Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 76 of 112 (188098)
02-24-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Mammuthus
02-24-2005 10:23 AM


Re: what error?
Hi fluffy friend.
Okay - I'm off-topic, so I'll just make this last post to clarify.
I am not saying that all Muslims/Buddhists and pagans have the same belief.
I am saying that people world over take God as a serious issue, and I am not representing just Christians. I am talking about those who basically believe in God. I.e. the concept.(I only call it this for debates sake)
That is, although I believe in Christ and the Muslim doesn't, the very basic or core element of the concept of God, in a theistic sense, is shared.
Example. We both believe in God, as described by the dictionary definition in the basic terms.
1. Creator of the universe.
2. Supernatural.
It might look like I am guilty of the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
I would be if I said;
I believe in God, the Muslim does, therefore we both share the same beliefs, and we are the same.
But I'm not saying that, I'm JUST saying we share belief in the basic theistic concept as defined. Hope you get my drift.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 10:43 AM
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 10:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Mammuthus, posted 02-24-2005 10:23 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
peddler
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 112 (188864)
02-27-2005 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Parasomnium
02-23-2005 4:53 AM


Re: Logic
I appreciate your detailed response.
That's just kicking out belief systems through the front door and letting them in again through the back entrance. On top of that, I suspect that the belief system you want to kick out is the supposed 'religion' of atheism, and the one you'd like to see allowed back in is your own religion.
No ones belief system should be "kicked out" you are agreeing with religious persecution .
To me this sounds a lot like you.
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill may of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods of institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, the materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, geneticist
You said:
If I may do some turning around of my own: with the presupposition that God does exist and that the world is not billions of years old, the data is completely baffling.
The does not make the data baffling to everyone-just to evolutionist. It is possible your axiom is wrong is it not? Thats why evolutionist make up dates as in this example-Page not found - WND
Lying is not scientific. Glueing bones together is not scientific-it is however necessary to force the data to fit the evolutionary hypothesis.
To quote Dawkins I find personally insulting.
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.
I have the right and the reason to assume these are your thoughts as well.
Intelligence and logic are not necessarily synonymous. Your logic in quoting this man I fing wanting.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Parasomnium, posted 02-23-2005 4:53 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
peddler
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 112 (188869)
02-27-2005 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
02-23-2005 1:09 AM


Re: Logic
Dear Sir :
It is obvious you have no clue what radiometric "dating" is capable of. There is no magic box that pops up a date when an object is inserted. All it tells us is the level of certain isotopes.
What this tells us is pure speculation. Unless you have a time machine you have to assume that you know the original level of the isotope and if the sample was affected by any outside influence.
Radio Carbon has some testable calibration but is often wildly inaccurate.
Sedimentary rock is not subject to this type of testing. Lyell made up dates for geologic layers before anyone dreamed of radiometric testing. Out of thin air!
It is circular reasoning-the fossils date the rocks -the rocks date the fossils.
Creation scientist as well as many honest evolutionist scientist have found thousands of cases that radiometric dating -if you assume it is valid-disproves the billions of years theory.
For instance lava flows at Mt. St. Helens that occurred in 1980 have tested at 300k years old. This has happened with lava flows all over the world. If any testing disagrees w/ accepted dating, which is the vast majority of them, they a must be contaminated.
Unless the rocks were kept in a lead shield they are all contaminated.
The technology is next to worthless. It is a huge waste of money.
Without the billions of years the evolution hypothesis flies out the window.
Naturalism is the belief there are no miracles from God and there is a naturalistic explanation for everything. Since that cannot be scientifically proven it must be taken on faith. That defines it as a religion.
As far as being surprised about the M.R.I. technology that is only because you have been taught to believe evolution is responsible for all scientific knowledge. That is not even remotely true. Pasteur, the Wright Brothers, Von Braun, Teller, Newton-I could fill the page -were all Creationist. There are thousands of Creationist in science and medicine today but you rarely hear of them , they are systematically ignored.
Why don't you know the story of the M.R.I. ? Is it not news worthy?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/science.asp
You should learn the history of naturalism/evolution. Learn about people line Emmanuel Swedenborg and read Haeckel’s History of Creation.
Check out this site http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckel_illustrations.html It's in French but the illustration captions are in English. This will tell you the basis for your theory-it really hasn’t changed that much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2005 1:09 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Joe Meert, posted 02-27-2005 9:03 AM peddler has replied
 Message 81 by Ooook!, posted 02-27-2005 10:04 AM peddler has not replied
 Message 82 by JonF, posted 02-27-2005 10:05 AM peddler has replied
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2005 2:36 PM peddler has not replied

  
peddler
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 112 (188871)
02-27-2005 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by AdminNosy
02-22-2005 10:28 PM


Re: W e l c o m e !
I appreciate your input.
It will take some time to go through the age of the earth thread to prepare an answer for you.
The first thing I noticed is the reference to flat earthers.
All the flat earther societies I find are them very humorous . If you know of one that is anything but tongue and cheek humor please let me know.
There is nothing in the bible that refers to a flat earth unless you fail to understand old english. Rev 7:1 refers to the four corners of the earth-it means quadrants in todays english. Meanings change-gay ment something much different not long ago.The weatherman talks about the sunrise-it is safe to assume he knows it dosen't do that
Actually the Bible says just the opposite and it is hard to stay objective when such cheap insults are thrown out.
What is your opinion on flat earthers?
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by AdminNosy, posted 02-22-2005 10:28 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 80 of 112 (188872)
02-27-2005 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by peddler
02-27-2005 8:22 AM


Re: Logic
quote:
It is obvious you have no clue what radiometric "dating" is capable of. There is no magic box that pops up a date when an object is inserted. All it tells us is the level of certain isotopes.
JM: Simplistic, but not off the wall.
quote:
What this tells us is pure speculation. Unless you have a time machine you have to assume that you know the original level of the isotope and if the sample was affected by any outside influence.
JM: Now, I'm not exactly sure who you are lecturing. The initial isotopic composition can be determined in many cases using the isochron method. The presence of excess argon or argon loss can be determined by doing stepwise release. In the U-Pb system we can see Pb loss because the age determinations will fall off concordia. These 'problems' are well known to geochronologists who have developed methods to test for such problems. I suggest you read Brent Darymples excellent book "Age of the Earth" or visit Dr. Wiens site Radiometric Dating A christian's guide to radiometric dating.
quote:
Sedimentary rock is not subject to this type of testing. Lyell made up dates for geologic layers before anyone dreamed of radiometric testing. Out of thin air!
JM: First, there were never any absolute ages assigned to the early geologic systems. There were only relative ages assigned to the sequences based on very simple and non-controversial observations. If you can document Lyell or anyone else of his time assigning an absolute age to a rock, I would love to hear about it. Today sedimentary rock can be dated using isotopic methods. Specifically, the U-Pb system has proven to be useful in dating certain types of sedimentary rocks. In other cases, the ages of the sedimentary rocks are bracketed by direct dating of ash beds above and below the sedimentary sequence. Here are a few examples of how this dating is accomplished:
U-Pb SHRIMP ages of Neoproterozoic (Sturtian) glaciogenic Pocatello Formation, southeastern Idaho
Author Fanning, C Mark; Link, Paul Karl
Source Geology (Boulder), vol.32, no.10, pp.881-884, Oct 2004

Dates sed sequences via bounding igneous rocks
C, O, Sr and Pb isotope systematics of carbonate sequences of the Vindhyan Supergroup, India; age, diagenesis, correlations and implications for global events
Ray, Jyotiranjan S; Veizer, J; Davis, W J
Precambrian Research, vol.121, no.1-2, pp.103-140, 28 Feb 2003

Pb-Pb age of carbonate that matches U-Pb dating of ash beds.
quote:
It is circular reasoning-the fossils date the rocks -the rocks date the fossils.
JM: It sure is and this is why it's never done.
quote:
Creation scientist as well as many honest evolutionist scientist have found thousands of cases that radiometric dating -if you assume it is valid-disproves the billions of years theory.
JM: Not a single credible instance of such a thing has ever been documented.
quote:
For instance lava flows at Mt. St. Helens that occurred in 1980 have tested at 300k years old. This has happened with lava flows all over the world. If any testing disagrees w/ accepted dating, which is the vast majority of them, they a must be contaminated.
JM: Was the rock dated, or was it inclusions within the rock? You see contamination can occur and requires care. The samples dated by Austin are known to contain older remanents of rock incorportated into the magma. Austin knew this (since his paper cites a reference documenting the xenoliths) so it was a bit of a farcical attempt to discredit dating.
quote:
Unless the rocks were kept in a lead shield they are all contaminated.
JM: Reference please to support the relevance of this assertion to radiometric dating?
quote:
Without the billions of years the evolution hypothesis flies out the window.
JM: Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is not just a hypothesis. I suggest before you lecture others about their supposed misunderstandings that you clearly understand the methods yourself. It's not required of course, but it gives you more credence on these boards.
Cheers
Joe Meert
This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-27-2005 09:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 8:22 AM peddler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 11:56 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 81 of 112 (188879)
02-27-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by peddler
02-27-2005 8:22 AM


Re: Logic
Hi Peddler,
As far as being surprised about the M.R.I. technology that is only because you have been taught to believe evolution is responsible for all scientific knowledge. That is not even remotely true.
While it's pretty obvious that all scientific knowledge is not a direct result of the Theory of Evolution, quite a lot of it was around well before Darwin wrote the Origin for instance. Also a lot of scientific knowledge doesn't have an awful lot to do with the the field of evolution. I'd like to know for example which part of the MRI technology directly contradicts the ToE?
Pasteur, the Wright Brothers, Von Braun, Teller, Newton-I could fill the page -were all Creationist.
This, I think illustrates some misconceptions about how science works. The people who where looking at the age of the earth and the origin of life on it were originally creationists! They believed that they were looking at God's great work. The trouble is the more they looked into it, the more they found that the Bible account of events could not be true because it directly contradicted the evidence.
It's interesting that every Creo that starts to list great creationist scientists always mentions Newton. One of Newton's great passions was Alchemy. Do you believe he was correct about Alchemy as well?
There are thousands of Creationist in science and medicine today but you rarely hear of them , they are systematically ignored.
Yeah, sure there are scientists who do believe in creation throughout the world. The trouble is not one of them has been able to provide a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. That is why you don't hear from these scientists in publications etc, not because of some secret Evilutionist plot, but they can't be scientific when it comes to promoting creationism. Their position is based on large dollops of faith and not an inconsiderable amount of personal incredulity.
There's actually a creationist student in my department at work, who can carry out experiments and analyse his data as well as anyone. As soon as I start discussing evolution with him all of his scientific method flies aout of the window and he retreats (quite literally some times) to saying "I don't believe in it" because his personal faith won't let him examine the facts properly.
Why don't you know the story of the M.R.I. ? Is it not news worthy?
I don't know about Frog, but I certainly remeber the creationist propaganda machine getting the issue a lot of publicity, without too much evidence to back up the assertion that it was all a result of the Atheist/Evolution agenda. Here's another link with a short review of the issue. Probably the most pertinant statement is this one:
quote:
Many people made substantial contributions to MRI but did not win the Nobel Prize. H. Y. Carr, who pioneered the gradient technique that Lauterbur used, has at least as good a case for being unjustly passed over as Damadian does.
Why wasn't there a big bru ha-ha about this ommission? My guess is that H. Y. Carr was not a creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 8:22 AM peddler has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 82 of 112 (188880)
02-27-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by peddler
02-27-2005 8:22 AM


Re: Logic
Joe's given a good reply, but a few things to add:
You are being lied to by your supposed friends. You know almost nothing about geology and biology, and what you do know has come from unreliable (to say the least!) sources.
For instance lava flows at Mt. St. Helens that occurred in 1980 have tested at 300k years old.
1986. Can't you even get the simplest of facts right? The samples were specifically and dishonestly selected to fool the method. No real scientist would have gotten that result. See CD013_1 and Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals.
If any testing disagrees w/ accepted dating, which is the vast majority of them, they a must be contaminated.
That's a serious accusation. Let's see your evidence for it.
This has happened with lava flows all over the world.
It has happened a very few times, a very small percentage of the time. Dalrymple found that 3 out of 21 historic lava flows exhibited slight problems. (Note carefully: real scientists don't characterize a method by only a few examples chosen specifically to fit with their preconceptions, they take statistically significant and fully representative samples). See Radiometric Dating, near the end (although reading all of it and understanding how it blows your "argument" out of the water would be worthwhile).
As Joe has pointed out but bears repeating, the vast majority of dating studies use methods such as isochrons and concordia-discordia which give both an age and an indication of the reliability of that age, and are not susceptible to the possibility of excess initial daughter product. Your pals discuss only K-Ar dating (avoiding discussion of the methods that are widely used) because that's the only method which has any possibility of being invalid, and even that cannot be invalid often enough to fit your peculiar chronology of the age of the Earth.
It is circular reasoning-the fossils date the rocks -the rocks date the fossils.
An ancient canard, long debunked. Raising such "arguments" illustrates only your ignorance (not intended as an insult, just an observation). See Claim CC310 and Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?, but read the Weins paper, to which Joe pointed you, first, or you won't know enough to understand it).
Pasteur, the Wright Brothers, Von Braun, Teller, Newton-I could fill the page -were all Creationist.
Most of them were Christians (Teller was jewish), but none of them were young-earth creationists. And they used only naturalistic explanations in their scientific work.
There are thousands of Creationist in science and medicine today but you rarely hear of them , they are systematically ignored.
Let's see your evidence for that "thousands" (and don't forget that you also have to establish that they are YECs and not merley progfessing Christians) and your evidence for them being "systematically ignored". Dn't forget that people who don't submit papers can't be ignored.
Why don't you know the story of the M.R.I. ?
We do know the story of the MRI.
Is it not news worthy?
Not particularly. If you read a selection of reports rather than trusting overly biased sources like AIG, you'll find that there's good reason to beleive that Damadian did not deserve a share of the prize. Hoever, even if he did deserve it, that has nothing to do with the validity of mainstream geology and biology.
Haeckel’s History of Creation. Check out this site http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckel_illustrations.html It's in French but the illustration captions are in English. This will tell you the basis for your theory-it really hasn’t changed that much.
Geez, you couldn't even be bothered to look up a decent page on Haeckel? Nonetheless, his work is only peripheral to evolutionary theory (it's certainly not a basis for such) and his errors have been corrected, long ago. See Claim CB701 and Haeckel's embryos.
There have indeed been a few errors and even frauds in the history of evolutionary biology, all corrected by scientists. But you don't want to go there because AIG and the ICR and the like have a long history of fraud, orders of magnitude (in number and severity) greater than the few that you can come up with in evolutionary bioogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 8:22 AM peddler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 11:42 AM JonF has replied

  
peddler
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 112 (188889)
02-27-2005 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by JonF
02-27-2005 10:05 AM


Re: Logic
Darwin knew that Haeckel and others were fabricating data and he supported them. That makes him complicit.
Talk/origins is certainly political. They lie with authority -one example their page on flat earthers.
Maybe I am ignorant as you and Dawkins say:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.
As far as your comment on ICR and AIG I do want to go there. We can talk about Pigmies in cages and Aborigines behind murdered and skinned and all kinds of fun stuff.
To this day evolutionists create and suppress data to support the hypothesis. You follow them like a sheep-what does that say about you?
No offense of course.
This message has been edited by peddler, 02-27-2005 11:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by JonF, posted 02-27-2005 10:05 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by CK, posted 02-27-2005 11:54 AM peddler has replied
 Message 90 by JonF, posted 02-27-2005 12:23 PM peddler has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 84 of 112 (188892)
02-27-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by peddler
02-27-2005 11:42 AM


Re: Logic
quote:
To this day evolutionists create and suppress data to support the hypothesis.
Do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just tinfoil hat stuff over some creationist whackjob site?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 11:42 AM peddler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 12:12 PM CK has replied

  
peddler
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 112 (188893)
02-27-2005 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Joe Meert
02-27-2005 9:03 AM


Re: Logic
Instead of calling Steve Austin a liar why not go out and collect new samples with him? Have both sides monitor the test procedures?
Your thoughts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Joe Meert, posted 02-27-2005 9:03 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Joe Meert, posted 02-27-2005 12:21 PM peddler has not replied

  
peddler
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 112 (188898)
02-27-2005 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by CK
02-27-2005 11:54 AM


Re: Logic
http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/001160.html
If you have decided I am a wacko it is of no use to argue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by CK, posted 02-27-2005 11:54 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 02-27-2005 12:21 PM peddler has replied
 Message 89 by CK, posted 02-27-2005 12:21 PM peddler has not replied
 Message 92 by JonF, posted 02-27-2005 12:34 PM peddler has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 87 of 112 (188899)
02-27-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by peddler
02-27-2005 11:56 AM


