Your favorite ID/YEC 'science' paper?

[tas8831]

Isaac Newton was an alchemist for example, but we didn't throw out Newtonian physics because of it.

Speak for yourself!

 

[tas8831]

Eh... With that logic, protestant Christianity is anti-semetic because Martin Luther was. Let's be intellectually honest, now.

As I'm sure you know, one of the several antics of YECS/IDCs is to never think through their arguments to see if they can be used against themselves. And then when such opportunities arise, they either go silent, ignore it entirely, or try to justify their position. With more nonsense.

 

[firedragon]

I see you don't know your fallacies. His science was debunked. Not a fallacy.

Thats not what I was calling a genetic fallacy. Its the fact that you said he is a philosopher and that's the reason which is a genetic fallacy.

What about him? He is not a creationist, he just won't give up his pet notion that orangs are more closely related to humans than chimps are, and has gone so far as to attack an author (who had been killed in a terrorist attack), accusing him of fraud. Well, it was his co-author and lab tech, Grehan, but still. That is pretty sleazy.

So Schwartz is a creationist you said. That is another genetic fallacy.

Nevertheless, I would like to know where he claimed to be a creationist. Could you please cite him saying that?

Thanks.

 

[Justanatheist]

You would of thought this thread would be full of interesting papers to digest............................................................................................or maybe not!

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon - here is another (re:Tompkins) . Most interesting to note that after the initial post and one response, the author was blocked from responding to Tomkins' "rebuttal". I am shocked the the creationists allowed Ace's lengthy, detailed take-down to remain in the first place.

I must apologise I didnt understand this post.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nope. Not only are all people equally evolved but so is anything living. We all have evolved for about 3.8 billion years.

So we just stopped? Interesting. Especially because you can find articles all over the place saying the opposite.

 

[Heyo]

So we just stopped? Interesting. Especially because you can find articles all over the place saying the opposite.

Who said we stopped? We are constantly evolving - just like every living thing. Evolution of a species only stops when the species goes extinct.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Who said we stopped? We are constantly evolving - just like every living thing. Evolution of a species only stops when the species goes extinct.

For all people to be equally evolved they would all have to have the exactly same DNA. A population that is inbred for example could not be said to be as evolved as a healthy population.

 

[SkepticThinker]

For all people to be equally evolved they would all have to have the exactly same DNA. A population that is inbred for example could not be said to be as evolved as a healthy population.

You don't understand evolution.

Perhaps try reading through some scientific papers on the subject.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You don't understand evolution.

Perhaps try reading through some scientific papers on the subject.

That's not helpful. And I just did.

 

[firedragon]

You don't understand evolution.

Perhaps try reading through some scientific papers on the subject.

Just evolution or the gradual random natural selection?

 

[firedragon]

Nope. Not only are all people equally evolved but so is anything living. We all have evolved for about 3.8 billion years.

How did we evolve. Is there any scientifically proven mechanism undisputed by science?

 

[Heyo]

How did we evolve. Is there any scientifically proven mechanism undisputed by science?

Yep. Random mutations and natural selection. But unlike others I won't commend you read up on that. You won't understand it as you have no or a wrong conception of science. You should read up on what science is and how the scientific method works.

 

[firedragon]

Yep. Random mutations and natural selection. But unlike others I won't commend you read up on that. You won't understand it as you have no or a wrong conception of science. You should read up on what science is and how the scientific method works.

This is one of the statistics in the arrogance some atheists display. Thanks for that. Great character.

 

[firedragon]

Yep. Random mutations and natural selection. But unlike others I won't commend you read up on that. You won't understand it as you have no or a wrong conception of science. You should read up on what science is and how the scientific method works.

Anyway, can you show me the "scientifically proven mechanism undisputed by science" behind the darwinian mechanism?

 

[Heyo]

Anyway, can you show me the "scientifically proven mechanism undisputed by science" behind the darwinian mechanism?

Nope. As I said, you lack the groundwork. Otherwise you wouldn't talk about "scientifical proof" (which doesn't exist) or "undisputed by science".

 

[firedragon]

Nope. As I said, you lack the groundwork. Otherwise you wouldn't talk about "scientifical proof" (which doesn't exist) or "undisputed by science".

You assess that darwinian mechanism is absolute?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's not helpful. And I just did.

Sure it is.
Maybe you're doing it wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just evolution or the gradual random natural selection?

I'm not sure of the extent of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You assess that darwinian mechanism is absolute?

Not sure what this question means.