You can easily look at it from the other direction, Tom, and still see the same evidences. add them up and...?? Creation or evolution-out-of-nothing? Your big problem is that you will simply not drop everything pertaining to religious viewpoinhts (from others) and follow the signs of the world's physical evidences, prove or disprove them, and make any general conclusion. Ask someone like Gary Parker why he finally gave up believing in the religion of evolution and came to accept what the evidence really says? My bet is that you are unwilling or incapable of distancing yourself like this.
-
Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
-
You may need to edit your signatures. When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.
A Platform Custom built for Joe Boudreault to expand his Position
- Thread starter Marius vanderLubbe
- Start date
You can easily look at it from the other direction, Tom, and still see the same evidences. add them up and...?? Creation or evolution-out-of-nothing? Your big problem is that you will simply not drop everything pertaining to religious viewpoinhts (from others) and follow the signs of the world's physical evidences, prove or disprove them, and make any general conclusion. Ask someone like Gary Parker why he finally gave up believing in the religion of evolution and came to accept what the evidence really says? My bet is that you are unwilling or incapable of distancing yourself like this.
Unless you assume that my knowledge of paleontology makes me an expert on engineering and biochemistry, your statement is only possibly a valid argument in a single case.
You've made the choice to be ignorant of a remarkable number of science. It's a concious choice at this point--enough references and data have been handed to you that anyone actually interested in the topic could easily learn at least something. Yet you have continuously failed to do so. You still don't know what a valid source is. You still don't know what makes one an expert in a field. You still refuse to acknowledge that most, if not all, of the works you reference have been debunked, either directly or indirectly (ie, the evidence is in the peer-reviewed literature). You still refuse to understand the way science works (the peer review system). I could go on. This is all stuff you are willfully ignoring.
Okay, I will!
You've made the choice to be ignorant of a remarkable number of science. It's a concious choice at this point--enough references and data have been handed to you that anyone actually interested in the topic could easily learn at least something. Yet you have continuously failed to do so. You still don't know what a valid source is. You still don't know what makes one an expert in a field. You still refuse to acknowledge that most, if not all, of the works you reference have been debunked, either directly or indirectly (ie, the evidence is in the peer-reviewed literature). You still refuse to understand the way science works (the peer review system). I could go on. This is all stuff you are willfully ignoring. I have. However, NONE of the definitions you've used for evolution are valid. The simple fact of the matter is that evolution is a jargon term, which are not typically included in dictionaries (and I know I've explained the problem with dictionaries before to you). Your understanding of the theory of evolution is NOT the general view of the theory--you're arbitrarily including cosmology, abiogenesis, and a host of other theories under one umbrella--so your statement is a bold-faced lie (I'd say "ignorant" but I've explained this to you quite patiently for several months now). I'm arguing that you should learn what you're talking about before criticizing it, and you obviously haven't done so.
Let's analyze this, folks:
1. Your religious beliefs shouldn't keep you from separating your ideas from your science. I agree heartily. Few manage to do this. I've studied tons of evidences from both sides and I concur with creationism based on that alone.
2. ". "Evolution" is not a religion, it is not a philosophy, it is not a moral code. It has simply been adopted by those who do have a philosophy, moral code or (in this case lack of) religion. Ummm… a religion it certainly IS. Looking at biological changes within species and projecting that this will cause untold changes into the future (even tho completely unproven) is religion to me: hoping that is what will happen! Philosophy, yes. But that's fine: philosophy is the reasoned search for truth. Moral code? Now, where did that stuff come from? Oh, yes… it came from natural selection which came from the environment etc etc. And here I was thinking it was all 'survival of the fittest' and so on. Everybody has a moral code, regardless of religious beliefs or backgrounds.
3. " If you are unable to seperate belief from objective theory then you are unable to create an objective theory.' I couldn't agree more, Tom. Funny thing is, you can't do this. You continue to drag God into the to the discussion when I ask you (scientifically) about stuff like decay rates, transition species, speed of light, sedimentations and the like. I can go on for ages in a discussion without once mentioning God or my 'religious beliefs' - can you do the same?
4. " As your lies have been proven many times in this discussion…" Completely untrue - so what that say about you, Tom? Over at Skeptoid.com, I pointed out your obvious refusal to acknowledge that you said something like "Why can't science prove something-from-nothing?" to which you refused to acknowledge the claim. I was slapped on the wrist for calling you out, not for any lie on my part (and later re-instated after private emails with Brian Dunning, who saw the truth); yet this same website has allowed virulent and worst-case-scenario name calling by posters there to continue, even after they warned them to desist. Seems that Skeptoid has it's own hypocritical standards, which are easily proven. And here at JREF, you again refuse to acknowledge that you stated that Richard Dawkins wasn't an evolutionist, when I proved otherwise, right from the man's own mouth. It's a sad case, tom, of you not recognizing your literary gaffs but yet throwing accusations at others like me. On top of that, I have extended you grace by apologizing - ie, allowing that you might possibly have simply not known anything about Richard Dawkins beliefs and statements.
5. " If you want to believe that "evolutionist" is a valid term for any kind of organised philosophy or religion you are mistaken." You're going to have to explain this one. It appears that you are entering into the play-with-words game once more. Gregory is already playing this game with his comments on ISMs etc. I don't have time or patience for word games, Tom. Simple straight-shooting language works the best for me. Of course, in this post, you maintain he (ie Dawkins) is an 'evolutionist', but elsewhere you lamented the use of these terms. Not very consistent, Tom.
So, Tom, I cannot wipe away or hide the fact that writers I suggest have such and such beliefs. This applies whether they are atheists or Christians or whatever. What I can do is to offer pure scientific discussions from them (and from me) and debate it all. It will be up to you to look at things from my worldview (a "what if" question, as it were) and consider it. That is how to handle theories and hypothesis. Example: if a resident of southeast Asia told me "I can't believe in this stuff called snow - water is not like that, in my experience", I can only reply, "It is in my experience. Look at it this way - and I'd proceed to explain global climates and the Hows and Whys of it all. I have actually had encounters like this. When you're unwilling to step into the shoes of a creationist and tell yourself, "OK, if this model is to be true, what can we expect to see around us?" On the other hand, you can follow the evidence and make a general conclusion, then form a theory or hypothesis, no matter how strange it may be. The only reason that evolutionists made theories of any kind to begin with was because they all first discarded the idea of God, then tried explaining the universe without that ingredient. Charles Darwin was no exception - he was initially biased against special creation not because of any science but because he threw God aside for petty reasons.
Finally, if everything is just opinions, then there are no theories worth considering, by anybody, period. Science just sits there in front of us all and let everybody have a go at it all. I would then ask you this: are all, of the authors I listed in the above 22 books (there are many more) simply expressing their opinions, and have no certainty of truth, then what do we do? What is the validity of your proofs, Tom? Where did you get them? Are those sources valid, or just more opinions? Where is your logic? How are your biases set aside for true science?
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Well since logic isn't really your strong suit and I can't be bothered with your little assessments of my abilities here goes. Your view of the evolution is incorrect. You've been informed numerous times of your error. You've been given the correct information many times and you insist on your incorrect understanding. This would be, and do try to keep up with me here, willful ignorance. I'm sure correcting you here will be just as effective as all the other times you've been shown your errors. One does hope you'll join the rational at some point though.
Than you are as ignorant of history as you are of science. I suggest reading "Darwin's Century"--it gives a play-by-play recount of how evolution came to be accepted, and this is certainly not it.
Social darwinism is a deeply flawed concept. For instance, you need to define "fittest", which in evolutionary terms merely means "has the best chance of passing its genes on to future generations". And no, this doesn't mean raping every woman one sees (though ducks apparently do that, to some success); K-mode and R-mode species have completely different methods of rearing offspring.
This is a bold-faced lie. You have studied the Creationist side of things. If you had studied the science side of things, you wouldn't make the basic errors you make.
Maybe if you asked honestly we'd be more inclined to discuss the science with you.
Then perhaps you should actually learn what the term evolution means, rather than playing wordgames?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Wow, Joe you go into such long winded and tedious detail, all of which is pointless. You can't seperateProf. Dawkins personal beliefs in a pop science book from his objective works in research, or from a general theory (which i'm not convinced you actually understand).
One can only assume by now you are "playing silly word games" because you have no idea how science works, but hey you said you did and you probably convinced yourself you do. You cant wipe away the fact somebody has a belief? Guess what. In science you do just that. All the time.if you refuse to acknowledge even the most basic foundations of science there is no point having a discussion with Joe, because the rules don't change for you. Good bye Joe.
One can only assume by now you are "playing silly word games" because you have no idea how science works, but hey you said you did and you probably convinced yourself you do. You cant wipe away the fact somebody has a belief? Guess what. In science you do just that. All the time.if you refuse to acknowledge even the most basic foundations of science there is no point having a discussion with Joe, because the rules don't change for you. Good bye Joe.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
"I've studied tons of evidence from both sides"
Have you no sense of integrity?
Have you no sense of integrity?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Said goodbye too soon. At the risk of another wordgame, in science there is no evidence "from both sides" or any side. There is the evidence. Theories are built based on that evidence. When you think evidence can be selected from one side or another, you have a selective bias. Yep AIG and other "scientists" still have bias issues invalidating their data, and should learn to be objective.
The arrogance and ignorance of due process is mouldering and stale. Joe has had ample oppertunity to produce good evidence. He has failed. He has had ample oppertunity to show he is capable of working in a framework of big boy science. He has failed. He is either not capable or not willing.
The arrogance and ignorance of due process is mouldering and stale. Joe has had ample oppertunity to produce good evidence. He has failed. He has had ample oppertunity to show he is capable of working in a framework of big boy science. He has failed. He is either not capable or not willing.
Go away, little man...
Tom, I'll ask you this again: are all of the authors I listed in the above 22 books (there are many more) simply expressing their opinions, and have no certainty of truth, then what do we do? What is the validity of your proofs, Tom? Where did you get them? Are those sources valid, or just more opinions? Where is your logic? How are your biases set aside for true science?
If you are unwilling to study the writings of other scientists in an unbiased way, you are the one who is wilfully ignorant. These writers, and others on a similar list, are not creationists but evolutionists.
[from Tom]
" If you refuse to acknowledge even the most basic foundations of science there is no point having a discussion with Joe, because the rules don't change for you. Good bye Joe."
Let's see, then: IF I don't understand basic science I would never have been able to function at all in electronics, engineering or mechanics, all fields which I've earned a living at. I would not have understood anything I have read over many many years. YET I have done just this very thing.
"When you think evidence can be selected from one side or another, you have a selective bias."
Your bias is very healthy, Tom - it shows in everything you write here. It was strongly evident from the very first statement you ever posted to me at Skeptoid away back when…
"Yep AIG and other "scientists" still have bias issues invalidating their data, and should learn to be objective."
AIG is by far not the only source I refer to - it is only one tiny corner of the scientific world at large. They are, however, the only site where the writers freely admit to the existence of bias, unlike ANY evolutionist site (like this one) which never admits it has a bias. Creationist scientists always address science apart from religions beliefs - but evolutionists cannot do this. They attempt to drag God into it all the time.
"….Joe has had ample opportunity to produce good evidence. He has failed. He has had ample opportunity to show he is capable of working in a framework of big boy science. He has failed. He is either not capable or not willing."
Your umpteenth Ad Hominem. You simply cannot pay attention to anything anybody tells you. My case was clearly stated from the beginning; my science (unlike your pseudoscience) was clearly explained and described, as are all my sources.
I challenge you to read just one book from the 22 books I recently listed (all by evolutionists) and report on it. Demonstrate your scientific aptitude, instead of blowing wind at everybody.
"Than you are as ignorant of history as you are of science. I suggest reading "Darwin's Century" --it gives a play-by-play recount of how evolution came to be accepted, and this is certainly not it."
If you are referring to the Loren Eisely book then I have no compelling reason to waste my time on it. I read Eisely before, and he does not defend and support evolution as much as simple reporting on it. He was a philosophical anthropologist who was only describing (albeit very poetically) the acceptance of this general theory from the 17th century onwards. This does not mean he validated or proved it in any way. The acceptance of modern evolutionary theory is well known, but the proof of it's theories is not. If you are going to accuse people of ignorance, learn something yourself first. You are unwilling to even recognize the worldwide discussions regarding the controversy. Somewhere in a remote corner of your mind you think that if you dismiss things or ignore them, they will go away. Not so.
Quote:
"Social Darwinism is a deeply flawed concept. For instance, you need to define "fittest", which in evolutionary terms merely means "has the best chance of passing its genes on to future generations…"
I clearly stated my position long ago - you ignore my premise at your own peril or stupidity, Greg. If you want to twist the argument around, I'm out of here. If you want to address the context of my (and other creationists) argument from our worldview, then be honest about it. We've all looked at your worldview.
Quote:
I've studied tons of evidences from both sides and I concur with creationism based on that alone.
This is a bold-faced lie. You have studied the Creationist side of things. If you had studied the science side of things, you wouldn't make the basic errors you make.
Ad Hominem all over the place here. I'm not falling for your name-calling bait. First, I suggest you demonstrate to us all how it is that you have knowledge of what it is I have read and what I haven't ready on scientific topics. I'd like to know that little psychic trick! Second, you are in error, not me, for claiming something to be fact when no facts are presented from your worldview. Third, I HAVE studied both sides of the controversy, with possible more input from the evolution side than from the creationist side.
Quote:
"Maybe if you asked honestly we'd be more inclined to discuss the science with you. "
You have yet to show an honesty in discussing science. Pick any single book from the list I provided and read it thoroughly and report back on it with the best honest effort you can conjure. I predict that if you do, you will A) arbitrarily debase such book and summarily dismiss it, as you have done with ALL of my references [yet you ask me to be held to your references and authors without question, and dismiss me as ignorant if I don't agree with them; and/or B) you would say the author is biased/misquoting/unreviewed in your journals etc etc. In other words, more pleading to a false Higher Authority, which is what most peer review is.
Quote:
I don't have time or patience for word games, Tom. Simple
Then perhaps you should actually learn what the term evolution means, rather than playing wordgames?
I know fully well what all of these terms mean, and then some.
according to Websters dictionary, evolution is:
Noun 1. (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals.[
Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] Over time variants with particular heritable traits become more, or less, common.
Since I also have proposed parallel discussions in species and scientific methods, here are some definitions I agree with as well:
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or 'cladogenesis,' as opposed to 'anagenesis' or 'phyletic evolution' occurring within lineages.[1][2] Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion.
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]
In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]
A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]
A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning etc etc.
Websters, Cambridge, Oxford, and Wikipedia dictionaries all generally agree in these. The bottom line in my argumets here is Origins, not just of biological species but of energy, matter, physical systems, and even social subjects. If you are unwilling to discuss in this wide format, say so. If you are ready to simply throw out more accusations, I will list them as fallacies and lies as you do so. I am not interested in your 'alleles' or minor changes within species, or in your alleged 'evidence' from fossils. I use both induction and deduction in my logic. You apparently use neither, as your hardcore insistence on fossil 'evidence' shows - fossils do not show ongoing changes, and neither does current biology, where it pertains to speciation.
A clue for you is the above-stated clause where we are told that "…a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning…". In that respect, evolution fails entirely.
A few more books by creationist writers (all of them scientists) are:
Sunderland, Luther D. "Darwin's Enigma" (Santee, CA: Master Book Publ., 1988), 180 pp.
Ackerman, Paul D. "It's A Young World After All: Exciting Evidences for a Recent Creation" (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986).
"Evolution: The Fossils Still say NO!" by Duane T. Gish *one of my favorites...
"Creation, The Facts of Life (How Real Science Reveals the Hand of God)" by Gary Parker
Read, John G. "Fossils, Strata and Evolution" (Culver City. CA: Scientific Technological Presentations, 1979). 64 pp.
"The Genesis Flood" by Henry M Morris & John C Whitcomb (scientific evidence of the global flood)
Rushdoony, Rousas J. "Mythology of Science" (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1967), 134 pp
Shute, Evan. "Flaws in the Theory of Evolution" (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966), 286 pp.
AND ALSO
Chittick, Donald E. "The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict" (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1984), 280 pp.
Clark, Harold W. "Battle Over Genesis" (Washington: Review and Herald, 1977), 239 pp.
Clark, R.T. and James D. Bales. "Why Scientists Accept Evolution" (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966), 113 pp.
The above books use empirical, observable, provable science.
These two websites are full of real science and information:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_01.html
http://evolutionfacts.com/index.htm
First off, I did not say that the book would teach you about evolution, only about the history of the theory. Very little of what you've presented here is new, and the majority of it was demonstrated to be false well over a century ago. A knowledge of history, while not providing data on the topic in and of itself, will prevent you from making the same errors as have been made in the past.
Secondly, there IS NO WORLDWIDE DEBATE ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AMONG THOSE WHO STUDY THE THEORY OR ASSOCIATED SCIENTISTS. This is not refusal to see it, or hidding my head in the sand. I've been to the conferences. I've read the journals. I read the journals. There's NO such discussion. P^3 doesn't document such a discussion. Neither does Paleontology. Neither does Science, or Nature, or Geology, or any other journal that I have read in search of paleontological data. You'd think that I would run across them, given the fact that my job requires me to be fairly well-versed in the paleontological literature.
No, you haven't. The sheer number of basic errors that you've made (as have been demonstrated, time and time again) proves this.
Joe, I don't CARE what you've read. I've read the academic literature, and it's obvious that you have not. The fact that you claim there is no evidence for evolution demonstrates this. Here: The fourth link down on this page demonstrates an old earth. The first page here shows ancient fossils. Glance around this site--it shows hundreds of thousands of fossils from the past 65 million years. To say that there is no data for evolution is to either be completely ignorant of the topic, or to lie.
I have pointed out, time and time again, that the first three are invalid sources for this discussion. This is an example of you not honestly participating in the debate. And frankly, you're talking to a paleontologist. I know more than Wikipedia.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Crivens! I did not find the samples I read from Joes list to be as unbiased, or flawless as he claims. Gosh, I can not possibly be as well read and- forget it. Joe, if you do indeed understand and work with science that just makes your failure to provide any good evidence, your open disdain for peer review and my "bias" (yes the fact I point out when your sources use flawed method or edit out inconvenient bits from the rules of thermodynamics MUST be a bias. Not a disdain for faux-science and bad methodology at all) were in the evidence and process (and not as you have shown in my opinion of the charlatans who claim it be science. Well done. We can add "bias" to the list of terms you don't seem understund in a context of the acadmeic) then why on Earth have you been trying so very hard to act completely ignorant and obtuse? Why, if you did understand the process of science would you call the bible Peer Reviewed, or claim Peer Review itself as a meer claimto authority. Why would you spout such bunk as the ideathat God created science so if you happen to believe in him you get to choose what is science?
I too work in Electrical Engineering, in the High Voltage field. I can attest that not all technical staff take an academic route into the field, or indeed ever read journals outside their own field ofexpertise, never submit papers or carry out studies. But it is true, if you ever had to write failure reports or fault diagnostics in your branch of work you should never have condoned the confirmation bias on AIG younot only defended, but promoted as a reasonable response to bias!
All you have proven Joe is that you KNEW many of your posts contained dubious links to bad evidence of poor providence, but you went ahead and posted them anyway. Sheesh.
Oh and you want somebody to demonstrate what you have read? Why, fromyour arguments it is pretty clear what you have not understood. Or is it what you did understand but deliberately misrepresented to further flawed arguments that still rely on a god you haven't, can't and wont define in a viable model? I'm not sure which you would prefer...
I too work in Electrical Engineering, in the High Voltage field. I can attest that not all technical staff take an academic route into the field, or indeed ever read journals outside their own field ofexpertise, never submit papers or carry out studies. But it is true, if you ever had to write failure reports or fault diagnostics in your branch of work you should never have condoned the confirmation bias on AIG younot only defended, but promoted as a reasonable response to bias!
All you have proven Joe is that you KNEW many of your posts contained dubious links to bad evidence of poor providence, but you went ahead and posted them anyway. Sheesh.
Oh and you want somebody to demonstrate what you have read? Why, fromyour arguments it is pretty clear what you have not understood. Or is it what you did understand but deliberately misrepresented to further flawed arguments that still rely on a god you haven't, can't and wont define in a viable model? I'm not sure which you would prefer...
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Who are you that I should be bothered with your opinion of where I should and should not participate?
You're choosing to be ignorant of science and you lie when you say that there is scientific debate about the merits of creationism. You even say below you can't waist your team studying something that shows you have evolution became an accepted theory.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Seriously, Dawinism Refuted drags out the bacterial flagellum claim again. This is science. Do at least a little reading on the current state of the research.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
What's really troubling is their kind's word sucks so very much and they act as if they should be taken seriously. Really, we're going to let this sort of crap into a science class. Get a grip.
And the second link is SO AMAZED that a hammer handle can be petrified so quickly!People who want to discuss geology should really bother to read up on a bit of geology first.
That's it? It speaks volumes on your own ignorance and arrogance and carelessness in actually reading other websites. Using your own format as demonstrated here, I could arbitrarily dismiss all of your arguments simple by saying that you won't accept any evidence other than what you see fits your own theory.
Tom, your credibility is still in question (if it even exists). You refuse to:
1. acknowledge your errors in what you have actually said in your posts. Example: you said, in regards to Richard Dawkins, that (quote from Dec.14) “But Dawkins is not an "Evolutionist", he is an athiest who happens to work in a related field.” When I rebuked you on this, you tried desperately to backtrack on it and replied with “As I said, he is an Athiest who also happens to have studied in a related field.” In direct contrast to this, his latest book is completely about the evolution theory as fact and he calims the tag of evolutionist throughout. The majority of his books are all about this. Blatant denial from you, Tom!
2. You stated: “His personal belief on the theory is of no consequence any more than the personal belief of Einstein has any baring on the validity of his theories.” Applying this to me, of course, your reverse yourself. You constantly claim that my Christian beliefs affect my take on science, in spite of the fact that I have asked valid scientific questions which you refused to address. Your beliefs (that Christians are anti-science and ignorant) is all over the place in your responses, as it is with Craig and Gregory.
3. You posted: “Just out of interest I can't find the peer review section in my bible…” This is total childishness. The Bible does not peer review itself. Yet the hundreds of thousands of books and articles published down through the ages on biblical topics of all sorts are definitely peer reviewed, and many by the secular press. This, Tom, is just one of your attacks on the Bible, a book you do not understand but love to ridicule. And if you even paid the slightest attention to the reference books I listed, you’d see that even evolutionists make positive comments on the validity of biblical creationism.
4. Your remarks about a Big Bang (at Skeptoid) still remain as a lie. You first claimed that creationism cannot validate itself as something special, but when you could not answer my question of “How do you get something from nothing?” you finally blurted out that science could do this and why not? Follow the stuff at Skeptoid #35, folks, and observe his lies.
5. Tom said: “I also wish Joe would learn the difference between secular publishers who have no religious agenda and publish books on science, and a publisher with an atheist agenda. University presses are secular by default, they have to remain objective.” There are at least two more lies in this statement. First, the phrase ‘no religious agenda’ is false. Evolution is both a religion and a philosophy, not a proven theory. This has been so amply demonstrated by both Christian writers and by evolutionist writers (my favorite is Hoyle) that to continue to claim it as science is pure hyperbole. Second, the idea that university presses have to ‘remain objective’ is one on the biggest ongoing jokes in academia. I have many teaching friends (some of them atheist) who confess that their positions and curriculums are clearly marked out and installed in favor of the evolution model which most of them tell me they do not accept. Most of the world’s colleges and universities are highly biased in this way. It’s not hard to prove.
6. Tom said: “…the views of authors are not always the views of the publishers.” Yet you entered this discussion months ago with the claim that there are tons of evidences for evolution. Are those ‘tons’ the views of authors or true evidence/ I see no reason to accept their views as fact, having read them. Consider:
7. You said: “he simply can not "win" on an objective evidence based discussion. He wants to discuss faith, which remains something we believe in despite of, not because of, logic or reason.” Let me see… I have yet to see you post a single article which was offered or suggested by me in which you explain the unscientific part of it. Where is my logic flawed, even if it is not quite clear to you? Where have I lied or mislead? In what way have I tried to use moral reasoning to indicate science? Was it in good response to your lame claims to some immoral God of your making? Where in recent postings have you indicated that any (even just one) of the above-posted authors have failed the scientific process? Those authors, by the way, are prominent evolutionists, except for the last list? Do you want another demonstration of why evolution is a religion? Not hard to do, and I was not the first one to show this.
8. Tom: “you should never have condoned the confirmation bias on AIG you not only defended, but promoted as a reasonable response to bias!” Again, this pretty much amounts to both a twisting of the truth and a misrepresentation of what I actually said. Go and read my post again, man! I have never said that AIG admits and promotes bias. What I have said is that they bare the first website and organization I have come across who have honestly indicated that worldview biases exist, but that they believe biases should be set aside in these discussions. Other Christian writers (Jason Lisle, for example) offer the best argument platforms I have seen yet on this, even going so far as to say that some creationist unfairly use bias in their discussions. I have never, ever, ever seen this sort of admission on an atheist or evolution website, nor have I ever heard a confession of possible bias from their writers. Yet they (you, Tom) constantly wield your evolutionist bias. You’re a finely tuned artist when it comes to twisting other person’s words, Tom.
9. You said: “…your open disdain for peer review…”. Try this: http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/. Of course, you’ll just deny this as well..!
10. Tom: “Why would you spout such bunk as the idea that God created science so if you happen to believe in him you get to choose what is science?” Can you give me a reference where I actually said that, or do you want to leave yourself open to yet another of your lies? First, you have to prove without a doubt that God does not exist and therefore did not create science. Otherwise, don’t call this reasoning ‘bunk’. Then you have to show where I said that belief in God is the only source for belief in science. I have continually stated that science is science, whether or not you believe in God.
11. Again you continue with: “…many of your posts contained dubious links to bad evidence of …”. Links are links, so what’s this ‘dubious’ junk? Show me one example of bad science from my links, as explained by you. This IS a discussion, not a trading of links, isn’t it? Further, explain what you mean by ‘poor providence’.
12. Tom: .. deliberately misrepresented to further flawed arguments that still rely on a god you haven't, can't and wont define in a viable model.” You lost this argument even as you began it, back when. I refer you all to the string at Skeptoid 35 once again. Tom, if you are unable to discuss the possibility of a God in context, aside from empirical evidence for evolution, just say so. There are different parameters for each position, neither compromising the other. I prefer to stick with hard science here, simple because it is obviously the only parameter you do (possibly) understand. Otherwise, you again fall into a whole number of logical fallacies.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Yes Joe. I do claim your Christian beliefs have biased your "science". Because your "science" IS BASED UPON THE BOOK OF GENESIS. If you can't see how that is different from your claims about Dawkins (and by extension evolution) then you are clearly an idiot. Your credibility is not in question, it is worthless. You said "god createsd science" several times over in Skeptoid. But feel free to lie about Joe, you havealready told pleanty of porky pies in your days.
Lets make this simple; Dawkins last book WAS NOT A SCIENTIFIC PAPER, IT WAS A POP SCIENCE BOOK. IF YOU CANT SEPERATE THAT FROM HIS ACADEMIC WORK IS DOES NOT MAKE ME IN DENIAL, IT MAKES YOU AS THICK AS TWO SHORT PLANKS YOU UTTER BERK. And this from a guy who knows how science works (because he said so?)
Oh and Joe, if you are advocating "creation" as hard science sooner or later you will have to discuss god in the context of science. So far from being "unable" to talk about it, I would really like you to supply a viable model for what god is and how he works so I know what evidence would prove he exists. Is that "in context" enough? I mean if you want to prove the Earth was created then you need to show how a creator might work. Any time you actually want to START talking in terms of "hard" science you feel free to go ahead... the bullcrap you say is "science" is mostly low grade works that suffer from the same biases and selective evidence (on rare occassions it has any). And again, as you cant seperate a book of opinions byDawkins from actual Peer Review works in journals (do you even know what peer review is yet? You DID say the Bible was peer reviewed too right?) then knowing when something sticks to good form may also be beyond your grasp (as seen with you whole schtick about AIG being ok as EVERYBODY does it and they are REAL scientists and EVOLUTION can't explain the moon). But don't worry Joe, one day, when you grow up, you too can have a modicum of credebility to questioned by an obnoxious liar who tries to hammer evolution into a religion to justify such bizzare claims as there is more than the empiracle, or he cant change his "theory" because of what it says in the bible, while still expecting that attitude to be called "science". The reason Joe, you don't a confession of bias on an evolution website, is that we can assume anybody who does real science can put aside their bias and make their work objective. The theory of evolution is based on evidence with out bias, and can be studied with out bias. Creationism can not, and wearing the bias on its sleeve is not a countermeasure. Oh and Joe, pointing outwhen you say something stupid is not my bias. I came to the decision you were an idiot objectively based on the evidence of your writings here. I have known some brilliant and intelligent creationists whom i hold a wealth of respect for. You are not one of them. I am not a masterat word games and I donttwist your words to show your bizzare arguments or accusations fall apart, I just point it out when they crumble to pieces on their own.
Lets make this simple; Dawkins last book WAS NOT A SCIENTIFIC PAPER, IT WAS A POP SCIENCE BOOK. IF YOU CANT SEPERATE THAT FROM HIS ACADEMIC WORK IS DOES NOT MAKE ME IN DENIAL, IT MAKES YOU AS THICK AS TWO SHORT PLANKS YOU UTTER BERK. And this from a guy who knows how science works (because he said so?)
Oh and Joe, if you are advocating "creation" as hard science sooner or later you will have to discuss god in the context of science. So far from being "unable" to talk about it, I would really like you to supply a viable model for what god is and how he works so I know what evidence would prove he exists. Is that "in context" enough? I mean if you want to prove the Earth was created then you need to show how a creator might work. Any time you actually want to START talking in terms of "hard" science you feel free to go ahead... the bullcrap you say is "science" is mostly low grade works that suffer from the same biases and selective evidence (on rare occassions it has any). And again, as you cant seperate a book of opinions byDawkins from actual Peer Review works in journals (do you even know what peer review is yet? You DID say the Bible was peer reviewed too right?) then knowing when something sticks to good form may also be beyond your grasp (as seen with you whole schtick about AIG being ok as EVERYBODY does it and they are REAL scientists and EVOLUTION can't explain the moon). But don't worry Joe, one day, when you grow up, you too can have a modicum of credebility to questioned by an obnoxious liar who tries to hammer evolution into a religion to justify such bizzare claims as there is more than the empiracle, or he cant change his "theory" because of what it says in the bible, while still expecting that attitude to be called "science". The reason Joe, you don't a confession of bias on an evolution website, is that we can assume anybody who does real science can put aside their bias and make their work objective. The theory of evolution is based on evidence with out bias, and can be studied with out bias. Creationism can not, and wearing the bias on its sleeve is not a countermeasure. Oh and Joe, pointing outwhen you say something stupid is not my bias. I came to the decision you were an idiot objectively based on the evidence of your writings here. I have known some brilliant and intelligent creationists whom i hold a wealth of respect for. You are not one of them. I am not a masterat word games and I donttwist your words to show your bizzare arguments or accusations fall apart, I just point it out when they crumble to pieces on their own.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
And before anybody asks, that last post was an opinion piece not a dissitation, just in case anbody thought I was biased and worried my evidence may have been selective, I don't count it asa work towards my academic canon and do not intend to use it as the foundation of a paerses. Just saying... None of my responses here or in Skeptoid can be classed as essays, studies, research or academia, yet Joe insists I have a "bias" that I make clear. Exactly how this has puts more weight on some data I gathered than others, or influenced my selection of usable evidence, caused me to ignore evidence or imply that my evidence was the only usable data in the outcome of papers I have yet to publish is beyond me, and leaves me with only two coclusions that appear likely; either Joe uses the word "bias" as "opinion", or he places too much weight on my "studies".
The Bias shown by creationist essays and writings, on the internet or in published works, are clear and have been discussed at length here and inSkeptoid. Creationist "studies" start from thepoint of view that God did it and look for evidence to support that claim. It is the WORK that suffers the confirmation bias not the WRITER who holds an opinion. They do not begin with a null hypothosis and consider ALL evidence. They do not, in short, base their hypothosis upon evidence, they seek the evidence that confirms it. Or they disproportionately credit the evidence that supports their view, even when it is statistically insignificant. The worst offenders misrepresent the laws of chemistry or physics to fit their theory, describing primordial earth as a "closed system" to suggest entopathy would have set in with out gods help, or juggling the probabilities of amino acids forming, stating that either everything is regulated or everything is random, and so forth.
I use "bias" in the technical sense. If Joe feels I have displayed a bias here I find it insulting but of no consequence. I dont expectmy statements to greatly influence any pertinent studies or research, and though I insist on following the Method here I do not delude myself that this is any more than a social exercise. For AIG, or any outlet claiming their works as "science" (including the essay Joe posted here) the stakes are somewhat higher. If they desire to be considered as "real" science I intend to hold them to the standards they claim. It is a true shame that so many follow a binary logic that evolution being wrong is the same as their theory being right, which is the cheapest of tricks.
The Bias shown by creationist essays and writings, on the internet or in published works, are clear and have been discussed at length here and inSkeptoid. Creationist "studies" start from thepoint of view that God did it and look for evidence to support that claim. It is the WORK that suffers the confirmation bias not the WRITER who holds an opinion. They do not begin with a null hypothosis and consider ALL evidence. They do not, in short, base their hypothosis upon evidence, they seek the evidence that confirms it. Or they disproportionately credit the evidence that supports their view, even when it is statistically insignificant. The worst offenders misrepresent the laws of chemistry or physics to fit their theory, describing primordial earth as a "closed system" to suggest entopathy would have set in with out gods help, or juggling the probabilities of amino acids forming, stating that either everything is regulated or everything is random, and so forth.
I use "bias" in the technical sense. If Joe feels I have displayed a bias here I find it insulting but of no consequence. I dont expectmy statements to greatly influence any pertinent studies or research, and though I insist on following the Method here I do not delude myself that this is any more than a social exercise. For AIG, or any outlet claiming their works as "science" (including the essay Joe posted here) the stakes are somewhat higher. If they desire to be considered as "real" science I intend to hold them to the standards they claim. It is a true shame that so many follow a binary logic that evolution being wrong is the same as their theory being right, which is the cheapest of tricks.
Last edited:
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
You are always harrumphing on about 'binary logic'; yet you haven't got it together enough to demonstrate normal logic, when all you can do is cry out "Look everybody! A creationist trying to argue science!!!
Want to enter into a simple thought-process demo on this, Tom? You failed miserably at it the last time we did, over at Skeptoid...
Besides: Even though I posted herein about 26 or more reference books (mostly by various atheists/evolutionists at this site for you to consider (every one of them denying modern evolutiuon for various reasons), you never followed up. Maybe it's because it was referred by a creationist? Even tho they are all by evolutionists..?
AND... I referred to at least two scientific websites containing tons of valid scientific evidence against evolution... Again: maybe you're too lazy/scared/obtuse/biased to follow them thoroughly.
I wish I had the instantaneous discermnent you seem to have in interpreting everything like you do as being either bogus or not.
And... I certainly do know all about peer reviews and its inherent fables...
And I suppose you think that bozos like Ken Miller refuted this? He doesn't know how to argue coherently, re his hilariously stupid video on the mousetrap!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU
Another video tried to simplify the flagellum argument by showing a simpler form of flagellum functioning with less parts. Absolutely stunning in it's stupidity, by the way. A simpler flagellum, functioning? It really was great to see how it backed up Behe's work, not destroy it.
Who doesn't know science? (certainly not real (creationist) scientists.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
What like the "real" scientists who forget the third law of thermodynamics states that entophy is tended towards in a closed system. Or suffer confirmation biases. Or deliberatrly misrepresent the probability of amino acids forming randomly, claim that geology is wrong based on theage of the bible rather than testable evidence, misrepresent the process of fossilisation as well as how many fossils there "should" be, deliberately try and prove carbon datingwrong by setting "experiments" outside of the operational limits of the testing range... those "real" scientists. What Joe has (oh so cleverly…) done is chosen a single scientist who has produced a dumb video and said "look, you is all dumb losers!" Which is slightly different from us pointing at the sources he has referenced (AIG anyone?) and establishing why the sources are flawed. For all his claims to be well read he should know how his finger pointing there is dumb, and why the only fault of the video was being oversimplified.
Now, if you want to talk "real hard science" how about a viable model for what a god is and how he might go about creating a universe. You know something we could test. With real science. Or he could try reading about the evolution ofsuch beings in a more reliable source. Life, a short Biography by Fortey for example. Or any number of articles in more reputable journals. Ones which are peer reviewed (you know like Joe says the bible was.)
Now, if you want to talk "real hard science" how about a viable model for what a god is and how he might go about creating a universe. You know something we could test. With real science. Or he could try reading about the evolution ofsuch beings in a more reliable source. Life, a short Biography by Fortey for example. Or any number of articles in more reputable journals. Ones which are peer reviewed (you know like Joe says the bible was.)
I'm confused as to why I should read the mere opinions of engineers, rather than paleontologists and biologists, when discussing evolution. Yeah, they're real scientists--however, they're experts in irrelevant fields.
And why do these "real" scientists avoid scientific conferences? And journals?
And why do these "real" scientists avoid scientific conferences? And journals?
Nice to see how you take the word 'misrepresent' and illustrate how you are so good at doing that, Tom! And look, folks: here he is deliberately dragging theism into a scientific discussion. Because he doesn't know how to stick to a topic and debate it normally.
Billions of years, Tom? You got proof for that?
One example, just one example, provable by repeatable experiment, of transition of species. Just merely one! Can't do? Oh dear...
Looks like it's back to the drawing board for student Tom... but we've been there, did that...
And I, for one, am confused as to why I should read the mere opinion of one here, who claims to be a palaentologist, as to having the truth of the entire world wrapped up so smugly...?
Age of the universe is irrelevant to the origin of life???!!!
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,956
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
Now here's the problem. None of them are scientists except in your mind. Duane Gish? Puleeze.
Anyone writing a creationist tome is by definition not a scientist, as they have discarded the scientific method in favor of ancient myths and fairy tales.
This is why I hate debating YECs--they are, by and large, dishonest. For example, I have never stated that the age of the universe is irrelevant to life. I have stated that the scientific definition (which Joe has continued to refuse to use, preferring non-scientific definitions) of evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. I've also stated that hwo the universe started is both irrelevant to allele frequencies and is outside of my area of expertise. Joe has confused an honest admission of the limits of my knowledge with a refusal to discuss something, and continues to attempt to stretch the meaning of the key word under discussion until it no longer HAS a meaning.
At least he's consistent. The "scientists" he quotes are so far outside of their areas of expertise that it's ludicrous to expect them to have informed opinions on the topics they're discussing; however, because Joe doesn't recognize experts as having limited areas of expertise, he's free to quote whoever he wants on the premise that "They're an expert" or "They're a scientist". It's equivocation--equating expertise in one area with expertise in another--but then, most YEC arguments are.
Oh, and Joe: Where is the "controversy" over evolution at GSA? If it's a world-wide, hotly debated topic I'd expect to find at least a FEW talks about how evolution, sedimentology, stratigraphy, geophysics, structural geology, etc. ad nauseum are wrong during the largest gathering of geologists in America. However, every time I've gone GSA has been lacking in that department....
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
So, theism? Not at all Joe. Your position is that the Universe was created by a "God". I am asking you, in terms of science, to define that "god", what it is, what mechanism it used to create the universe, and the limits of its existence as a model we can prove or disprove. That is called "science". You have claimed to understand it on several occassions, so try to understand it now. If you would rather I used the term "Space Wizzard" or "Super Intelligent shade of blue", but, if your claim is that "Real Scientists" believe the world was created by an intelligence, and you wish this to be a viable theory, supply a model, based on the available evidence, to show what form of intelligence produced the universe through what mechanism. If using the term "god" turns any discussion into the theological then congratulations, Creationism can not be called "Science", or its supporters "Scientists," they are philosophers and theologians. If on the other hand you insist they are "scientists", then you can not reasonably expect to cry "theism" every time a key aspect of your theory is mentioned.
So Joe which is it going to be? Are you going to define a model for the "Non specific entity and method responsible for universal creation" (here after to referred in shorthand as "God", the recognised term for such a being in common parlance), or are all your "Real (creationist) Sceintists" also theologists? Do you wish to have the cake or have eaten it?
Moving on...
Billions of years? Yes, I have very good proof of that Joe. Background radiation from the Big Bang, is the most interesting, but frankly, the boring proof is in the form of light. We can observe light from stars that have been travelling for hundreds of millions of years. We know it took hundreds more to create those stars (we have observed stars being born) and we have observed the effects of stars that have had time to not only form, but live and die. We know, from the constant nature of light in a vaccuume, that the minimum age of the universe is several hundred million years, and we have reasonable evidence to suggest that the universe was old when the stars expelled those photons.
On the other hand you have "evidence" the universe is six thousand years old based upon a text the providence of which can not be proven or reasonably assessed. Theories that support this age are based on a selective bias, only picking the evidence that supports the claim rather than looking at the whole of the evidence. The worst offender is "C-Decay". A theory that both attempts to prove, and be proven by the age of the universe in the bible. The speed of light must change because the universe appears older than the bible allows, and because the universe appears older than the bible allows the speed of light must change". Of course, the speed of light is under no obligation to do any such thing based on the words of a book. The speed of light is also, through providence of being a very useful tool, studied intently across the world. An example I like to give is the lazer we bounce off the moon on a regular basis to prove man went there. We know the speed of light. We know the possition of the moon, and the pattern of its orbit. We know that the reflecting plates on the moon bounce the lazer back to the point of origin. Should the speed of light be changing, we would see the results as the moon drifting further away as the light takes longer to return. Yet it does not. Lazer labs across the world, using these tools to measure distance or time, have no noticed no shift in calibration. We have not noticed the results of spectrographic testing of materials lose accuracy or shift away. It would appear, that bar gravitational anomolies that distort the path of light, or refraction through materials like air, the speed of light C in a vacume is indeed a constant.
So in short, should the Universe not be billions of years old, we know with certainty that it is hundreds of millions years old, and not thousands. That we can see stars more than six thousand light years away, and know that another galaxy is further away still (on the simple principle, it is behind them)we can consider it proven that the universe is, in your terms "old". Certainly old enough to contradict the six thousand year cap given by Creationists of the Biblical Literal bent.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Just give me one example of a diety capable of creating a universe, provable by a repeatable experiment. Just merely one...
Can't do? Hmmm. Worked oput why that challenge was a) ignorant of what can be expected from repeatable experimentation among the varied forms of evidence gathering, and b) not going to help the case for Creationism?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Yes, why would the opinions of a Palaentologist be at all relevent to a discussion of evolution? And, erm, I am struggling to find where poor Dinwar stated the age of the universe was irrelevent to biogenesis. Only to evolution. Which to be fair is an entirely true statement. Evolution is only concerned with the frequency at which allele of species change.
What was that you said about "twisting" and "wordgames" again Joe?
How, exactly, could such an experiment be run? I mean, you've rejected the fossil record (through completely misunderstanding it, and horribly mangling the principles of hydrology and fluid dynamics), and even by evolutionary theory such experiments would 1) take enormous amounts of time and 2) be likely to produce different transitional forms (Gouldian contingency). That's not to say that there's no predictability--we can reliably predict, for example, strains of flu virus--just that you're demanding a historical science produce data one would expect from physics. Historical sciences don't work that way, as has been explained to you. The data we provide is very high-quality (and this irrational demand of yours is by no way a counter-argument to the field), just of a different nature.hereisjoe said:
Besides, many, many examples of transitional species have been provided to you. You're retreating to a misapplication of the concept of reproducibility in order to continue to pretend that you have some sort of argument against evolution. You don't.