Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107854 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> The overal point of the article cited being Darwin Evolution is about as useful in a practical sense as a fifth person on a double date.
<quoted text>
Fifth person pays the cab.(shrug)

The overall point being is that you're clueless and couldn't give a crud about science in the first place, which is why you're searching for any old linkys you can use to quotemine or lie because you're incapable of discussing the subject yourself. That's why when we have ALREADY pointed out that evolution is quite obviously not as useless as you pretend you are unable to address our posts.

Ever.

You never wondered why you guys always lose?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107855 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Scroll down. It is peer reviewed.
We did.

It wasn't.

AIG don't do scientific peer-review, plus they openly admit their position is Godmagic.

That kinda debunks all their "science" claims.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107856 Jan 6, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We did.
It wasn't.
AIG don't do scientific peer-review, plus they openly admit their position is Godmagic.
That kinda debunks all their "science" claims.
Peer Review.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60...

Here is a link to another site where those in Science fields are debating the issue. To contribute there has to be civility and one has to join which involves signing up.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107859 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Peer Review.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60...
Here is a link to another site where those in Science fields are debating the issue. To contribute there has to be civility and one has to join which involves signing up.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...
"Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal called Answers Research Journal (ARJ). Hosted at www.answersresearchjournal.org (but linked to AiG’s website), this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.

Addressing the need to disseminate the vast fields of research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins. The newly expanded research effort at Answers in Genesis, with the establishment of its Research Department, will facilitate this further venue for publication and dissemination of the results of creationist research."

More at http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/call-for-...

HIGHLY biased against any "research" that does not promote the Young Earth Creationism perspective, and they come right out and state it. Any papers that fail to support the Young Earth Creationism model will not be published.

So much for your "peer-review".
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#107860 Jan 6, 2014
Ah yes, "peer-reviewed" by several other fundamentalist Christians who can be counted on to toe the Christian Bible Creationism line.

Not exactly what the rest of the world means by "peer-reviewed, is it?

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107861 Jan 6, 2014
Gillette wrote:
Ah yes, "peer-reviewed" by several other fundamentalist Christians who can be counted on to toe the Christian Bible Creationism line.
Not exactly what the rest of the world means by "peer-reviewed, is it?
Peer review is riddled with all kinds of problem. Most papers are submitted to true believers. Its not like evos are going to submit papers to IDers for peer review or vice versa. It seems you are holding out a double standard in that you discredit IDers for doing the exact same thing evos do. If your case is so strong then i would think you would relish the opportunity to engage IDers on a public forum. Point out the errors of their ways. The site i referenced earlier are actual scientists philosophers etc. Not wannabes or pretenders. By the way was Origin of Species peer reviewed?

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

http://www.livescience.com/25750-science-jour...
And what is so sacred about peer-reviewed journals anyway? The peers who review the journals often have the same biases as the author. Even in the most prestigious journals, there are always inaccuracies concerning theory and method.

“You're off!”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Quito, Ecuador

#107862 Jan 6, 2014
Hmmm, maybe they mean that it's PIER reviewed, as in how anyone who actually understands science is told to take a long walk off a short one.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107863 Jan 6, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Fifth person pays the cab.(shrug)
Ah the voice of experience.
The overall point being is that you're clueless and couldn't give a crud about science in the first place, which is why you're searching for any old linkys you can use to quotemine or lie because you're incapable of discussing the subject yourself. That's why when we have ALREADY pointed out that evolution is quite obviously not as useless as you pretend you are unable to address our posts.
Ever.
[QUOTE] You never wondered why you guys always lose?
Assuming you are correct one can lose all the battles and still win the war. Vietnam proved that. Truth always wins in the end.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#107864 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Peer review is riddled with all kinds of problem.
There are a few problems with it that science knows how to counteract and take into account. These problems are VASTLY overrated by fundie Christian propagandists like yourself.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Most papers are submitted to true believers. Its not like evos are going to submit papers to IDers for peer review or vice versa.
Peer-reviewed science journals submit papers to scientists who work in the exact fields that the submitted paper covers. They check the paper for mistakes in methodology and make sure it adheres to the basic principles of the scientific method. Peer-reviewers do NOT have to agree with the paper's conclusions, and often don't.

Evolution is science and ID is religion badly-dsiguised as science. If an IDer submits a paper to a REAL science journal, it will probably be rejected science ID is not science and does not follow the scientific method. That's not science's fault, it's the fault of your deceptive Christian religionists pretending to DO science.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If your case is so strong then i would think you would relish the opportunity to engage IDers on a public forum.
There have been and continue to be plenty of debates online and in person between Discovery Institute Christian liars and real scientists. The pages of a peer-reviewed scientific journal is not a "public forum" in this sense.

And no working scientist "relishes the opportunity" to engage Christians deceptively trying to push their religion as real science. It's considered a total waste of time by the science people and only gives credibility to the Jesus Freaks, who are desperate for it.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#107865 Jan 6, 2014
ByronMoreno wrote:
Hmmm, maybe they mean that it's PIER reviewed, as in how anyone who actually understands science is told to take a long walk off a short one.
It actually means they make up their own rules not subject to verification by the scientific method.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107866 Jan 6, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a few problems with it that science knows how to counteract and take into account. These problems are VASTLY overrated by fundie Christian propagandists like yourself.
<quoted text>
Peer-reviewed science journals submit papers to scientists who work in the exact fields that the submitted paper covers. They check the paper for mistakes in methodology and make sure it adheres to the basic principles of the scientific method. Peer-reviewers do NOT have to agree with the paper's conclusions, and often don't.
Evolution is science and ID is religion badly-dsiguised as science. If an IDer submits a paper to a REAL science journal, it will probably be rejected science ID is not science and does not follow the scientific method. That's not science's fault, it's the fault of your deceptive Christian religionists pretending to DO science.
You did not answer my question. Was Origin of Species peer reviewed? They have the credentials and simply come to different conclusions.
And no working scientist "relishes the opportunity" to engage Christians
And you speak for all working scientists?You sound like a chickensh#t making excuses.
deceptively trying to push their religion as real science. It's considered a total waste of time by the science people and only gives credibility to the Jesus Freaks, who are desperate for it.
There is more going on here given your vitriol. That does not win arguments nor is it indicative of professional standards. You sound like a wannabe hanging out on Topix. Pissing on the porch with the pups.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107867 Jan 6, 2014
No working Scientist....

No true Scotsman....
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#107868 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You did not answer my question. Was Origin of Species peer reviewed?
There were no peer-reviewed scientific journals extent in the mid-19th century.

But Darwin's book WAS peer-reviewed in the sense that its principles were debated and researched by scientists all over the world and HAVE been for the past 150 years, and Darwin has been shown to be almost completely CORRECT in his original ideas.

And as Darwin's work was verified, the loser in all this, of course, was fundamentalist Christian Bible Creationism. It became clear early on, for example, that because of the evolution of species, there never could have been two distinct "first humans" Adam and Eve, as humanity gradually evolved out of earlier, proto-human species.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> They have the credentials and simply come to different conclusions.
False. Your Jesus Freak scientists may have degrees, but they don't CONCLUDE anything. Instead they BEGIN with the a priori RELIGIOUS BELIEF that the Bible's Genesis creation myth is actual, factual history, then they try to shoehorn the scientific evidence into that little shoe box. Whatever doesn't fit into the box (99% of the data, actually) they just dismiss or ignore.

You aren't doing science when you start with a conclusion then reject everything that doesn't fit it. You're doing RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS.

Check out the Answers in Genesis "Statement of Faith" page:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Scroll to the very bottom, where you read:

"6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

In other words, "our strict interpretation of the Bible trumps science, no matter what the scientific evidence says."

Like I said: NOT science, but religious apologetics.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#107869 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> And you speak for all working scientists?.
I'm repeating to you what I've read on numerous science bogs and university websites, i.e.

Should Scientists Debate Creationists?
http://news.discovery.com/earth/should-scient...

Excerpts:

Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the non-profit educational organization The National Center for Science Education, discourages scientists from debating creationists, but often advises them as to the most effective approaches if they wish to do so.

In an interview with Discovery News Scott explained that “Creationist ‘scientific” claims must be answered, of course, but the format of a formal debate is not the way to do it.

Creationists specialize in the what’s called the Gish gallop — a rapid-fire listing of supposed weaknesses of evolution that, in a limited-time format of a debate, cannot all be properly answered.This leaves the audience with the incorrect impression that evolution is shaky science.

Debate is a sport, not the way we decide scientifically how the world works.” And there are other concerns.

........

Is There a Debate?

By putting a scientist and a non-scientist on the same stage together, there is a real danger of legitimizing creationism and giving the appearance that both sides are equally valid.

CNN would be widely ridiculed if they invited a member of the Flat Earth Society to debate astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson about whether our planet is round.

This is not an issue of censorship. Anyone is free to hold whatever beliefs or opinions they like, no matter how unscientific or false. But there is no obligation to portray both sides as having equally strong or valid scientific arguments, when by any measure they do not.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107870 Jan 6, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
There were no peer-reviewed scientific journals extent in the mid-19th century.
But Darwin's book WAS peer-reviewed in the sense that its principles were debated and researched by scientists all over the world and HAVE been for the past 150 years, and Darwin has been shown to be almost completely CORRECT in his original ideas.
And as Darwin's work was verified, the loser in all this, of course, was fundamentalist Christian Bible Creationism. It became clear early on, for example, that because of the evolution of species, there never could have been two distinct "first humans" Adam and Eve, as humanity gradually evolved out of earlier, proto-human species.
<quoted text>
False. Your Jesus Freak scientists may have degrees, but they don't CONCLUDE anything. Instead they BEGIN with the a priori RELIGIOUS BELIEF that the Bible's Genesis creation myth is actual, factual history, then they try to shoehorn the scientific evidence into that little shoe box. Whatever doesn't fit into the box (99% of the data, actually) they just dismiss or ignore.
You aren't doing science when you start with a conclusion then reject everything that doesn't fit it. You're doing RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS.
Check out the Answers in Genesis "Statement of Faith" page:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
Scroll to the very bottom, where you read:
"6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
In other words, "our strict interpretation of the Bible trumps science, no matter what the scientific evidence says."
Like I said: NOT science, but religious apologetics.
I do not recall referencing anything from answers in Genesis. So why are you bringing that up? Intelligent Design simply means Intelligence as opposed to blind chance.

http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107871 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I do not recall referencing anything from answers in Genesis. So why are you bringing that up? Intelligent Design simply means Intelligence as opposed to blind chance.
http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/...
Then please provide clear, unambiguous scientific evidence for this "intelligence".

Then collect your Nobel prize.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#107872 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I do not recall referencing anything from answers in Genesis. So why are you bringing that up? Intelligent Design simply means Intelligence as opposed to blind chance.
It means the Christ of the Bible who created everything. DI people have admitted that in unguarded moments. If there were no Christianity, there would be no ID movement.

And ID proponents admit that ID is NOT a scientific theory.

It's nothing but an assertion at this point.

And NO ONE is doing actual research at the moment (according to Michael Behe).
lightbeamrider wrote:
This page simply asserts that it's a scientific theory that things look designed and that therefore there must be a designer.

An assertion like that is NOT a theory, which is "a grand unifying explanation of a large number of facts and data."

The Theory of Evolution, for example, gives us the MECHANISMS (which can be researched and tested), namely genetic modification by means of gene mutation, sexual recombination and genetic drift, PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.

So an actual scientific theory tells us what the mechanisms are and how they work.

Your page just tells us that things look designed, so they must be. How do you (or they) propose testing that?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#107873 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Peer review is riddled with all kinds of problem. Most papers are submitted to true believers. Its not like evos are going to submit papers to IDers for peer review or vice versa. It seems you are holding out a double standard in that you discredit IDers for doing the exact same thing evos do. If your case is so strong then i would think you would relish the opportunity to engage IDers on a public forum. Point out the errors of their ways. The site i referenced earlier are actual scientists philosophers etc. Not wannabes or pretenders. By the way was Origin of Species peer reviewed?
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
http://www.livescience.com/25750-science-jour...
<quoted text>
Imperfections in peer review are acknowledged. But eventually any errors that slip through come to light, especially if the paper in question is one that comes to be frequently referenced by other researchers. Scientists do not expect perfection in a human enterprise.

Virtually every aspect of Darwin's theory HAS been raked over the coals and examined from every angle. There is nothing a scientist loves more than to overturn some current paradigm and show why its wrong. That is an assurance of fame within the science world. Which is why prominence has come to biologists who have managed to force some or other modification to the theory. Gould (who really just explored an issue Darwin had alluded to, PE), Margullis (symbiosis of bacteria instead of competition creating the first eukaryotes), Haldane (population genetics), Kimura (genetic drift rather than NS causing significant changes)- these are giants in biology for this reason.

However, I have seen the sorry state of "peer review" in ID circles. Where are the IDers pointing out Sanfords, Behe's, Snelling's, and other ID/Creationists OBVIOUS ERRORS??? You would think that if they really wanted to create a robust challenge to evolution, they would be as hard on themselves and each other as evolutionists are. Well yes, that WOULD be the case if their target audience was "biological scientists".

But that is NOT their target. Their goals are clearly political and not scientific, and they rely on merely creating something that sounds sciency enough to convince the layman to support their political (and financial) goals. Biologists laugh at this junk, then find themselves thrown into public forums where they are supposed to defend complex science against five minute throwaway lines aimed at public persuasion, not scientific truth.

Frankly, most of what passes for science in ID circles is a con and they know it. But they think they are doing the right thing because Joe-dumb-masses cannot handle the Truth! That is their arrogant view. They think they are defending society. But they sure are not defending science.

But nobody has been

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#107874 Jan 7, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> wWho created your very first ancestors?
Go to college and learn about evolution.

As to how abiogenesis occurred I have no idea and neither do you.

The difference is that I admit I have no idea and I admit that science is working to find an answer.

Whereas you will not admit you have no idea and so you guess that your goddidit out of nothing (read the babble) by magic one Thursday afternoon just over 6000years ago because that what a bunch of bronze age escaped slaves said.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#107875 Jan 7, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> In everything there must be a first, who then created that first man and woman?
See above

As an aside, I love the way godbots put an emphasis on the word “must” because they can see no other explanation

Why must? What must? Why not change? Why not adaptation?

Why not the scientific explanations that in the story of this world and universe right back to 10^-32 of a second after the event of the BB is,(bar for a relatively few as yet not understood developments) mostly known, can be demonstrated and is complete understood.

But you prefer to put your faith in complete lack of evidence and bronze age guesswork and therefore insist on “must”

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
A six word game (Dec '08) 3 min Trouser Cough 17,962
Bill Cosby 9 min FTW Forever 198
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 20 min wichita-rick 151,074
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 25 min Trouser Cough 55,062
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 40 min Fisherman 808 24,035
Ferguson Grand Jury Reaches Decision 41 min ---Word Woman--- 146
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 43 min SUG here 4,057
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 47 min SUG here 8,042
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr COOTERDOG 23,978
Is SWEETIE-PIE In Love With GENO? 1 hr liarmouth 52

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE