• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Quotes critical of evolution

T'ai Chi said:
That's your opinion. My opinion is that they are.

I'm sure all the views that this thread and that page will get will prove how no one is interested..
Click to expand...
Why do we need to read any of it - unless you first provide evidence that ANY of these quotes/papers have not already been debunked in peer-review.
The only science that matters in the end is that which has not and cannot be debunked under current knowledge, Please provide conclusive, currently undebunkable evidence that evolution did not and cannot have occured and I will read it - otherwise, I have too much reality to learn about to waste my time that way.:jaw-dropp
 
TobiasTheCommie said:
Where?

I found no interesting quotes there.
Click to expand...

How about this one?

"To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because
chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the
creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how
that happened . . Scientists have no proof that life was not the result
of an act of creation."/—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in
the Universe (1981), p. 19./
 
Rodney said:
How about this one?

"To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because
chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the
creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how
that happened . . Scientists have no proof that life was not the result
of an act of creation."/—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in
the Universe (1981), p. 19./
Click to expand...

And, [scientists] have had enough full knowledge of the steps, timing , materials, conditions necessary for exactly how long? Not to mention that initial creation does not answer evolution (which is better/more fully understood) (and clearly, demonstrably has and does occur).
 
Rodney said:
How about this one?

"To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because
chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the
creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how
that happened . . Scientists have no proof that life was not the result
of an act of creation."/—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in
the Universe (1981), p. 19./
Click to expand...

What's interesting about it? Even Richard Dawkins could have told you that much...
 
I can tell you as a scientist that I don't find the literature from 40 years ago to be all that useful, because the state of science has improved immensely since then. And I think in 40 years, the stuff I publish today will be similarly obsolete, or at least, seriously outdated.

Thus, even if these supposed quotes were legitimately questioning evolution, I wouldn't see it as all that significant.

This is the same old crap. Creationists still think that if they can discredit Darwin then they will have achieved some sort of victory. I can tell you, it would be about as relevant to the field of evolution as a chemist showing that Pauling's "Nature of the Chemical Bond" is mistaken would hurt the field of chemistry.

Of course, Pauling's book IS mistaken in many ways. Doesn't matter. Modern chemistry doesn't depend on what Pauling said. Nor does modern evolution depend on what Darwin said, nor even what was said 40 years ago.
 
hgc said:
I'm more interested in how liars ... you know ... catapult the propaganda. Not so much in the propaganda itself.
Click to expand...

That would be focusing on the person, not the idea. Of cousre you're welcome to continue doing that. Not sure what you're able to get out of that as far as real skeptical inquiry goes.
 
Rodney said:
How about this one?

"To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because
chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the
creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how
that happened . . Scientists have no proof that life was not the result
of an act of creation."/—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in
the Universe (1981), p. 19./
Click to expand...

Do you think this means scientists will never figure it out? Bio-chemists are still trying to figure out all the details of how life works at the chemical level. It's not surprising that they still haven't found a detailed theory of abiogenesis yet. The fact that the exact details haven't been worked out yet is hardly more damning of evolutionary theory than the fact that there was once no theory of electricity is damning of the existence of my computer.
 
T'ai Chi said:
That would be focusing on the person, not the idea. Of cousre you're welcome to continue doing that. Not sure what you're able to get out of that as far as real skeptical inquiry goes.
Click to expand...

Actually he used the plural "liars". He's focusing on the behavior of a group within the population. Sounds like psychology to me, yes? Hello? T'ai, are you listening?
 
T'ai Chi said:
That would be focusing on the person, not the idea. Of cousre you're welcome to continue doing that. Not sure what you're able to get out of that as far as real skeptical inquiry goes.
Click to expand...
Did you read what you quoted? The suggestion was not to focus on the liars, but on what they are doing, how they "catapult the propaganda". The process of attitude change and persuasion is quite a legitimate area of scientific investigation and skeptical inquiry.

In this particular case, it is by far the more interesting of the questions. The propaganda itself is old, and largely discredited or irrelevant. Its use in a disinformation campaign, however, is ongoing. Studying the attempt at persuasion is very useful, both in general and in regard to this specific practical application. Without an understanding of this sort of persuasive attempt, a naive individual might actually find it convincing.
 
Foster Zygote said:
This is classic T'ai. "That gap must be where God lives." For God to exist he must have come from somewhere, right?
Click to expand...

That always amazes me about people who cannot accept either abiogenesis or evolution. They can't grasp the gradient of non-life to life because they can't grasp how something apparently complicated can form from simpler interactions...

But they can grasp the spontaneous (or eternal) existance of a super intelligence?

Incredibly they still think they're still being scientific in some way.

Why is god free from having science applied to it?

Athon
 
Foster Zygote said:
Do you think this means scientists will never figure it out?
Click to expand...
I think the smart ones with a sense of humility have already figured it out -- it's too improbable to have happened by chance.

Foster Zygote said:
Bio-chemists are still trying to figure out all the details of how life works at the chemical level. It's not surprising that they still haven't found a detailed theory of abiogenesis yet.
Click to expand...
When the results of the Urey/Miller experiment were published 54 years ago, the thinking was much different. That experiment was thought at the time to have been one of the most important in scientific history, but it's led nowhere.

Foster Zygote said:
The fact that the exact details haven't been worked out yet is hardly more damning of evolutionary theory than the fact that there was once no theory of electricity is damning of the existence of my computer.
Click to expand...
Exact details? Try Square One.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom