Search results

You're splitting hairs here. Before radiometric dating, fossils and strata were assigned positions within an idealised geological column, using the Law of superposition (older layers at the bottom, younger layers at the top). What makes direct radiometric dating of sedimentary rock, and the...

With great respect, good brother, I don't think you have studied "both sides of the argument" as you put it. It is my experience that the objections you raise have come from biased creationist writings that don't correspond to the real world. For example, you think that people who accept...

THE Designer? Actually, it makes more sense to think there was more than one. Different designers could have been involved creating different species. Just as different computer programmers have their own styles and re-usable pieces of code, we see similar unique characteristics in animals...

AV, that's dreadful! Pick one quote mine and explain it in your own words.

I'm sorry you don't seem to be able to offer anything constructive in your posts. I bowed out of your last thread when you wrote this:- I too do not find any profit in discussing this particular thread any further with you, when all you seem to be able to do is to laugh at other people's...

That's because it's a big subject. Please allow me to offer you an example:- One thing I find illuminating about young Earth creationism is that it is not limited to strict biblical literalism, as they claim, but involves gross distortion of the Scriptures to the extent that parts become...

It's in quotes because these are Darwin's words. This expression is not used these days, and neither is it taught, as you mistakenly claim. If it doesn't make sense to you, I suggest you think about the difference between "natural selection can act only for the good of each being", which...

It's hard to tell what Darwin meant by the expression "each being". It certainly makes no sense for natural selection to act for "the good" of the individuals upon which it operates. Maybe that is why Darwin uses the strange expression "acting through and for the good" since natural selection...

As I said:- Oh, but they can! Whereas creationists CLAIM to be biblical literalists, when one examines these claims, they are clearly highly biased and embellished "interpretations" made to fit the young Earth paradigm. Other biblical experts can read the same passages and come to very...

The Bible needs to be understood in the light of the beliefs prevalent during the times it was written, not in terms of what you imply is a modern-day version of "God's Word". It is important for young Earth creationists to be literalists, or what I call biblical revisionists, for two...

There's plenty of other scientific disciplines, yet evolution is the unique branch of science singled out to be a religion. Why? They don't have a "true insight", because "anti-evolutionism" is incorporated into the young Earth creationist religion and trashed as if were the cause of all...

Very funny, AV Just because the out-dated Freud was the first to describe the phenomenon, does not mean that it does not exist, if that's what you are claiming. Most creationists are indoctrinated to think that people who acknowledge the fact of evolution actually believe in it as a form...

To the charge that evolution is a religion, I’d say it was a case of psychological projection*. I invite those people to read this little essay:- *Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes...

You've only tried to deal with your assumption, not with the points I raised. What is the purpose of these simplest things "designed by God"? I can't see any, except from the anthropocentric world view, which I reject. Please try and answer my questions.

You make a huge assumption that "natural" things are designed by God. The point here is that biological evolution is a design process in its own right, but one that differs fundamentally from man-made designs. That's because man-made objects all have a function, even if this is to amuse or...

Biochemsitry is not one of the physical sciences. And here was I thinking you were a world expert about the peer review system! If you felt I was provoking you, then I'm sorry, the question was made in good faith. The subject is clearly a hobby horse of yours, judging by the number of...

By "others" I mean me and other people reading what you've written, but I think I've got an inkling of what you are trying to express. You think you're an expert on the subject or peer review, yet you can't tell us why you've got this "thing" about the subject. Odd that in view of the bitterness...

I disagree to some extent. In some instances I've had to perform additional experiments, which has been very time-consuming, but the papers were all the better for it. I think most scientists know the limitiations of the peer review system and therefore don't claim it is "the be-all end-all"...

I don't understand what you're talking about. Why can't you explain what you mean clearly so that others can understand? I see you're fond of cutting a pasting the very same thing in various forums, including your quote attributed to Armstrong 1980 about obscure writing impressing academics...

Although you are correct in identifying a bit of hyperbole in the University of Illinois's article about peer review, they use a Google search to demonstrate the impossibility of distinguishing between academically acceptable material and pseudoscience — the latter being a belief or practice...