Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 19 of 969 (723932)
04-10-2014 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cedre
04-10-2014 4:29 PM


It is often enunciated that Modern biology only makes sense in light of evolution. Yet a growing number of scientists are frowning upon the modern synthesis and seem to be still quite useful scientists.
Please support this. My appreciation of the subject shows a diminishing number of scientist frowning on ToE.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cedre, posted 04-10-2014 4:29 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(3)
Message 76 of 969 (724030)
04-11-2014 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Cedre
04-11-2014 2:07 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
I am not interested in peer review I am interested in the truth!
End thread.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 2:07 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 80 of 969 (724042)
04-11-2014 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Cedre
04-11-2014 6:38 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
This claim is proven false by just the fact that critics of evolution have written books arguing why evolution is scientifically false!
Books are not peer reviewed journal articles.
Dr. Sanford argued his scientific reasons for rejecting evolution in Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.
Books are not peer reviewed journal articles.
Why is it safe to assume that? Like you said He has articles posted at Answers in Genesis and guess what in those articles he gives his scientific reasons for rejecting evolution! How you didn’t notice that is beyond me.
Websites are not peer reviewed journal articles.
He is depicted on hundreds of creationist websites as a creationist that’s why, if he wasn’t a creationist he would have spoken out by now, the fact that he hasn’t makes me think that he is indeed a creationist.
Being a creationist is not peer reviewed journal articles.
Andrew G. Bosanquet Ph.D., CBiol, MIBiol in Biology and Microbiology, is indeed the Director of the Bath Cancer Research Wolfson Center at the Royal United Hospital in Bath, England and the Department of Postgraduate Medicine at the University of Bath. He is in fact a creationist, and even wrote a chapter in a creationist book: On The Seventh Day: 40 Scientists and academics explain why they believe in God - Google ... and
Working for Bath Cancer research and writing a chapter in a non science book is not a peer reviewed journal article.
Still no actual evidence to support your assertion. You need to provide some evidence that has been peer reviewed otherwise this is all simply your opinion.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 6:38 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 7:18 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 92 of 969 (724066)
04-12-2014 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Cedre
04-11-2014 7:18 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Go get one of your medical text books off of your shelf, go to the back, look at all the journal references.
They are all peer reviewed. You would not be able to be a doctor if you ignored the peer reviewed literature.
How did you get through your first year if you do not know how important journal articles are?
What I am saying is I cannot accept evolution because the human body is too complex to have come about by the mechanisms of the modern synthesis
Which is STILL an argument from incredulity. The onus is on you to provide evidence that evolution is too complex. If you can't why should anyone agree with you?
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 7:18 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 109 of 969 (724089)
04-12-2014 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Cedre
04-12-2014 10:30 AM


Re: This is becoming tiresome
So yes Dr. Zuill presents his scientific reasons for rejecting evolution in this book. I don't care if you think his reasons are scientific or not.
Your quote from the DI only asserts that their are scientific reasons given. It does not describe what they are.
You need to show what those scientific reasons are, rather than simple asserting that they exist.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 10:30 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 111 of 969 (724091)
04-12-2014 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Cedre
04-12-2014 11:19 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
The point Dr A is making is that is remarkable that there is so little controversy about evolution among biologists (you have asserted that this controversy exists but have yet to substantiate this) given they determination, motivation and political power the religious right has in America.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 11:19 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 113 of 969 (724093)
04-12-2014 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
04-12-2014 11:26 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Finding a cow in a Precambrian layer would be a falsification of ToE as that would contradict one of it's predictions.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 04-12-2014 11:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 2:08 PM Larni has replied
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 04-13-2014 12:19 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 115 of 969 (724095)
04-12-2014 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Cedre
04-12-2014 1:43 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Someone with a degree in science doesn't have to pretend to be a scientists, he is a scientist!
Not so. I hold a degree in psychology and yet I am not a psychologist.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 1:43 PM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 2:15 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 117 of 969 (724097)
04-12-2014 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Cedre
04-12-2014 2:08 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Faith said that ToE was unfalsifiable. I showed how it could be falsified by find a cow in a Precambrian layer.
Hope that helps.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 2:08 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 119 of 969 (724099)
04-12-2014 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Cedre
04-12-2014 2:15 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
She should not have. A Psychologist is a protected title. To get it one must hold a doctorate.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 2:15 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 123 of 969 (724108)
04-12-2014 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by shadow71
04-12-2014 4:33 PM


Re: This is becoming tiresome
Please show in your own words how this amounts to abandoning evolution.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2014 4:33 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2014 7:43 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 131 of 969 (724119)
04-12-2014 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by shadow71
04-12-2014 7:43 PM


Re: This is becoming tiresome
No it dosen't.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2014 7:43 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 135 of 969 (724127)
04-13-2014 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
04-13-2014 12:19 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Faith, you said the ToE was unfalsifiable. I showed how it is.
Job done.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 04-13-2014 12:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 161 of 969 (724187)
04-14-2014 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Theodoric
04-14-2014 9:44 AM


Re: Why so hostile?
He did say he would be away for a while.
Perhaps he is attending an evolution sceptic conference in Russia with all the other scientist disputing ToE.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Theodoric, posted 04-14-2014 9:44 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 192 of 969 (724252)
04-15-2014 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
04-15-2014 10:58 AM


Re: Back to earth
a real falsification test
Would tell me in your own words what falsification means and why it is important in science?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 04-15-2014 10:58 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2014 11:36 AM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024