Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?

T'ai Chi said:
When you can't talk about the actual article, talk about the person who posted a link to the article, or even things like silly English stuff, nitpicking about what that person typed in a title.

Seems to be proper skepticism soi far. ;)
Click to expand...

I know you wish to post mainly about other Members rather then the thread's original topic but could I ask you to go back to the original topic of the thread and answer my question? Thanks.
 
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...00003/art03997;jsessionid=eks9tbe017k31.alice
I'm assuming that the above is the article mentioned in the Discovery Institute piece.

It seems that the researcher, Douglas Axe, has discovered something unexpected and profound about in vivo constraints on amino acid sequences which are unrelated to the enzymatic action of the protein. His interpretation of this is that there are subtleties of cellular context that have a decisive effect on the efficacy of an expressed amino acid sequence.

The alternative interpretation advanced by Bruce Chapman and John West is that these residues are required for biological action not due to intracellular conditions, but because of...God. God smote the TEM-1 bgr-lactamase when it went out into the cytoplasm looking like a tart, covered only by asparagine. Everyone knows that Glutamine is God's non-polar neutral amino acid with a low Hydropathy index. Any biblical scholar can quote you several biblical passages which he can interpret as saying just that.

So come on, how can there be any debate? Duh. It's no mystery. It was God. God did it in the microtubule with the glycosyltransferase. Put that in your peer reviewed journal and publish it.

The sad thing is that I actually think the ID people have a point. It's one I don't agree with, but they can do better arguing for it than this.
 
Dancing David said:
Since you almost never respond to the critiques of the articles and never seem to answer the question asked, it would seem that questioning your motives is important.

And when some one did answer your silly topics, as in your mathematician disagreeing with evolution, not only do you ignore the critiques of the original article but you make some other really foolish statements like, "why don't you get that published". I am very willing to read your silly article and critique it, but are you capable or willing to answer the questions people ask.

there have been critiques of it in this thread.

You are a poseur Tai, you are not here to debate the issue, you are just a troll and probably a snot to boot. You most likely gets some sense of glee by pretrending to address the weak points of evolution.

So I will offer a critique and you will ignore it. because you are a coward who can't even defend your thoughts and concepts.
Click to expand...

It's rather pathetic. T'ai claims to see no critiques of his posts because the many responses are from people he has placed on his 'ignore' list for, well, critiquing his posts.
 
Whilst I agree with Proffessor Myers that sharing a platform with the creationists serves only the purpose of religious propaganda rather than the furtherense of science...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/smu_darwin_vs_design_conferenc.php

I believe in the evidence for evolution and will happily debate any creationist or ID proponent out there.

I'm just an amateur so my involvement won't be a great boon to any debater.

If you want to debate proffessional scientists you must publish. That's where peer review and debate happens. It's not that scientist are afraid of the debate. It's that the ID brigade haven't met the entrance requirements for the debate.
 
Last edited:
scotth said:
ID is creationism in a suit. Bring up a creationist document and do a global search and replace, substituting 'an intelligence' for 'god' and you have an ID document. In fact, that is exactly how many of the ID documents were created. We have the before and after versions to prove it (see the Dover trial transcripts for more on that).
Click to expand...
Thank you for this info.
 
skeptigirl said:
Behe and Dumbski are not sources for an update on genetic science.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Skepti, I didn't mean to imply they were. It was a poorly written response, but I was just emphasizing that he obviously hasn't kept up much on the latest genetic research, and neither have I. Which of us has a better grasp of genetics is a crapshoot (these are the things psychiatrists get lots of money to help us figure out; sibling rivalry and all :D ).

skeptigirl said:
If your brother is a physician, you might mention to him the vast majority of medical discoveries in the last decade have all been based on genetic science.
Click to expand...
Oh, he'd be the first person to agree with you there.

skeptigirl said:
Without the basic theory of evolution, biology research would still be in the trial and error discovery phase. It isn't. Biology research is in the design the drug you specifically need phase and it all rests on the genetic science platform of evolution theory.
Click to expand...
I hesitate to speak for him, especially because I don't feel I fully understand his position, but I believe it goes something like this: Evolution is real, and Darwin was right about natural selection. However, there are perhaps historical moments in the past where an "intelligence" (undefined) stepped in and "directed" evolution's path.

You can see that this position fully accepts modern genetic science and its by-products.

It sounds easier to argue with than it is, especially when it's my brother who is a damn smart guy. He's made up some arguments that are doozies, and I had a hard time arguing with them. My brother could probably talk a Communist into hating Karl Marx, though. :wide-eyed
 
Trigood said:
Thank you for this info.
Click to expand...

You're quiet welcome... and when I said documents... I meant books.

In this case it is the book "Of Pandas and People" (a creationist/ID school text book).

Enjoy this quote from the 33rd page of the Kitzmiller decision concerning the above mentioned book:
The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.​
Click to expand...

You can download the entire document here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/dovertrial/decision.pdf

I STRONGLY encourage anyone interested in this topic to read that entire decision. It is good stuff. Another thing to keep in mind, this was a Republican Judge appointed by good ol' GW, and it still came out this lopsided.
 
Porterboy said:
It actually makes sense from a theological point of view that Evolution is real. A hundred years ago people would have said that was impossible, but think about it: If God created the universe then why wouldn't He simply let it develop in its own way without interference and engineering? This includes the development of life on Earth. It's the ultimate act of nurturing love to allow His creation its own independant existance to change and grow in its own way.
Click to expand...
How do you fit original sin into the story including the Jesus part?
 
