|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 15, 2019 16:13:10 GMT
I have about as anti-science a agenda as the group of scientists who signed the petition calling natural selection accounting for the complexity of life absurd. None of those scientists signed the document for scientific reasons. And many of them aren't even qualified in biology. Some of them are accidentally on the list more than once. Some of them signed the list a long time ago and died. You can find enough idiots with Phd's to sign anything. It took them over 20 years to get this list to grow over 1,000, you ignorant fuckwit. That should tell you something.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 15, 2019 16:41:10 GMT
No, shit for brains, this is just propaganda from the Discovery Institute, a conservative religious organization devoted to undermining evolutionary science and promoting Christianity through a strategy they call "the Wedge". That's all this video is about, and your interest in pushing it has nothing to do with your interest in science, because you have none. You're just a scientifically illiterate alt right Christian nutcase. You aren't fooling anyone. Your anti-science agenda is plain as day. I have about as anti-science a agenda as the group of scientists who signed the petition calling natural selection accounting for the complexity of life absurd. If Cody here is implying that life on earth has not grown more and more complex down through time by change and adaption, then he clearly needs to look at the fossil record. There are no human skeletons to be found alongside dinosaurs while the earliest strata shows only primitive life forms (for instance). If he is suggesting that the earth is much younger than science thinks, perhaps too short a time for life to change much, then an age would be useful: whether it be Bishop Ussher's famous 6,000-odd year figure (gained apparently by totalling up the ages of the Biblical prophets or something) or another fundamentalist alternative, even more amusing.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 15, 2019 19:27:59 GMT
1000 signatures out of the millions of scientists out there is hardly "growing skepticism". As someone pointed out, that list was compiled from over 20 years. Last time I checked, 99% of scientists accept evolution. Besides wow many of those scientists that signed it are actual biologists? Many of them are probably just engineers or some other non biology related field, or probably creationist "scientists" (not actual scientists).
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 15, 2019 19:32:13 GMT
1000 signatures out of the millions of scientists out there is hardly "growing skepticism". As someone pointed out, that list was compiled from over 20 years. Last time I checked, 99% of scientists accept evolution. Besides wow many of those scientists that signed it are actual biologists? Many of them are probably just engineers or some other non biology related field, or probably creationist "scientists" (not actual scientists). There are a shipload of mechanical engineers on the list, quite a few in computer science, and statisticians.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Feb 16, 2019 11:01:00 GMT
I note that the scientific fields for which a PhD is required included computer science, mathematics, engineering or they can even be a MD and a professor in medicine. The training in those fields doesn't focus on evolution and may not even include ANYTHING about evolution. To have a PhD in those fields reflects rigorous study, but not necessarily study in fields that relate to evolution. Signing a statement that they are skeptical of Darwin's theory of evolution might be tantamount to a biologist signing a petition expressing skepticism that one can ever build a building taller than the Burj Khalifa. Would we heed a biologists proclamation of something like that because he has a doctorate in biology? Would we believe a medical doctor who claimed no tree could ever grow taller than the tallest redwood in California? And as far as dissent from what Darwin thought...that's nothing. Many evolutionary scientists have gone beyond what Darwin himself hypothesized...have expressed doubt about it, but have not expressed doubt that ultimately evolution might be the explanation for life as we know it. For example, Darwin talked like evolution was a long slow steady process. Now, evolutionary scientists think evolution might NOT be steady and slow, but might move quickly with many periods of stasis. That doesn't mean evolution doesn't work...just that it might be different than what Darwin said. Finally, all these people are saying is that we need to be skeptical. Scientists expressing and following up on skepticism? Oh perish the thought. ALL SCIENTISTS should exercise skepticism ALL the time.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Feb 16, 2019 11:08:45 GMT
Cool. If I have a need of dentist I will make sure I get advise from a mathematician.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 16, 2019 11:38:12 GMT
The "Creationism versus Darwinism" never made much sense even in 1925 at the Scopes trial. The Bible admits it isn't entirely literal. Science and Darwinism never tried to explain the origin of life, just species. So the "debate" was between people who understood neither religion nor science.
Many significant events have occurred in science since 1925 and only mentally retarded people still think "Creationism versus Evolution" is a serious debate. Yes, the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover claimed that intelligent design was a mere disguise for creationism but he was a political person whose ideas about science and religion were formed by the uneducated poor people from the 1920s "debates."
Science never had and still does not have an explanation for the origin of life.
People had been breeding plants and animals for centuries before Darwin. The Bible has an example of a change in population in the story of Jacob tending Laban's flocks.
