn about what the science shows and for him to determine what theory makes the most logical sense.

A good place to start would be to learn a bit more about the list of 18 I gave so he can see how all of those independent observations are nicely explained by modern theories of evolution.


Umm, I don't se you people posting original thoughts. I just see you disgorging the same ole evolutionist worn out drivel that you always do. But people here go beyond the evolutionist general stupidity. Here they evade issues, drift into inane irrelevancies when confronted with a logical question. I think it's all part of the hammering away in order to make non-evolutionists go away which is customary here. It certainly can't be that these people, if indeed they are different people and not one under different names, are as obtuse as they appear. I think that is beyond the realm of the possible. In fact, even more impossible than evolution itself. LOL

As for inability. The inability is YOURS. You are so blinded and enamored with and by your faith in evolution, that you can't see past your nose due to the tears of joy. I am not obligated in repeating myself. claim to be unable to understand my so often repeated simple argument? OK. Then I guess you can't add anything useful to the discussion. BYE! : )

[Terry]

You really expect evolutionist biolopgists to find a book containing quotations containing incriminating evidence against their cherished belief valuable? Isn't that a bit illogical?

Scientists value information which contradicts the currently accepted theory very greatly. That's the stuff that Nobel Prizes come from.


In short, If I am a creationist and express serious dopubt in creationism, then an evolutionist can quote me to demonstrate that even among creationist the concept suspect in certaion areas. Visa versa with creationistquoting evolutionist. An admission ofdoubrt remains an admission of doubt or lack of true evidence regardsless of what the evolutionist say later in the same publicartion. The statement remains an admission.

But the scientific method is all about being honest about what you can't yet explain (yet). Far from being a flaw, such statements speak to the strength of an argument. A good theory explains more than the previous best theory, but doesn't have to explain everything. A flaw in a scientific argument would be hiding that you predict X when not X is known to be the case.

[Radrook]

Have we seen a coherent definition of atheistic evolution yet? Is Radrook simply suggesting that everyone should be a theistic evolutionist for some reason?

~~ Paul

Umm Paul, why are you asking others about what I believe? In order to get the twisted versiuon you are hoping to get? People of normal intelligence ask the source of the info what is meanbt. They don't ask others who are showing signs of not understanding themselves. But then I am assuming normal intelligence here-aren't I?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Umm Paul, why are you asking others about what I believe? In order to get the twisted versiuon you are hoping to get? People of normal intelligence ask the source of the info what is meanbt. They don't ask others who are showing signs of not understanding themselves. But then I am assuming normal intelligence here-aren't I?
I see you noticed my question, commented on it, but still haven't answered it. That's why I'm asking other people for answers. Don't you get it? You're not answering people's questions!


As for inability. The inability is YOURS. You are so blinded and enamourded with and by your faith in evolution, that you can't see past your nose due to the tears of joy. I am not obligated in repeating myself. claim to be unable to understand my so often repeated simple argument? OK. Then I gues you can't add anything useful to the discussion. BYE! : )
Toodles.

~~ Paul

[Radrook]

Scientists value information which contradicts the currently accepted theory very greatly. That's the stuff that Nobel Prizes come from.



But the scientific method is all about being honest about what you can't yet explain (yet). Far from being a flaw, such statements speak to the strength of an argument. A good theory explains more than the previous best theory, but doesn't have to explain everything. A flaw in a scientific argument would be hiding that you predict X when not X is known to be the case.

Thank you for the coherent well-thought out reply addressing the issues concerning the quotations. I do agree that the scientific method should be about being honest. Honesty of course means being consistent in adherence to its exigencies. This, unfortunately, is where I find flaw in the atheistic evolutionist approach. Data which is considered indicative of intelligent source is the same which is rejected as indicative of intelligent source if the conclusion is intelligent design. That's inconsistency of policy, a definitive indicator of biased dishonest reasoning in the service of a pet idea.

AS I said recently, if indeed a coded message is received by SETI and because it is coded indicates intelligent source-what are we to conclude by the infinitely more complex DNA code? Nothing? Or the opposite. Which is why I just don't buy into the atheistic evolution
claims.

BTW
Please try not to accuse me of confusing abiogenesis with the evolution process per se or of trying to tell people to accept only theistic evolution. There is nothing within my argument to justify such an accusation.

[Radrook]

I see you noticed my question, commented on it, but still haven't answered it. That's why I'm asking other people for answers. Don't you get it? You're not answering people's questions!


Toodles.

~~ Paul

My apologies if I am not able to be effectively answer all questions on time or if I miss any.
The problem is that there is too much clutter here which requires me to sift through mountains of irrelevancies. That takes a lot of time. In the hassle of the effort some things go undetected. When they do then I might notice snickering, accusations of evasion, and a host of other posts joining in a bedlam. Since my time is limited and I am not able to be in front of the screen at all times this happens. My apologies again. I'll see what the question was and post an explanation.

BTW
It would help if people stick to the issues, instead of going off on tangents. But that's asking too much perhaps.

OK Found it.

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Have we seen a coherent definition of atheistic evolution yet? Is Radrook simply suggesting that everyone should be a theistic evolutionist for some reason?

First, I am striving to keep the discussion away from theistic evolution because I feel it belongs in the religion forum. No, I am not suggesting that anyone should substitute theistic evolution for atheistic evolution. IF I wanted to do that I'd go to the religious forum where such a suggestion belongs. IMHO



Definition: Atheistic evolution, is evolution whose adherents subscribe to abiogenesis as the initiator of life. Theistic evolution is evolution whose believers and supporters believe life was initiated by God. Those are my personal definitions which perhaps and probably don't jive with yours.

Clarification:
I am referring to the term "theistic or atheistic evolution" here not as a belief system. The accusations are based on the assumption that I am usinfg the word as a process. Which is beyond me since it should be obvious that evolution as described can't be portrayed that way unless one is insane. And that's what annoys! The constant attributions of inanities to statements that should otherwise be clear were it not for the proving creationists are stupid agenda.

BTW
Not saying that abiogenesis itself is evolution as I repeatedly have stated before to no avail.

Must leave. Thanks for your rational response. Peace!

[skeptical]

BTW
It would help if people stick to the issues, instead of going off on tangents. But that's asking too much perhaps.


What, exactly, is the issue? What I grok is that you are saying belief in abiogenesis requires Atheism, yes?


Definition: Atheistic evolution, is evolution whose adherents subscribe to abiogenesis as the initiator of life. Theistic evolution is evolution whose believers and supporters believe life was initiated by God. Those are my personal definitions which perhaps and probably don't jive with yours.

Ok, that's clear enough, but what's you point? If it is that abiogenesis _requires_ atheism, that is simply incorrect. It is possible to believe that the processes were created by a God, and that the natural processes created life via abiogenesis. In fact, it is quite possible to believe that God created all the processes and materials and just set the Universe in motion and chose not to interfere with the processes beyond that.

It's still not clear what your point is. The best I can make out is that you don't want to accept the possibility of abiogenesis because you think it implies Atheism. I have shown you above why this is not true.

BTW, if God came from nothing else, then, by definition, God came about by abiogenesis, so it's not clear why you have such an objection to it.

Cheers.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Definition: Atheistic evolution, is evolution whose adherents subscribe to abiogenesis as the initiator of life. Theistic evolution is evolution whose believers and supporters believe life was initiated by God. Those are my personal definitions which perhaps and probably don't jive with yours.
Theistic evolution is evolution that was planned by god but is otherwise compatible with naturalism. I don't think it requires that god poked life into existence; he could have realized that physics allowed for abiogenesis.


Clarification:
I am referring to the term "theistic or atheistic evolution" here not as a belief system. The accusations are based on the assumption that I am usinfg the word as a process. Which is beyond me since it should be obvious that evolution as described can't be portrayed that way unless one is insane. And that's what annoys! The constant attributions of inanities to statements that should otherwise be clear were it not for the proving creationists are stupid agenda.
Sorry, now I'm more confused, not less.

~~ Paul

[joobz]

My apologies if I am not able to be effectively answer all questions on time or if I miss any.
There is no reason to believe this. You had ample opportunity to address real questions posed. During the time these questions were asked, you were complaininig about attacks against you. In fact, it seems you only answer questions, when you decide to put someone on ignore. You do this as though to hide the fact that you are mostly evading the arguments made against you. It's a transparent tactic, and doesn't fool anyone.

As capeldodger said, you are unable to offer anything new. Indeed, the arguments you make were done better by better people. You are a simple parrot mimicking the vocal patterns of an argument someone conditioned you to make and are obviously devoid of any comprehension of what is coming out of your beak.

Your definition of atheistic evolution is largerly in conflict with all of your other posts. You've been arguing against evolution. You've posted links that criticize evolution. Now you are saying that evolution is real but abiogenesis (atheistic evolution) isn't. It's a position switch that you made because you were put into a corner unable to find realany problems with modern evolutionary theory.

I'm on ignore, so if anyone thinks it worthwhile for Radrook to read this, feel free to quote it.

[Foster Zygote]

AS I said recently, if indeed a coded message is received by SETI and because it is coded indicates intelligent source-what are we to conclude by the infinitely more complex DNA code? Nothing? Or the opposite. Which is why I just don't buy into the atheistic evolution
claims.

When the first pulsar was discovered via radio astronomy it created quite a stir. An extremely precise, regular radio pulse. Could it be a beacon set up by an intelligence? Fortunately, nobody jumped to any rash conclusions. But they still discovered something fascinating, however natural in origin, and learned a great deal more about the lives of stars.

We know that DNA can increase in complexity through natural means. We've seen this in the lab. The code that you insist must be of intelligently designed origin because of its complexity can, in fact, increase in complexity due to well understood natural processes. There is no need to invoke a designer for this increase in complexity. Once there is a self reproducing molecule natural selection will act upon mutations to produce more complex descendants. Evolution started long before DNA as we know it.

[Foster Zygote]

There is no reason to believe this. You had ample opportunity to address real questions posed. During the time these questions were asked, you were complaininig about attacks against you. In fact, it seems you only answer questions, when you decide to put someone on ignore. You do this as though to hide the fact that you are mostly evading the arguments made against you. It's a transparent tactic, and doesn't fool anyone.

As capeldodger said, you are unable to offer anything new. Indeed, the arguments you make were done better by better people. You are a simple parrot mimicking the vocal patterns of an argument someone conditioned you to make and are obviously devoid of any comprehension of what is coming out of your beak.

Your definition of atheistic evolution is largerly in conflict with all of your other posts. You've been arguing against evolution. You've posted links that criticize evolution. Now you are saying that evolution is real but abiogenesis (atheistic evolution) isn't. It's a position switch that you made because you were put into a corner unable to find realany problems with modern evolutionary theory.

I'm on ignore, so if anyone thinks it worthwhile for Radrook to read this, feel free to quote it.

I'd help, but I think I'm on ignore too. If Radrook continues to place everyone who refutes his claims on ignore, he'll soon have a list to rival T'ai Chi's.

[bokonon]

Whether god is eternal (i.e., didn't arise from nothing, because he always existed) or not, the creation myth depends on abiogenesis just as much as Radrook's conception of "atheistic evolution" does. So shouldn't the argument get back to evolution proper, rather than turning on whether or not abiogenesis can be demonstrated? If abiogenesis is impossible, both creationism and Radrook's atheistic evolution are false.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There is no reason to believe this. You had ample opportunity to address real questions posed. During the time these questions were asked, you were complaininig about attacks against you. In fact, it seems you only answer questions, when you decide to put someone on ignore. You do this as though to hide the fact that you are mostly evading the arguments made against you. It's a transparent tactic, and doesn't fool anyone.

As capeldodger said, you are unable to offer anything new. Indeed, the arguments you make were done better by better people. You are a simple parrot mimicking the vocal patterns of an argument someone conditioned you to make and are obviously devoid of any comprehension of what is coming out of your beak.

Your definition of atheistic evolution is largerly in conflict with all of your other posts. You've been arguing against evolution. You've posted links that criticize evolution. Now you are saying that evolution is real but abiogenesis (atheistic evolution) isn't. It's a position switch that you made because you were put into a corner unable to find realany problems with modern evolutionary theory.

I'm on ignore, so if anyone thinks it worthwhile for Radrook to read this, feel free to quote it.
Indeed.

~~ Paul

[skeptigirl]

This thread came to mind when I saw this shirt. (http://www.sciwear.com/pd_heretic.cfm)

[UnrepentantSinner]

You really expect evolutionist biolopgists to find a book containing quotations containing incriminating evidence against their cherished belief valuable? Isn't that a bit illogical? As for being published in the 90's iundicating something is up. Isn't that being a bit paranoid?
{snip weird ramblings}

Huh? Anti-evolutionists, be they Creationists, IDers or just plain crackpots often post paragraph sized rantings filled with emotion laden verbiage on the Internet, but they usually make some sort of sense.

I was merely noting that the quote you posted from Roger Lewin's 1987 book was different from Lubenow's 1995(ish?) book that m_huber cited. You bizarre response makes no sense in that context, or at all for that matter, and makes you look like nutter in the process.

[m_huber]

I'm pretty confident that this will not be answered, because that would be out of character for Radrook. Nonetheless, I hold out hope that there is some redeeming quality in all of this so that I haven't wasted my time in reading and writing on this thread.

I'm done. No point in continuing. Radrook has no desire to either learn from others or to present his viewpoints in clearly defined terms so that they can be fairly considered. When specific arguments have been presented, he has ignored them. When he realizes that he is wrong on some point, he tries to change his claim. I have no desire to continue in this pointless banter. It would appear that I have wasted my time.

[CapelDodger]

Umm Paul, why are you asking others about what I believe? In order to get the twisted versiuon you are hoping to get?

That's particularly well-timed, coming so soon after your introduction of the word "paranoid" to the discussion.

If you spent less time telling people what they think and what their actions are going to be you'd have more to make a substantive contribution, and perhaps answer some of the points that have been put to you.

You have the manners of a sulky adolescent. I tell you this in your own bestinterest. Smug self-absorption helps no-one prosper in life, and I assume you intend to get one. It's something most people aspire to at some point.

[CapelDodger]

I'm done. No point in continuing. Radrook has no desire to either learn from others or to present his viewpoints in clearly defined terms so that they can be fairly considered. When specific arguments have been presented, he has ignored them. When he realizes that he is wrong on some point, he tries to change his claim. I have no desire to continue in this pointless banter. It would appear that I have wasted my time.

Not at all. The Radrooks of the world have to be engaged otherwise they'd have the run of the place, and nobody wants that. It's a nasty job, but somebody has to do it.

You've made your points very well, and provided readers with useful ammunition and lines of argument.

Radrook, on the other hand, has done his "cause" no good at all; even the usual suspects have moved away along the bench from him (I'm assuming "him", but I think I'm on firm ground there). I doubt he appreciates just how unremarkable a specimen he is of a familiar type. In his case, egregious would be an accolade, but he doesn't even rate that.

[rocketdodger]

This, unfortunately, is where I find flaw in the atheistic evolutionist approach. Data which is considered indicative of intelligent source is the same which is rejected as indicative of intelligent source if the conclusion is intelligent design.

Will you provide evidence to back up this assertion?

AS I said recently, if indeed a coded message is received by SETI and because it is coded indicates intelligent source-what are we to conclude by the infinitely more complex DNA code? Nothing? Or the opposite. Which is why I just don't buy into the atheistic evolution
claims.

You are ignoring the observed fact that complexity can arise by natural mechanisms.

[Prometheus]

So for the last time-I am not saying that abiogenesis is part of the evolutionary process. I am saying in plain English that without it atheistic evolutionary theory cannot exist as a concept...


As I understand it, "abiogenesis" means life arising from inanimate matter. This clearly did happen, as we know that at one time there was no life. It makes little difference whether life started via some spontaneous natural chemical reaction, or whether God breathed the Holy Spirit into a handful of dust. Either way, that abiogenesis did occur is a fact.

Evolution theory, in and of itself, cannot be either theistic or atheistic, because it says nothing about how life started one way or another. Nor does it say anything about whether there is a God or not. Nor does it even provide any evidence that there is or isn't a God (though it does refute the notion that the Genesis account in the bible is literally true).

There are religions that posit something to the effect of "natural laws = the mind of God". Evolution is entirely consistent with this view of God.

Some versions of Hinduism claim that the natural world, in it's entirety, and thus all of the evidence for evolution and everything else science has discovered, is an elaborate deception instigated by an evil deity called Maya, who wants to prevent us from ever figuring out what's really going on. Science can't have anything to say about such a notion because it's entirely unfalsifiable.

One way or another, there isn't any reason for anyone of any religious belief, other than Young Earth Creationists, to be offended by evolution.

[Radrook]

I'm done. No point in continuing. Radrook has no desire to either learn from others or to present his viewpoints in clearly defined terms so that they can be fairly considered. When specific arguments have been presented, he has ignored them. When he realizes that he is wrong on some point, he tries to change his claim. I have no desire to continue in this pointless banter. It would appear that I have wasted my time.


You waste your time because you evade the issue just like everyone else does. Why is a simple CODE received by SETI proof of intelligent source while the far more complex DNA code is not? Inonsistency of policy isn't very scientific.

[rocketdodger]

You waste your time because you evade the issue just like everyone else does. Why is a simple CODE received by SETI proof of intelligent source while the far more complex DNA code is not? Inonsistency of policy isn't very scientific.

Why is DNA code more complex than something SETI might find? How do you define complexity?

Why should more complexity in something be proof of an intelligent source?

[Radrook]

As I understand it, "abiogenesis" means life arising from inanimate matter. This clearly did happen, as we know that at one time there was no life. It makes little difference whether life started via some spontaneous natural chemical reaction, or whether God breathed the Holy Spirit into a handful of dust. Either way, that abiogenesis did occur is a fact.

Evolution theory, in and of itself, cannot be either theistic or atheistic, because it says nothing about how life started one way or another. Nor does it say anything about whether there is a God or not. Nor does it even provide any evidence that there is or isn't a God (though it does refute the notion that the Genesis account in the bible is literally true).

There are religions that posit something to the effect of "natural laws = the mind of God". Evolution is entirely consistent with this view of God.

Some versions of Hinduism claim that the natural world, in it's entirety, and thus all of the evidence for evolution and everything else science has discovered, is an elaborate deception instigated by an evil deity called Maya, who wants to prevent us from ever figuring out what's really going on. Science can't have anything to say about such a notion because it's entirely unfalsifiable.

One way or another, there isn't any reason for anyone of any religious belief, other than Young Earth Creationists, to be offended by evolution.

1. I'm not a young earth creationist.

2. Abiogeneisis is not an observed phenomenon-it is inferred. Neither is it demonstrable undr controled laboratory conditions. So calling it a fact requires a dismissal of both logic and the scientific method.

3.I never mentioned religion in this discussion. In fact, I never even mentioned God. The ones who keep introducinmg religion and God, just as you just did, are the evolutionists on this forum.

4. If God is involved as you describe then it isn't abiogenesis. Abiogenesis requires the absence of life producing life. If life initiates life in onbe way or another, then it isn't abiogenesis.

Merriam WebsMain Entry: abio·gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: \ˌā-ˌbī-ō-ˈje-nə-səs\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from 2a- + bio- + Latin genesis
Date: 1870
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter


5. I didn't say that evolution requires atheism. Didn't I just make that clear in one of my most recenrt posts?

[joobz]

You waste your time because you evade the issue just like everyone else does. Why is a simple CODE received by SETI proof of intelligent source while the far more complex DNA code is not? Inonsistency of policy isn't very scientific.
let's compare apples to apples. What is the "simple" code that SETI is looking for?

Do you see this code in any element of DNA in any species that developed as a result of evolution?

Let me give you a hint as to why these two things are wholly unrelated.
SETI looks for a logical pattern that is inherent in math yet is not inherent in nature. Do you think such a code would develop during the process of natural selection? Do you think such a code would have ANY evolutionary advantage? Remember, evolution doesn't have a predeterimined outcome. What evolves and lives is all that matters.

[skeptical]

You waste your time because you evade the issue just like everyone else does. Why is a simple CODE received by SETI proof of intelligent source while the far more complex DNA code is not? Inonsistency of policy isn't very scientific.

I will answer this, but I don't expect you to respond because you haven't responded to me in any of the other threads I have posted responses to you. However, here goes.

First, it is not the case that SETI would consider any old code proof of an intelligent source. The "code" as you refer to it would have to have many specific characteristics. I would have to be non-repetitious, it would have to be broadcast at certain frequencies, etc. Even then, we would need to do a lot of analysis to conclude that it was a not a naturally occurring phenomenon that we simply had not encountered before. We would have to eliminate all possible naturally occurring processes. So it is not correct to say SETI is looking for a "simple" code.

Second, the question is not whether DNA is designed or not designed. It IS designed, clearly. The question is whether the designer is a series of bottom-up, natural processes, or a top-down supernatural designer. All of the evidence that we have points to a code that evolved from bottom-up processes.

For example, the fact that large amounts of DNA are non-coding and appear to serve no useful purpose, even after accounting for portions of the code that turn genes on and off. The fact that there is no mechanism to remove "old" DNA that used to function, but no longer does, such as the broken gene for Vitamin C in apes and humans. The fact that DNA requires RNA to work to produce proteins, a seemingly unnecessary middle man unless it originally worked in an RNA world without DNA. I could go on, but the point is made.

DNA looks like it would look if it was a system that evolved from simpler processes, working by making ad-hoc additions that enabled it to replicate better, over eons of time with no mechanism to make it work "best", only to make it work "good enough". It doesn't look like a system that was designed from the top-down by a designer who had the end goal in mind.

That is why DNA alone is not sufficient evidence of non-natural design. It looks for all the world like is is the creation of bottom-up, natural processes.

[skeptical]

1. I'm not a young earth creationist.

2. Abiogeneisis is not an observed phenomenon-it is inferred. Neither is it demonstrable undr controled laboratory conditions. So calling it a fact requires a dismissal of both logic and the scientific method.

This really depends on how one defines "life". No simple cell has been created in the lab, but many precursors, including proteins and nucleotides have been created.


4. If God is involved as you describe then it isn't abiogenesis. Abiogenesis requires the absence of life producing life. If life initiates life in onbe way or another, then it isn't abiogenesis.

If god is life and had no creator, then god exists via abiogenesis by any reasonable interpretation.


5. I didn't say that evolution requires atheism. Didn't I just make that clear in one of my most recenrt posts?

Correct, you said that abiogenesis requires atheism. Which is incorrect, as I indicated. Even if you don't accept my "god arose from abiogenesis" argument, if god simply created the natural processes that led to life from non-life, that seems to me to be indistinguishable from saying "natural processes led to life from non-life".

[E.J.Armstrong]

You waste your time because you evade the issue just like everyone else does. Why is a simple CODE received by SETI proof of intelligent source while the far more complex DNA code is not? Inonsistency of policy isn't very scientific.

Because everyone doesn't and it isn't.

'Codes' have been received from space before but, because they have been shown to be derived from natural physical processes, such as those generated within pulsars, an intelligent source is not required for their generation (unless you regard the interaction of matter as an intelligent source) and they are therefore not recognised as a sign of an intelligent source by the astronomical or physics communities or scientists generally.

There is therefore complete and demonstrable consistency in the scientific approach here.

For you to demonstrate that DNA is a definitive sign of the existence of an intelligent source you would have to prove, by definition, that DNA could not arise from unintelligent sources.

As far as I am aware you haven't. But I am willing to update my views if you show me I am wrong.

[Radrook]

snip

Radrook, I don't know what your educational background is, or why you have come to the conclusion that evolution is wrong.

snip


I find it extremely damning to your position that you choose to provide quotations from Creationist sources as your "evidence."

snip


When someone posts a long, thorough argument against your statements, you ignore them or pick a snippet that is tangential to the main thrust and choose to attack that, thinking that you make the arguer look inept. When someone posts a short rebuttal of your claims (including personal claims), you say "ad hominem" and say you are going to put them on ignore.

snip

.

I have no need to be dishonest in giving motives for posting lists as you accuse me of being.

As for the people on ignore, it should be more than obvious, unless one is biased, that I put them on ignore because threy deviate from the subject, insist that I believe what I do not. Say I am saying what I am not. Continually attack those concepts as if they were mine despite my repeated explanations. In my view that's unnecessary clutter.

Also, in view that you also seem intent on misrepresenting my viewpoint and claiming not to understand what it is I am saying-
and an evolutionist moderator is hovering in the wings, then it's better to terminate my participation on this thread. After all, this can go on forever and there are other threads where my English is always perfectly comprehended with no difficulty whatsoever. THanx for you feedback. Bye Peace!

BTW
My educational level is sufficient to know when scientists are or are not abiding by their own standards. Actually, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that unless, of course one has been brainwashed. Then that can cause a problem.

[PixyMisa]

Correct, you said that abiogenesis requires atheism. Which is incorrect, as I indicated. Even if you don't accept my "god arose from abiogenesis" argument, if god simply created the natural processes that led to life from non-life, that seems to me to be indistinguishable from saying "natural processes led to life from non-life".
He constantly refers to "atheist evolution". Apparently he now says there's no such thing, which leaves us to wonder why he won't stop talking about it. :confused:

[Radrook]

Because everyone doesn't and it isn't.

'Codes' have been received from space before but, because they have been shown to be derived from natural physical processes, such as those generated within pulsars, an intelligent source is not required for their generation (unless you regard the interaction of matter as an intelligent source) and they are therefore not recognised as a sign of an intelligent source by the astronomical or physics communities or scientists generally.

There is therefore complete and demonstrable consistency in the scientific approach here.

For you to demonstrate that DNA is a definitive sign of the existence of an intelligent source you would have to prove, by definition, that DNA could not arise from unintelligent sources.

As far as I am aware you haven't. But I am willing to update my views if you show me I am wrong.

1. Those were not codes. A code necessitates, by definition a message which is revealed when the code is decoded. What you are referring to are signals which were initially mistaken as possibly being codes from inntelligent source. But that assumption was merely based primarily on the regularity of transmission. Regualritry of transmission turned out to ber merely the result of spinning quasars. As for the WOW signal, that could have been an interception of an alien ship to ship communication. At least that's one of the plausible explanations put forth.

2. That information of that complexity could arise by itself goes completely contrary to what science is all about. It constitutes a violation of logic, and what is commonly observed with our senses, that information formulation, storage and transmission is invariably the result iof an organizing mind. Since I could never put my mind on hold in that fashion I copuld never believe that such information and the means for its replication, to boot, was caused by
mindless processes.

BTW
This is most likely my last post. Thanx for your decent response.

[Shalamar]

Radrook, you keep tyalking about abiogenesis as to why you don't like evolution.


EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABIOGENESIS.


To everyone else, I apologize for the big bold letters.

[Radrook]

This really depends on how one defines "life". No simple cell has been created in the lab, but many precursors, including proteins and nucleotides have been created.

That's like saying that a brick was accidentally formed in a storm and that the storm can therefore result in the cionstruction of the Taj Majal.



If god is life and had no creator, then god exists via abiogenesis by any reasonable interpretation.

Abiogenbesis requires material. The concept of God is that he is the source or cause of all matter not its effect.



Correct, you said that abiogenesis requires atheism. Which is incorrect, as I indicated. Even if you don't accept my "god arose from abiogenesis" argument, if god simply created the natural processes that led to life from non-life, that seems to me to be indistinguishable from saying "natural processes led to life from non-life".

But the problem is that once you introduce God into the picture the process is no longer abiogenesiis. The prefix "abio" means means without life or without the assistance of life to initiate the process. The spontaneously emergeance from matter without the intervention of life. Placing God into the equation disqualifies the definition from applying. That's what spontaneoues emergeance in this context means.

[PixyMisa]

2. That information of that complexity could arise by itself goes completely contrary to what science is all about. It constitutes a violation of logic, and what is commonly observed with our senses, that information formulation, storage and transmission is invariably the result iof an organizing mind.
Funny, then, that this is exactly what we see happening (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm). Seems like the Universe disagrees with you.

[Derwoods]

Funny, then, that this is exactly what we see happening (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm). Seems like the Universe disagrees with you.

/ignore universe

[Prometheus]

1. I'm not a young earth creationist.

I didn't say you were.


2. Abiogeneisis is not an observed phenomenon-it is inferred. Neither is it demonstrable undr controled laboratory conditions. So calling it a fact requires a dismissal of both logic and the scientific method.

4. If God is involved as you describe then it isn't abiogenesis. Abiogenesis requires the absence of life producing life. If life initiates life in onbe way or another, then it isn't abiogenesis.

Merriam WebsMain Entry: abio·gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: \ˌā-ˌbī-ō-ˈje-nə-səs\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from 2a- + bio- + Latin genesis
Date: 1870
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter

All right, I was using a different, and perhaps incorrect definition of the word. I assumed that "life" meant natural living organisms resembling those we see all around us. If "life" includes some form of intelligent being that does not operate according to the same principles we observe, then fine. However, such a being must either have arisen, itself, via abiogenesis, or it must have always existed. Regardless, this has no bearing at all on evolution one way or another.


3. I never mentioned religion in this discussion. In fact, I never even mentioned God. The ones who keep introducinmg religion and God, just as you just did, are the evolutionists on this forum.

I did not say that you have mentioned religion, though some might argue that mentioning atheism implies a discussion of religion. In any case, I'm not trying to attack you in any way, Radrook; everything that I said by way of religion was actually in support of your stated desire to keep religion out of the discussion. I pointed out that religious beliefs (except for YEC, and again, I am not claiming you belong to this group) have nothing to do with evolution, and that evolution says nothing about any religious belief other than YEC.



5. I didn't say that evolution requires atheism. Didn't I just make that clear in one of my most recenrt posts?

Yes you did make it clear. I also did not claim that you hadn't. Again, I was attempting to support at least part of your position, as far as I understand it. I just don't know why you use the term "atheistic evolution". There is no such thing. Acceptance of evolution is completely independent of whether one happens to be an atheist or not. It seems to me, that you are taking issue with people who believe that evolution constitutes evidence that there is no God. If this is the case, then I agree with you on that point. If this is not the case, then why bother to use the term "atheist" at all? All it does is confuse the issue and cause others to misunderstand you.

To be clear, I am an atheist. I also happen to believe that the evidence I've seen in support of evolution is persuasive. These two beliefs are in no way related to each other. Anyone who claims that evolution supports an atheist worldview, frankly, does not understand evolution. Before I became an atheist, I was Catholic, and I believed in evolution then, every bit as much as I do now, because the Pope accepted evolution as an official part of Catholic dogma. I am only mentioning this in order to affirm that you are correct in that religion ought to play no part in this discussion at all.

Now, that said, could you please give me a little bit more information about why you do not believe in evolution? Although I am currently persuaded by the evidence that's been presented to me by evolutionists, I am open-minded enough to change my mind if something better comes along. For example, if you are aware of specific cases where contrary evidence has been ignored by evolutionists, or cases where supporting evidence has been falsified, I would very much like to know about them. If those who have persuaded me to believe that evolution is correct have perpetrated a fraud upon me then I certainly want to know about it.

[Radrook]

I will answer this, but I don't expect you to respond because you haven't responded to me in any of the other threads I have posted responses to you. However, here goes.

First, it is not the case that SETI would consider any old code proof of an intelligent source. The "code" as you refer to it would have to have many specific characteristics. I would have to be non-repetitious, it would have to be broadcast at certain frequencies, etc. Even then, we would need to do a lot of analysis to conclude that it was a not a naturally occurring phenomenon that we simply had not encountered before. We would have to eliminate all possible naturally occurring processes. So it is not correct to say SETI is looking for a "simple" code.

I never said that SETI would accept any old code.


Second, the question is not whether DNA is designed or not designed. It IS designed, clearly. The question is whether the designer is a series of bottom-up, natural processes, or a top-down supernatural designer. All of the evidence that we have points to a code that evolved from bottom-up processes.

That's the interpretation given with evolution as an asccepted framework.



For example, the fact that large amounts of DNA are non-coding and appear to serve no useful purpose, even after accounting for portions of the code that turn genes on and off. The fact that there is no mechanism to remove "old" DNA that used to function, but no longer does, such as the broken gene for Vitamin C in apes and humans. The fact that DNA requires RNA to work to produce proteins, a seemingly unnecessary middle man unless it originally worked in an RNA world without DNA. I could go on, but the point is made.

RNA is seemingly unecessary? And large amounts of DNA are seemingly useless? To me thasounds as scientific inability to comprehend what's going on.



DNA looks like it would look if it was a system that evolved from simpler processes, working by making ad-hoc additions that enabled it to replicate better, over eons of time with no mechanism to make it work "best", only to make it work "good enough". It doesn't look like a system that was designed from the top-down by a designer who had the end goal in mind.That is why DNA alone is not sufficient evidence of non-natural design. It looks for all the world like is is the creation of bottom-up, natural processes.


Can you provide an article written by a scientist who is not an evolutionist which corroborates that the DNA looks as if it came from an ad hoc process? Would apreciate it.

BTW
You keep using the word "designed". Curious since that is a word which in itself indicates mind. And there lies the problem.

One has to be very careful in assuming that DNA presently not understood DNA means that no function exists. Remember, the same conclusion was reached concerning the appendix and thalamus glands only to later discover they had function after all.

[Radrook]

/ignore universe


Godless Evolutionists do not constitute the universe. In fact, as was pointed out in the film "CONTACT" baed on a novel by Car l Sagan, they are a very small minority on this earth.

Well, I had said I was leaving permanently but the discussion is finally taking a turn for the better. So I'll stick around to see what develops. In any case thanks for your participation. Peace.

[Derwoods]

Godless Evolutionists do not constitute the universe. In fact, as was pointed out in the film "CONTACT" baed on a novel by Car l Sagan, they are a very small minority on this earth.

Well, I had said I was leaving permanently but the discussion is finally taking a turn for the better. So I'll stick around to see what develops. In any case thanks for your participation. Peace.

Note for the humor impaired: The quoted post had nothing to do with the universe being made up of "Godless Evolutionists" it was a joke meant to point out your amazing abilities to ignore anyone or anything that provides a counter to your preconceptions.

"Car l Sagan" (is that an author from Krypton?)

[Henners]

As for the people on ignore, it should be more than obvious, unless one is biased, that I put them on ignore because threy deviate from the subject, insist that I believe what I do not.



The subject of the thread is, in fact, a list of people. You made certain claims about them that have turned out to be incorrect.

Address your integrity any time you like.


BTW
My educational level is sufficient to know when scientists are or are not abiding by their own standards. Actually, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that unless, of course one has been brainwashed. Then that can cause a problem.

You say that. You have also said that they are not using the scientific method. You have also illustrated that you don't know what the scientific method is.

Do you want me to post that "competence" link again?

[Henners]

Can you provide an article written by a scientist who is not an evolutionist

Translation: I only believe things if I know that they were written by my kind of nutter.

[Kotatsu]

My apologies if I am not able to be effectively answer all questions on time or if I miss any.
The problem is that there is too much clutter here which requires me to sift through mountains of irrelevancies. That takes a lot of time. In the hassle of the effort some things go undetected. When they do then I might notice snickering, accusations of evasion, and a host of other posts joining in a bedlam. Since my time is limited and I am not able to be in front of the screen at all times this happens. My apologies again. I'll see what the question was and post an explanation.

Good. As you seem to have missed this one, and I am quite anxious to get a proper reply, I shall repost an earlier question I asked you, but which hitherto seems to have been overlooked. You wrote (admittedly in another thread):

Feathered Dinosaur fossil definitely proves Birds come from dinosaurs -- Oh nooo!! The fossil is a hoax.

To which I responed:

I have lying on a shelf in my office a pile almost a decimetre thick with descriptions of feathered dinosaurs. Each of them alone doesn't show very much. However, together, they show that some dinosaurs over time evolved feather-like structures, which later evolved to become gradually more similar to modern feathers (which, coincidentally, occurred while the rest of the animals also gradually became more similar to modern birds).

Which of them is it you are referring to, and where can I find a reference on how it was determined that the creature in question was a fraud?

Would you care to answer that question now?

[soylent]

This is a list of those who have been alive some time during the last 50 years...

I may just be in a strange mood but that phrasing is really funny.

[Ashles]

It seems bizarre because your premise is skewered.
...
Furthermore, and as I have repeatedly stated to no avail, no specialization is needed in order to evaluate whether science is being practiced in accord with the scientific method or whether the scientific method is being violated or ignored or being applied inconsistently. Neither is specialization needed in order to detect flaws in logic when employee on behalf of a theory.

Blimey - I go away for 2 days without my computer and the thread goes crazy.

Anyway, to clarify to Radrook - I accept you may have accdentally added names you didn't intend to to your list (although this is a good example why these cut and paste lists need to be checked).

The idea of those creationist lists is to try and baffle the inexperienced by implying a huge range of scientists disagree with evolution or are creationists. So some less than intellectually honest creationst sites stretch the criteria for inclusion into such lists simply to get as many people on the list as possible (knowing most people won't check).

Now whether it genuinely is the case that there are a large number in the scientific field who doubt evolution, or not - that is the list that has been presented - so, as you agree, it is only fair enough that to start with we remove those who could never have encountered Origin of Species.

Your point on specialism is noted, but then why would those whose specialism mean they know nothing about evolution, biology, or any of the mechanism behind genetic change be included in such a list? They are no more knowledgeable on the subject than the man in the street who works in a bank.

However in the spirit of fairness I have suggested we look at each person on your list to find out what they might actually know. Just because somebody is described as a geologist doesn't mean that they might not also have an excellent knowledge of biology, or worked in that field or have a very good reason to disbelieve evolution.
That is what we are trying to find out (and many posters such as CapelDodger and Foster Zygote) have understood and run with that.

The criticism your list is open to is that, surely if somebody (regardles of their proffession) dibelieves in evolution simply because of their religious belief, then how is that relevant to the fact that they might operate as a scientist in some unconnected field?

If that is the case then all your list shows is a list of people who are Creationists who believe in Creationism.

If you feel that there is some form of scientific basis for disbelieving in evolution then it would be more useful to link to where any of the people on that list have made such a claim.

Apologies if this point has been made already - I have jumped straight to the end to respond and will now go through back the rest of the thread.

[Cantab]

Radrook, if you don't want to bring religion into the discussion, why do you constantly refer to godlessness and atheism (as in atheistic evolution). Seems you want to attack atheism then prevent any counter-arguments by stating that religion is out of bounds to the discussion. You're a hypocrite.

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Do you really think people are falling for it?

By the way, are you ever going to present any evidence that refutes the theory of evolution, or are you just going to continue the overly emotional bluff-and-bluster method of "debate"?

My educational level is sufficient to know when scientists are or are not abiding by their own standards. Actually, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that unless, of course one has been brainwashed. Then that can cause a problem.

Which scientists have you observed or read, such that you're in a position to critique their work? Have you ever read a peer-reviewed paper submitted by a scientist? What's with the snide "brainwashed" remark? Can you conduct a rational discussion without getting emotional and resorting to childishness?

ETA:
The above was not meant to imply that atheism is a religion, only that Radrook is attacking atheism from a religious standpoint and is therefore introducing religion into the discussion whether he likes it or not (and if he doesn't like it, maybe he should cut it out).

PS: Paul and Foster - Thanks for the welcome!

[Foster Zygote]

That's like saying that a brick was accidentally formed in a storm and that the storm can therefore result in the cionstruction of the Taj Majal.
It looks as though Radrook learned everything he thinks he knows about evolution from creationists. this is just the "747 assembled by a hurricane" silliness. It completely ignores the selective function of evolution.

[skeptical]

That's like saying that a brick was accidentally formed in a storm and that the storm can therefore result in the cionstruction of the Taj Majal.

Actually, its not like saying that at all. What your saying is that even if we found all the bricks and other raw materials AND A PROCESS by which the bricks could self-organize, no building could ever result from their self organization.

I can point you to lots of references for matter self-organizing through merely chemical processes. We have not seen a simple cell self-organize, but we have seen many things that comprise the cell self-organize.

You are saying that these self-organizational principles can NEVER lead to a simple cell, despite the fact that we have many examples of self-organization leading to all the building blocks.

It is unclear to me on what basis you make this statement.



Abiogenbesis requires material. The concept of God is that he is the source or cause of all matter not its effect.

You lost me. Abiogenesis means life from non-life. If god came from non-life, that is abiogenesis to me.


But the problem is that once you introduce God into the picture the process is no longer abiogenesiis. The prefix "abio" means means without life or without the assistance of life to initiate the process. The spontaneously emergeance from matter without the intervention of life. Placing God into the equation disqualifies the definition from applying. That's what spontaneoues emergeance in this context means.

I think that is just a semantical difference. If the chemicals and matter have the inbuilt properties to self-organize into a simple cell, that, to me, is abiogenesis. If there is a god and it created the properties of the universe in such a manner as to have the matter self-organize so that life came from non-living chemicals, I do not see how that is different from saying that matter can self-organize from simple chemicals.

What I think you are hung up on, is the need to make abiogenesis REQUIRE a god or gods. One can always argue that the rules of the universe work the way they work because god set them up that way, but of course this is not required. Your trying to force god to be required to actively create the first life, its seems to me, by actively manipulating the chemicals to make a cell. That's my take on it anyway.

[skeptical]

I never said that SETI would accept any old code.


No, but you said "simple". My point was that the signal/code would not be "simple".


That's the interpretation given with evolution as an asccepted framework.


Actually, that's just a description of they way it looks. I gave several examples of why that is a description of the way it looks. There's no interpretation to it, the code looks like it was designed in an ad-hoc manner once you dig into the details.


RNA is seemingly unecessary? And large amounts of DNA are seemingly useless? To me thasounds as scientific inability to comprehend what's going on.

RNA is a middle man between DNA and proteins, and the question is why? It seems like an inefficient way to make proteins. Large amounts of DNA are clearly non-functional because they are broken genes. I specifically cited the non-functional gene for making Vitamin C in apes and humans. This gene could work to make Vitamin C, it works in almost all other mammals, but it doesn't because of specific errors making it non-functional.

Please point out exactly how this is a "scientific inability to comprehend what's going on"? Why is the Vitamin C example not a clear example of non-functional DNA? Why is the fact that non-functional DNA cannot be removed not an example of a bottom-up process instead of a top-down design? Be specific.



Can you provide an article written by a scientist who is not an evolutionist which corroborates that the DNA looks as if it came from an ad hoc process? Would apreciate it.

You mean an article written by a creationist? I'm sure you can find those on your own. Finding an article such as you request written by someone who is not a creationist would be nearly impossible since just about every person who does research in this area accepts the evidence of evolution.


BTW
You keep using the word "designed". Curious since that is a word which in itself indicates mind. And there lies the problem.

Actually, its not, although this is a very common mistake. The difference is not whether nature is "designed" or "not designed". The difference is whether the design is the product of bottom-up natural processes or an intelligent, top-down designer. Natural selection is, by any reasonable definition, a natural "design" process. It leads to non-random life forms that are "designed" to operate in their environment, but it does this strictly through natural processes.

The ID proponents constantly try to create a false dichotomy between "designed" and "not designed", but that is simply not the issue. The question is what natural processes can create, and what they cannot. All research shows that natural processes acting on a "good enough to function" principle can lead to some very surprising and often elegant "solutions" to thrive in an environment, without the need for a top-down design.

The term "design" has gotten a bad rep because it is misused by the ID proponents, but there is no necessary connection between "purpose" or "mind" and natural design processes.

Please note I am not saying you are an ID proponent, I'm just using that to illustrate why this is a misunderstanding.


One has to be very careful in assuming that DNA presently not understood DNA means that no function exists. Remember, the same conclusion was reached concerning the appendix and thalamus glands only to later discover they had function after all.

Please provide an example of a reasonable function for the broken human Vitamin C gene.

Cheers.

[rocketdodger]

I would just like to comment on how telling it is that Radrook has put so many people on ignore.

Why would someone come here, make claims, then put people on ignore before they have a chance to respond? Hmmmm....

I will keep responding to his posts, awaiting an intelligent response, and if he chooses to ignore then it just makes him look more and more like a coward.

Why is DNA code more complex than something SETI might find? How do you define complexity?

Why should more complexity in something be proof of an intelligent source?

[rocketdodger]

The question is what natural processes can create, and what they cannot. All research shows that natural processes acting on a "good enough to function" principle can lead to some very surprising and often elegant "solutions" to thrive in an environment, without the need for a top-down design.

It is also worth emphasizing there are many computer simulations that show such natural principles do lead to such solutions.

[ben m]

And large amounts of DNA are seemingly useless? To me thasounds as scientific inability to comprehend what's going on.

Please explain: in what way does the experimental evidence that some DNA is useless "sound as scientific inability to comprehend"?

To review, the evidence for "junk" DNA being useless are:
1) This DNA is not transcribed to make proteins
2) This DNA is not transcribed to make regulatory RNA
3) This DNA does not bind regulatory RNA or other regulating factors; if it did bind such factors, they wouldn't have anything to regulate because nothing nearby is expressed.
4) If you chop out this DNA, the organism seems perfectly unchanged
5) This DNA shows evidence of "non-conservation" w/r/t mutations, total length, and so on.
6) Very similar organisms (different onion species---A. urisinium versus A. altynconium, for example) have wildly different amounts of this DNA, yet there's no corresponding difference in function.

Please go through point-by-point. Exactly what are we not comprehending? Is one of these observations wrong? The only reason junk-DNA could surprise you would be if you have some preconception about how you want DNA to work, and this violates your preconception. One common such preconception---which you keep insisting you don't share---is that "God programmed the DNA optimally". But it sure doesn't violate any evolutionary ideas.

Or perhaps you don't know anything about junk DNA, but you read on a Web page somewhere that it refutes evolution? Is that it?

[joobz]

It looks as though Radrook learned everything he thinks he knows about evolution from creationists. this is just the "747 assembled by a hurricane" silliness. It completely ignores the selective function of evolution.
Yes. The sad part is he's contradicting himself again.

He claims that he's only against "atheistic" evolution, but not theistic evolution.

However, the "brick-Tajmahal" argument attacks evolution in general. It's a argument from incredulity that nothing complex can arise from a random process. This is to say that he doubts evolution in general. Regardless of what started it, be it a religous explanation or naturalistic one, evolution is a independantly driven process with an element of randomness providing variation.

So, the question is, which is it?
Does he believe evolution is wrong or doesn't he?
Does he truly understand what is being said when evolution doesn't rely upon tht initiating mechanism which kicked the whole thing off?
If evolution isn't real, then how does he account for the list of 18 items (again, a far from complete list) which all rely on/support the concept of evolution? (A question he has still failed to address)

Indeed, it was my pressing of this last question which put me on the ignore list.
I'll reproduce it again for any lurkers interested and if anyone else wants to carry the tourch.

1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques
11.) vestigal organs
12.) prions
13.) protein multifunctionality
14.) protein polymorphisms
15.) symbiosis
16.) interspecies viable offspring
17.) nylon-eating bacteria
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell

Of course, most of these items Radrook will need to actually do some reading since it is highly unlikely he has even heard of them.

[Prometheus]

Please explain: in what way does the experimental evidence that some DNA is useless "sound as scientific inability to comprehend"?

To review, the evidence for "junk" DNA being useless are:
1) This DNA is not transcribed to make proteins
2) This DNA is not transcribed to make regulatory RNA
3) This DNA does not bind regulatory RNA or other regulating factors; if it did bind such factors, they wouldn't have anything to regulate because nothing nearby is expressed.
4) If you chop out this DNA, the organism seems perfectly unchanged
5) This DNA shows evidence of "non-conservation" w/r/t mutations, total length, and so on.
6) Very similar organisms (different onion species---A. urisinium versus A. altynconium, for example) have wildly different amounts of this DNA, yet there's no corresponding difference in function.

Please go through point-by-point. Exactly what are we not comprehending? Is one of these observations wrong? The only reason junk-DNA could surprise you would be if you have some preconception about how you want DNA to work, and this violates your preconception. One common such preconception---which you keep insisting you don't share---is that "God programmed the DNA optimally". But it sure doesn't violate any evolutionary ideas.


The wiki article on Junk DNA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA ) lists 7 possible functions for the stuff, though I don't think any of them make sense if evolution is wrong, anyway.

I've not heard it tried yet, but I'm just waiting for creationists to start claiming that the human genome was created perfect, but large parts of it were transformed into junk when Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden.

[godless dave]

It seems bizarre because your premise is skewered.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here as to why I presented the list. The purpose of the list is simply to demonstrate that not all scientists subscribe to the Godless evolution theory requiring abiogenesis. Since the pre-Darwinians were believers in Gods, then it follows that they would reject an atheist theory. Nevertheless, their inclusion was accidental.

Neither evolution nor abiogenesis are godless. What you have is a list of scientists who believed in some kind of god. So what? That doesn't make them creationists, nor does it mean they have a problem with evolution.

[skeptical]

Neither evolution nor abiogenesis are godless. What you have is a list of scientists who believed in some kind of god. So what? That doesn't make them creationists, nor does it mean they have a problem with evolution.

The problem seems to be that Radrook believes that abiogenesis _requires_ there be no god. This is of course, incorrect. It does not require there be no god, anymore than it requires one.

As I pointed out, it is perfectly compatible for someone to believe there was a god that created the properties of the universe, including matter and all physical laws governing its behavior, in such a way as to lead chemical processes to self-organize raw materials into life. That is a very simple and classic "out" for anyone who wants to believe in a deity and still have their science too. (its exactly the same out that Newton took when he explained the motions of the planets via natural processes, and Newton was a very devout religionist)

But for Radrook, this is not enough. Radrook wants god to be _required_ for this to happen, not just be compatible with it. Its exactly the same argument that ID creationists make. It is not enough for them that evolution can be compatible with some kind of deity, they want it to be a "tinkering" deity, that actively manipulates things in the natural world. The want to "prove" god, so that they no longer have to have faith alone. It also has, for them, the side benefit of making atheism look very foolish because now there is a required god, so it is a win-win situation if the tinkering deity can be demonstrated.

This is of course a very dangerous idea for faith, because it puts god "on the menu", so to speak, for scientific investigation. If we have evidence of actual tinkering, then we can investigate it, see what got tinkered with, draw inferences, make conclusions. We can conclude that god is partial to flagella for example, if Behe is to be believed, so perhaps we should make flagellas part of our worship services, since god was so concerned with flagella that it had to actually tinker with it to make it work.

I have seen this all before, and I understand the motivation. I just wish now and then the proponents of these arguments would just be honest and say why they are making these arguments and not make claims they cannot back up, like "abiogenesis requires atheism" or "abiogenesis is impossible". It would be much more intellectually honest just to say "I have a need to believe that abiogenesis couldn't happen by natural processes, although I cannot back that up scientifically". This would at least be an honest admission and we could just agree to disagree.

If I am wrong about Radrook's intentions and arguments, I will beg forgiveness, but I have seen this line of argument enough times, I think, to see the end of the story.

[Radrook]

Took one look at the above post and can see at one glance that the poster either didn't read any of my explanations or is simply choosing to repeat what others are saying that I said. AMAZING!

[Radrook]

Here is an example of why it is presumptuous to call what one doesn't presently understand junk.


June 14, 2007 news releases | receive our news releases by email | science@berkeley lab


Exploring the Dark Matter of the Genome
Sequencing Unravels Secrets in the Complex Heterochromatin of the Fruit Fly

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/LSD-genome-darkmatter.html

[Radrook]

Neither evolution nor abiogenesis are godless. What you have is a list of scientists who believed in some kind of god. So what? That doesn't make them creationists, nor does it mean they have a problem with evolution.

Maybe the problem is your inability to understand clearly written English.

[Radrook]

Whether god is eternal (i.e., didn't arise from nothing, because he always existed) or not, the creation myth depends on abiogenesis just as much as Radrook's conception of "atheistic evolution" does. So shouldn't the argument get back to evolution proper, rather than turning on whether or not abiogenesis can be demonstrated? If abiogenesis is impossible, both creationism and Radrook's atheistic evolution are false.

You mean depends on your erroneous understanding of what abiogenesis means. Also, if you STILL can't understand what I just clearly said, then you need remedial reading comprehension classes. As for myth-that's exactly what I consider your pet idea, a myth.
So I guess we are on the same wavelength in a way.

[Radrook]

The wiki article on Junk DNA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA ) lists 7 possible functions for the stuff, though I don't think any of them make sense if evolution is wrong, anyway.

I've not heard it tried yet, but I'm just waiting for creationists to start claiming that the human genome was created perfect, but large parts of it were transformed into junk when Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden.

Hadn't even considered that explanation, but now that you mention it-sounds quite feasable to me. Within the creationist framework and not the evolution framework of things that is-of course.

[Radrook]

Huh? Anti-evolutionists, be they Creationists, IDers or just plain crackpots often post paragraph sized rantings filled with emotion laden verbiage on the Internet, but they usually make some sort of sense.

I was merely noting that the quote you posted from Roger Lewin's 1987 book was different from Lubenow's 1995(ish?) book that m_huber cited. You bizarre response makes no sense in that context, or at all for that matter, and makes you look like nutter in the process.

When I post a quote-I make absolutely certain it's relevant to the issue involved. That you chooose to call it a ranting only shows that you are unwilling to duscuss what the quote is saying and prefer to cunningly devate into irrelevant issues. Which of course makes you look ridiculously inept at argumentation and so choose the easier choice of nitpicking instead since that way you can avoid a nosebleed from thinking too hard.