Mr. Scott said:
The title of this thread, "Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?" is a lie.

Why is lying a perennial tactic of creationists?
Click to expand...
The hidden messages in words.

Why -> says it's a given fact, you are looking for motive.

Are -> says it's a question are they or aren't they?

The use of "Why" is incorrect because it is not a given fact.

Incorrect -> says the person using the word accepts that it is a given

Lie -> says the person using the word knows full well it is not a given but purposefully chose to use 'Why' as a persuasive tactic.

The DI is clever enough to lie in this case. Was T'ai?

But I do agree with you Mr Scott, the leaders of the Creationists chose their words carefully. In the case of the DI article, they used 'Are' in the title. But the rest of the article implied 'why' was the actual question being asked, not 'are'. They are very clever indeed.
 
Trigood said:
...I believe it goes something like this: Evolution is real, and Darwin was right about natural selection. However, there are perhaps historical moments in the past where an "intelligence" (undefined) stepped in and "directed" evolution's path.

You can see that this position fully accepts modern genetic science and its by-products.
...
Click to expand...
You may just be describing how the Christians will eventually adapt their original sin/Jesus story.
 
I would only question the 'perennial' part. I'd say they are 'daily' liars.
 
scotth said:
...
I STRONGLY encourage anyone interested in this topic to read that entire decision. It is good stuff. Another thing to keep in mind, this was a Republican Judge appointed by good ol' GW, and it still came out this lopsided.
Click to expand...
There's a book out about the trial and the author described the entire experience as the "science class you wish you had had". Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul; Edward Humes

Re GW's appointing the judge, turns out some of those appointments were political favors rather than religion guided choices and this was one of them. Bet those Evangelicals were steamed about their bad luck drawing this particular judge. And the judge even said he was likely to be called an activist judge for the decision.

activist judge -> newspeak for a judge that follows the law and not the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Skeptigirl, have you read that book yet? If so, how is it?

My reading list is rather backlogged already.... but I might have to add it anyway.
 
At the risk of derailing the thread:

Re GW's appointing the judge, turns out some of those appointments were political favors rather than religion guided choices and this was one of them.
Click to expand...

To the extent you're implying that all Bush appointees must be one or the other, I think that's inaccurate. It is possible to be nominated because you're a well-qualified candidate with a generally conservative judicial philosophy without blindly following the demands of the religious right or being a patronage appointment.

That's not based on any faith (pardon the pun) in the Bush administration. Even if you assume that the Bush administration is out to appoint the most extreme theocratic judges possible, they do still have to get those nominees through the Senate. Qualifications do matter: see Myers, Harriet. In a moderate state like Pennsylvania, you just aren't going to find many Roy Moore clones to begin with, and you'd have a hard time getting them confirmed.

activist judge -> newspeak for a judge that follows the law and not the Bible.
Click to expand...

I think it's more general, and less meaningful, than that. I would define "activist judge" as "judge who makes a decision I disagree with." I think the term has become that bad. Nobody seems to have a good working definition of it, and nobody seems willing to stand up and say "yes, I'm an activist judge, what's wrong with that?" It's become a label you hang on judges with whom you disagree. Conservatives started the trend, but now liberals are getting into the act, too, decrying conservative judges as "activist."

Basically, just about everyone is against "activist judges," so it becomes a meaningless conversation. I compare it to "political correctness." Rarely do I see anyone defend "PC"; instead the argument becomes whether something is or is not PC. The term itself has become fairly useless.
 
Last edited:
Dunstan said:
Especially when the creationists' political lobbying is based on a slogan "teach the controversy." Agreeing to a debate makes it seem like there is a real controversy. After all, if creationism is worth the time and effort of someone of Dawkins' stature, and packs a lecture hall or debate theatre, then, uninformed people will reason, isn't is worth "our children" learning about it?
Click to expand...

Exactly. It does just what the wedge strategy is designed to do--foster the impression that there is a controversy in the scientific community regarding whether evolution happened--when it's a controversy between the facts and several fundamentalist religions who want their creation myths taught as facts.

In Turkey it's the Muslim Fundamentalists...In America it's the Christian fundamentalists. And the rest tend to be fringe groups like Raelians, Moonies, or Scientologists. The rest of the civilized world seems to have understood DNA and just what overwhelming and comprehensive evidence it is. Even Evangelical Christians like Francis Collins.

You simply can't teach the facts in biology while pretending that god poofed people and other species into existence.

Besides, when has a notion built upon faith ever been dismantled by facts. If faith is the "key to salvation"--believing a super duper ridiculous story can only win you heaven bonus points, right? Extra credit for convincing others. It's the same meme as a chain letter, but with far more stupifying consequences. And those infected, don't see their ignorance--the arrogance of their holier than thou mindset blinds them to the most obvious clues to their own idiocy.

Before debating someone, ask them what would make them change their mind. If they skirt the question or say "nothing"--then why debate? It's a faith based belief. Remember, those tested by Randi never ever conclude that they were fooling themselves--they confabulate an outside reason (bad skeptic vibes) for their test failures.

The truth just keeps staying the truth no matter who wins debates or how many people believe otherwise. The world was, indeed, spherical long before there were humans who invented gods who forgot to mention such salient details--and long after millions of people believed that it was flat. The truth just is.

-no matter what people believe.
 
T'ai Chi,

You must be terribly proud to have so many people waiting for your next reply. Perhaps some family members should be present to witness when you next post and put these rascals in their place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom