Are your degrees just diploma mill certificates in theology?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based
- Thread starter Patriottechsan
- Start date
If there was a Dissent from Henry Morris list, I bet it would only have a 1,000 on it too. A 1,000 pages.
Astrophile
Active Member
There's many a true word spoken in jest, and comedians are able to make valid points in the course of being amusing.
The point that I am trying to make is that the 'Dissent from Darwin' poll is essentially dishonest; it pretends that the scientists who signed the poll were denying the reality of evolution, and thereby endorsing intelligent design or creationism, whereas what the poll really asked the scientists to say was that they thought that the current theory of evolution is incomplete, and that the evidence for the theory should be carefully examined. Of course the current theory of evolution is incomplete; show me a scientific theory that isn't. Of course the evidence for the theory of evolution, and of every other scientific theory, should be carefully examined; it is only by carefully examining the evidence that scientists are able to find the flaws in a theory and to improve it.
Skip Evans - Doubting Darwinism through Creative License - points out that the Discovery Institute added the word 'Darwinian' to its quotation from the PBS series Evolution 'all known scientific evidence supports evolution', thus changing the meaning of the statement, and that 'the signatories are described as dissenting from "Darwinism"' but not necessarily from evolution.
The fact is that there is no scientific evidence for a young earth, special creation of living organisms, or flood geology. If the poll had been honest, and had asked professional scientists working in the relevant fields to endorse statements supporting such young-earth-creationist doctrines, there would probably not have been fifty signatures, let alone a thousand.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Please, don't make us laugh. You are the one that does not even have a high school level of scientific literacy. You believe sites that have zero credibility. You have not been able to name one problem.
if you want to start at the beginning so that you will not repeat your errors I will be glad to cover the basics with you.
No, I said a cyclone on Xmas day was one of the reasons I began to doubt the Christian God. I was still a Christian for many years after that but the doubts kept coming along with zero evidence of their being a God so I sat down and read the bible for myself and realised it's just a series of stories made up by humans to explain the world around them. I went on to do my own research of various other Gods, that research continues but I am yet to find evidence to support any of them. On the other hand evolution has much evidence to support it.
I chopped the rest of your post but I do sympathise with you.
The list has been thoroughly researched by others. I remember reading a report where they tried to contact all the people who had signed, some said they didn't realise what it was they were signing, some denied signing it, some couldn't be traced (it was almost like they had made up names to get to their 1,000 target), some were not scientists at all but lab assistants. You can find this info easily enough on the internet.
ecco
Veteran Member
Question: How can you easily tell when someone doesn't really understand a subject?
Answer: When they post links with no accompanying commentary. That's a clear sign they either haven't read the article or they have and don't understand it.
It's even more telling when they post links to several articles. The more articles they link to, the less they actually.
It's really, really bad when they post articles from friendly sites and still cannot add any commentary in their own words.
ecco
Veteran Member
Here is some truth for you. On the page titled "The Law of Biogenesis [Part I]", the author of the website does what many dishonest creationists do; he makes out of context quotes.
The course he cites is by:
Robert M. Hazen, Ph.D.
Clarence Robinson Professor of Earth Science, George Mason University
The course is here:
https://archive.org/stream/LearningCourses/Origins of Life/Origins of Life_djvu.txt
It is long but is definitely worth at least a long look.
As an example of the deceitfulness of this website which Patriottechsan so reveres... the website quotes Hazen intentionally incompletely: (emphases in the original)
If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicated in a program of lab experiments.
From the course we get a more complete picture of Hazen's actual views:
3. If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt
to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicated in a program
of lab experiments.
4 . The other possibility is that the universe is pregnant with life. Perhaps nature is organized in such a
way that life emerges inevitably as a consequence of chemistry—what chemistry Nobelist Christian de
Duve calls a “cosmic imperative.” If that’s true, then scientists can fruitfully study life’s origins in the
lab.
So, I have to ask Patriottechsan;to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicated in a program
of lab experiments.
4 . The other possibility is that the universe is pregnant with life. Perhaps nature is organized in such a
way that life emerges inevitably as a consequence of chemistry—what chemistry Nobelist Christian de
Duve calls a “cosmic imperative.” If that’s true, then scientists can fruitfully study life’s origins in the
lab.
Were you aware of the deceitfulness of the website you linked to four times? Is this the kind of deceitfulness that you approve of? Were you being intentionally deceitful by passing off those links to us?
Yeah Patriottechsan, ... admit the truth.
ecco
Veteran Member
I read. I found lies. Didn't you read? Didn't you find lies?
See post # 568 above.
Please tell us "Who is being dishonest?"
ecco
Veteran Member
No.
We are just smart enough to spot deceitful Creationist websites when we see them.
We are just smart enough to see how authors of deceitful websites lie to play to their gullible readers.
We are just smart enough to know when Creo posters copy and paste lies from lying websites.
Maybe, instead of copy/pasting from lying websites, you should copy/paste from Jesus to remind yourself what he thought about liers.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Yet again, you refuse to acknowledge the numerous times we have pointed out that the "list" you gave is outright fraudulent. You are peddling a lie.
Edit - some grammar and spelling corrections.
There is no such law because there is no known reason why life can't spontaneously arise from non-life.
You have nothing to offer except repetitious, unsupported claims, logical fallacies, and orphan links. You don't even offer a response to what is written to you.
You can't help anybody posting like that.
Not if you mean biological evolution. Nobody claims what you say except perhaps creationists misrepresenting what is actually said to them.
These types of statistical sleights-of-hand such as Hoyle's Fallacy have no power of persuasion with educated critical thinkers, because people like you and Hoyle use an improper mathematical model for the physical process - one which assumes that all steps arose independently from all of the ones coming before. That's not what is hypothesized.
It would be like formulating the odds of a spherical earth arising by considering the odds of the debris that accrued in terms of each piece randomly colliding with the accruing mass in a way that acquires a nearly spherical shape, when actually, because of gravity, these pieces are not merely showing up where they need to be by chance, but are being drawn in.
The creationists, seeing the sphere, presumes intelligent design, because a sphere appears designed. What are the odds of all of those pieces finding one another and forming a sphere rather than a mountain chain? Well, if one understands the process and sets up the mathematics correctly, it turns out that the odds are closer to 1 (certainty) than 1 in 10E+40
You fail to see the difference between appears designed (to you) and is designed.
More likely, none of us will know anything after death.
What would you tell a Muslim saying the equivalent (mutatis mutandis) to you about Allah? You may not like what follows death, but, he admonishes you that you won't be able to say that you weren't warned.
That's what others think when you post your warnings. Why believe such things?
Double fail: Orphan links to creationist sites.
You've already been told no. Make your own case, and support it with links from mutually agreeable sources if you like.
The creation apologist's basic toolkit.
My wife and I spent 11 years in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, nicknamed "The gateway to the Ozarks." Not surprisingly, we were midway between Knob Lick, MO and Cooter, MO. The hillbillies were better people than many of the townspeople.
How about the idea that "he" is poorly written software - a paragraph generator that cannot understand or answer questions, nor hit a Reply button, nor avoid endless repetition?
There is no such law because there is no known reason why life can't spontaneously arise from non-life.
You have nothing to offer except repetitious, unsupported claims, logical fallacies, and orphan links. You don't even offer a response to what is written to you.
You can't help anybody posting like that.
Not if you mean biological evolution. Nobody claims what you say except perhaps creationists misrepresenting what is actually said to them.
These types of statistical sleights-of-hand such as Hoyle's Fallacy have no power of persuasion with educated critical thinkers, because people like you and Hoyle use an improper mathematical model for the physical process - one which assumes that all steps arose independently from all of the ones coming before. That's not what is hypothesized.
It would be like formulating the odds of a spherical earth arising by considering the odds of the debris that accrued in terms of each piece randomly colliding with the accruing mass in a way that acquires a nearly spherical shape, when actually, because of gravity, these pieces are not merely showing up where they need to be by chance, but are being drawn in.
The creationists, seeing the sphere, presumes intelligent design, because a sphere appears designed. What are the odds of all of those pieces finding one another and forming a sphere rather than a mountain chain? Well, if one understands the process and sets up the mathematics correctly, it turns out that the odds are closer to 1 (certainty) than 1 in 10E+40
You fail to see the difference between appears designed (to you) and is designed.
More likely, none of us will know anything after death.
What would you tell a Muslim saying the equivalent (mutatis mutandis) to you about Allah? You may not like what follows death, but, he admonishes you that you won't be able to say that you weren't warned.
That's what others think when you post your warnings. Why believe such things?
Double fail: Orphan links to creationist sites.
You've already been told no. Make your own case, and support it with links from mutually agreeable sources if you like.
The creation apologist's basic toolkit.
My wife and I spent 11 years in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, nicknamed "The gateway to the Ozarks." Not surprisingly, we were midway between Knob Lick, MO and Cooter, MO. The hillbillies were better people than many of the townspeople.
How about the idea that "he" is poorly written software - a paragraph generator that cannot understand or answer questions, nor hit a Reply button, nor avoid endless repetition?
Last edited:
lickylasagna
New Member
I think that the world is a cube
Everyone knows it's a pyramid.
I recall you mentioning this before. I thought it was interesting how close in the degrees of separation that we were. Well, I do not remember the part about Knob Lick and Cooter, but I am familiar with those places on a couple of different levels.
Some of the country folk are very wonderful people.
I like that idea. It certainly fits what we see. A poorly constructed bot that cannot respond following the structure here.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
How many signers of the dissent list are experts in the field of evolution? Since you are so familiar with these scientists maybe you can supply the names that have expertise in evolution to make a meaningful statement of dissent? You seem so well informed this should be easy for you.
He seems to have departed, probably off enlightening a new bunch of heathens, we were all converted by his thoroughly convincing arguments.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So you are saying that the vast, vast majority of actual scientists aren't able to see that the whole of biology is "bad science", but you somehow can?
Macro evolution is nothing more or less then multiple adaptions accumulated over several generations.
Every new generation adds its own adaptions, while inheriting those of their ancestors.
To say that macro evolution can't happen, is to say that off spring doesn't inherit the (mutated) genes of parents. But off course, off spring DOES inherit the (mutated) genes of parents. And thereby, adaptions accumulate over generations.
Speciation is a gradual and vertical process.
Vertical, in the sense that species speciate into sub species.
Canines produce more canines with variation and eventually the accumation of those variations over generations will result in subspecies of canine. Which are still canine.
Indeed, evolution never produces "brand new" species.
It will produce subspecies. Which is far from "brand new". Instead, they are very very very similar to the ancestral species.
Yes. Or subspecies thereof. Which, off course, are all also still rose, wheat, corn, dog , etc.
It sounds like you don't really understand how evolution works.... Why else would you think that what you are saying is somehow a problem for evolution?
Euh..... we do it all the time.
In agriculture, in breeding programs,....
Look at all the different types of dogs we by using the principles of evolution, by artificially selecting breeding pairs.
Or look at things like broccoli, brussel sprouts and other kinds of gabbage.
Did you know that all of those come from the same wild mother plant?
Yes.
Indeed.
Humans are still apes.
They are still primates.
They are still mammals.
They are still tetrapods.
They are still vertebrates.
They are still eukaryotes.
Yes, indeed.
Why on earth would we go to a site called "apologetics press" to get information on a theory of biology, of which it is known that religious people have a religious problem with, because it is incompatible with their fundamentalist religious beliefs?
When you find a lump on your body, do you have it checked out by a doctor or by your car mechanic?
Here's an idea: if you wish to learn about evolutionary biology, perhaps check out the work of actual evolutionary biologists?
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
I reviewed the 1000 signers which of course are predominantly heavy into religion and none qualified to discuss evolution except from someone outside the field. One in particular is Doctor Edward Peltzer who testified in the Kansas Evolution Hearings to introduce intelligent design into schools which gave him the dubious honor of being listed in the encyclopedia of American Loons - not a reference to the bird - for his testimony. The testimonies are available at www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo3.html. What is interesting is they all stalled on the age of the earth before most on continued questioning finally agreed it was probably 4.5 billion years old (although some other testifiers said there is some room for the possibility of only 5000 years old) and most stated that supernatural things should not be taught in a science classroom but then tried to circle their way around how intelligent design should be included. His support is another example of the misuse of information for the indefensible Intelligent design argument.