Re: Logic
quote:
Instead of calling Steve Austin a liar why not go out and collect new samples with him? Have both sides monitor the test procedures?
Your thoughts?
JM: I did not call him a liar. I said his attempt to discredit radiometric dating was farcical. The results he obtained are very real and perfectly valid. The conclusions he reached from those results are; however, nonsensical since they were contaminated with xenolithic material.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 11:56 AM peddler has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 88 of 112 (188900)
02-27-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by peddler
02-27-2005 12:12 PM


Re: Logic
Who was it that discovered, announced, published and exposed the frauds?
It is not evolutionists you need to worry about. One of the best things about the scientific method is that it is self correcting. In a peer review system it's hard to get away with cheating. Because science is open, and claims must not only be backed up with evidence but subject to examination and verification by outside sources, fraud gets caught and EXPOSED.
This is certainly not true for the crap put out by creationists.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 12:12 PM peddler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 12:41 PM jar has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 89 of 112 (188901)
02-27-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by peddler
02-27-2005 12:12 PM


Re: Logic
quote:
Professor Chris Stringer of the Department of Palaeontology at London's Natural History Museum, says that Hahnhfersand Man
was never regarded as a Neanderthal and was briefly important in the 1980s to people like Gunter Brauer, who were arguing for gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans. However, as anyone who is familiar with the palaeoanthropological literature over the last 20 years would know, the find has been of negligible significance to recent debate. It has to be said that this is also a reflection of Dr. Protsch's low reputation in the field, as anyone familiar with the recent literature would also know (personal correspondence).*
Reiner Rudolph Robert Protsch (von Zieten) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
Anyone more with more expertise in this area care to jump in?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 12:12 PM peddler has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 90 of 112 (188902)
02-27-2005 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by peddler
02-27-2005 11:42 AM


Re: Logic
Note that drawings and photographs that are similar to Haeckel's appear in most biology textbooks, and are accurate representations of embryonic development. Haeckel's drawings weren't far wrong, they were simplified more than appropriate to emphasize certain features.
Since Haeckel has been debunked why are his fraudulent drawings in textbooks printed as recently as 2000?
Please list the textbooks in which Haeckel's drawings appear and are not noted as being erroneous. Not drawings similar to Haeckel's but accurate; Haeckel's drawings.
Most of the evolutionist I talk to defend them being there.
Please provide evidence of "evolutionists" who defend Haeckel's drawings being on modern textbooks without a notation that they are erroneous. For example, see Wells and Haeckel's Embryos:
A Review of Chapter 5 of Icons of Evolution
, which soundly condemns using Hackle's drawins without noting their erors.
To this day evolutionists create and suppress data to support the hypothesis.
Please provide evidence of suppressed data. That is a serious accusation.
As far as your comment on ICR and AIG I do want to go there. We can talk about Pigmies in cages and Aborigines behind murdered and skinned and all kinds of fun stuff.
Sigh. Yet another gulible creationist ... beleive anything that you like and disbelieve everything that makes you uncomfortable. No reference to evidence or reality.
OK, start a thread on Ota Benga and/or the massacres of aborigines. Make sure to include your evidence that the massacres actually occured for the reasons claimed by Answers in Genesis and your evidence that the deplorable treatment of Ota Benga and the Australian aborigines has some relationship to the validity of evolutionary theory.
People have done horrible things in the name of Evolution, in the name of Islam, in the name of Christianity,and in the name of many other ideas. That's not reason to conclude whether or not the ideas are invalid. Does the Children's Crusade render Christianity invalid? Not in my opinion, but it's a logical extension of AIG's claims about Ota Benga and aborigines.
In the case of evolution and science, it's the evidence that matters, not what misguided people may have done.
Darwin knew that Haeckel and others were fabricating data and he supported them. That makes him complicit.
Please provide evidence of this accusation.
Talk/origins is certainly political. They lie with authority -one example their page on flat earthers.
To which page do you refer, and where is the lie?
Maybe I am ignorant as you and Dawkins say:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
On the subjects of the age of the Earth and Haeckel's drawings yes, you are ignorant. That's the only possible conclusion from the evidence of your writings. But ignorance is curable, if you do not wish to remain so.
You follow them like a sheep
Unjustified assumption. Your posts have already clearly indicated your level and sources of knowledge; mine have only scratched the surface. I have read and studied much of the material produced by both sides of the "controversy" and have formed my opinions and conclusions based on the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 11:42 AM peddler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 12:30 PM JonF has replied
 Message 96 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 1:09 PM JonF has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024