Some modification of species does appear then to be possible and in some cases with little intervention. Other leaps in the advancement of organisms can appear to defy such simple origin, but it can be difficult to conclude anything.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 16, 2019 11:59:23 GMT
Yes, the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover claimed that intelligent design was a mere disguise for creationism but he was a political person whose ideas about science and religion were formed by the uneducated poor people from the 1920s "debates." When the authors of a creationist text book did a re-print following court rulings that creationism was a religious doctrine, they literally replaced every instance of "creationism" in the text with "intelligent design," you fucking ignorant wanker. His ruling was based entirely on evidence like this. If you actually studied the case instead of sticking your head up your dumb, hick ass you'd know this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 16, 2019 12:06:33 GMT
Yes, the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover claimed that intelligent design was a mere disguise for creationism but he was a political person whose ideas about science and religion were formed by the uneducated poor people from the 1920s "debates." When the authors of a creationist text book did a re-print following court rulings that creationism was a religious doctrine, they literally replaced every instance of "creationism" in the text with "intelligent design," you fucking ignorant wanker. His ruling was based entirely on evidence like this. If you actually studied the case instead of sticking your head up your dumb, hick ass you'd know this stuff. The Dover school system obviously was not the best system available. It made many mistakes most school systems today and many back then were trying to correct, the mistakes I showed you from 1925. If you got your science from schools instead of TV, the courts, and the internet you would know better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 14:04:38 GMT
Still has less scientists than Project SteveAnd I'm all for them dissenting from Darwininian evolution. There is a Nobel prize waiting for the guy that disproves the theory of evolution and come up with a better explanation Probably has something to do with the fact that scientists who sign up for this are risking their careers. The video briefly goes over that. Yeah, that's a bullshit lie right there. Doesn't your religion have a thing about not bearing false witness? I guess that's another part of the bible where you think god can go fuck himself.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 17, 2019 12:19:33 GMT
When the authors of a creationist text book did a re-print following court rulings that creationism was a religious doctrine, they literally replaced every instance of "creationism" in the text with "intelligent design," you fucking ignorant wanker. His ruling was based entirely on evidence like this. If you actually studied the case instead of sticking your head up your dumb, hick ass you'd know this stuff. The Dover school system obviously was not the best system available. It made many mistakes most school systems today and many back then were trying to correct, the mistakes I showed you from 1925. If you got your science from schools instead of TV, the courts, and the internet you would know better. The Dover school system had nothing to do with it, ignorant fuckwit. They did not write the textbook, they merely ordered it. You know jack shit about the trial and it shows.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 17, 2019 14:44:22 GMT
The Dover school system obviously was not the best system available. It made many mistakes most school systems today and many back then were trying to correct, the mistakes I showed you from 1925. If you got your science from schools instead of TV, the courts, and the internet you would know better. The Dover school system had nothing to do with it, ignorant fuckwit. They did not write the textbook, they merely ordered it. You know jack shit about the trial and it shows. What would you know about reading or textbooks?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 17, 2019 15:02:27 GMT
The Dover school system had nothing to do with it, ignorant fuckwit. They did not write the textbook, they merely ordered it. You know jack shit about the trial and it shows. What would you know about reading or textbooks? Your string of bullshit has nothing to do with the point I was making, which is that intelligent design is in fact just creationism with a polish. Deny it all you want, the facts which came out during the trial don't care about your idiotic delusions.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 17, 2019 15:07:31 GMT
What would you know about reading or textbooks? Your string of bullshit has nothing to do with the point I was making, which is that intelligent design is in fact just creationism with a polish. Deny it all you want, the facts which came out during the trial don't care about your idiotic delusions. You will simply delete my arguments without addressing them.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 18, 2019 11:32:43 GMT
You will simply delete my arguments without addressing them. Your "arguments" had nothing to do with what I was saying, idiot. You were just trying to change the subject after you got your ignorant ass handed to you. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 19, 2019 22:54:49 GMT
Isn't this a couple decades old at least? I recognise the text, certainly - which, incidentally, does not imply a dissent from Darwinism. Here's the text: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." And any scientist would agree with that: one should always be skeptical and carefully examine the evidence. The last I heard of this list, however, was when it turned out the vast majority didn't even have anything to do with biology, and several more had asked - in vain - to be taken off the list, once they realised what the list was for. Let me see if I can find... yes, here it is: It was only about 100 "scientists" long at that time, but I very much doubt the methodology behind the list has improved over the years. Meanwhile, here's a list of scientists who unequivocally accept evolution, all named Steve: ncse.com/list-of-steves
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 19, 2019 23:02:47 GMT
Your string of bullshit has nothing to do with the point I was making, which is that intelligent design is in fact just creationism with a polish. Deny it all you want, the facts which came out during the trial don't care about your idiotic delusions. You will simply delete my arguments without addressing them. You were the one who did just that, when you failed to address his point that it was not the Dover school system which wrote the textbooks. The textbooks weren't even published in the same state as the Dover school district, much less written by them. Dover is in Pennsylvania, whereas Of Pandas And People (originally "Creation Biology Textbook Supplements") was published in Texas.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Feb 19, 2019 23:23:09 GMT
Yes, sooner or later they start becoming 'more and more skeptical' because their dumb asses were wrong to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 20, 2019 0:04:05 GMT
You will simply delete my arguments without addressing them. You were the one who did just that, when you failed to address his point that it was not the Dover school system which wrote the textbooks. The textbooks weren't even published in the same state as the Dover school district, much less written by them. Dover is in Pennsylvania, whereas Of Pandas And People (originally "Creation Biology Textbook Supplements") was published in Texas. I actually did explain in detail that creationism versus evolution debates prevailed following the Scopes trial, and that better educated people had no reason to engage them. It is possible some old textbook somewhere had been written thereafter based on creationism versus evolution foolishness. There are very poor schools and very poor writers. The Dover school system favored the poorly educated, perhaps because the world was ready to move on and politicians saw an opportunity to win the new argument by dragging up an old and useless one. Since you'd never guess on your own, I'll tell you that's more or less what an ad hominem actually is. To say that intelligent design fails because you found proponents of creationism somewhere is a logical fallacy. Since you have such a short attention span ... Neither Darwin nor any science has held forth on the origin of life, only the origin of species. It is that failure that intelligent design addresses, not how species might vary, which was known for centuries and described in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 20, 2019 7:39:43 GMT
You were the one who did just that, when you failed to address his point that it was not the Dover school system which wrote the textbooks. The textbooks weren't even published in the same state as the Dover school district, much less written by them. Dover is in Pennsylvania, whereas Of Pandas And People (originally "Creation Biology Textbook Supplements") was published in Texas. I actually did explain in detail that creationism versus evolution debates prevailed following the Scopes trial, and that better educated people had no reason to engage them. The Scopes trial was not about creationism vs evolution, but whether or not Scopes was in violation of Tennessee law which placed a ban on teaching evolution. Scopes had taught evolution, and so he lost. But creationism never recovered (as it lost absolutely all the scientific arguments in court, and the trial was widely publicised), and subsequently the ban on evolution was since lifted so why you seem to think this was a win for creationism, I have no idea. You could at least look up the book before you comment. Of Pandas And People was not a creationism vs evolution book, it was a creationist book. Still is, in point of fact - though I doubt it is allowed as a textbook in public schools anywhere. The Dover school system had been teaching evolution. Then Creation Biology was published, and the Dover school system tried to push it into the curriculum. Teachers objected, on the grounds that it was unethical (and illegal) to teach religion as science. They then changed the name of the book to Of Pandas And People and replaced all instances of "God" and "Creator" with "designer", but left the book otherwise identical. And claimed that "it's not creationism, it's Intelligent Design (wink, wink), which is totally different. Honest." And then the Dover trial happened, and the ID crowd lost spectacularly. That is not what an ad hominem is. You're an idiot. That's an ad hominem, an attack on the person instead of the argument. And Intelligent Design fails because it has the exact same arguments as creationism. Creationism doesn't fail "because it's creationism", but because the arguments are rubbish. The only thing ID does different is to say "well, we're not trying to identify the designer..." So you don't use the Bible on the face of it, but the arguments still haven't changed. You still believe that " Creation Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent creator agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." Look who's talking. You still haven't addressed my post. I made one simple observation, which was that you dodged faustus5's argument. And here you are, dodging that. It is not a "failure", any more than germ theory fails to explain refraction into account. And Intelligent Design (actually creationism) doesn't address it, it attempts to - but as there are no arguments, being that it's all made up, it fails. Also, evolution doesn't explain "the origin of species" - you're focusing too much on the title of the one Darwin book you know, "On the Origin of Species". It is not preoccupied with origins, but rather the dynamics which allows for the diversity we see around us. Which you guys dispute, because it removes the requirement of an intelligent designer. If humans could arise from other species, the implication is that we are not specially made in the image of God as the Bible claims. And in turn it makes it less implausible that life itself could have arisen without an intelligent agency. Also, the Bible doesn't explain anything about nature, other than to claim that God made it all. It doesn't explain the diversity of species, and certainly not the principles of evolution. Selective breeding has indeed been known, not for centuries but for millennia, but the Bible does not even comment on why that works. The Bible doesn't have any answers. You pretend it does, but then you read the Bible with the answers already in hand. If the only knowledge you ever possessed was from the Bible, and nothing else, you would believe very different things. And that's all you wrote. You wrote all of the above, not once addressing the single thing I had to say in the post you replied to.
|
|