Are there any facts contrary to T.O.E?

[AV1611VET]

I tried to convince a peasant lady that the earth is round.

1. What convinced YOU that the earth was round?

2. Did you believe the earth was round BEFORE you were convinced?

 

[The Barbarian]

Missing links.

Evolution is a theory based on linkage. Follow the trail, and you'll encounter more missing links than Carter has liver pills.

That's a testable belief. Even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that there are a large number of transitional forms.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Follow the trail, and you'll encounter more missing links than Carter has liver pills.

Surprise. And we find important new ones almost monthly. It's a bad idea to put your faith in what is not yet known.

It's not just the huge number of transitional forms. Would you like to learn other ways we know about the evolution of living things?

 

[Astrid]

That's a testable belief. Even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that there are a large number of transitional forms.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Surprise. And we find important new ones almost monthly. It's a bad idea to put your faith in what is not yet known.

It's not just the huge number of transitional forms. Would you like to learn other ways we know about the evolution of living things?

Dr K Wise wouldn’t be my #1 source for information on anything
but his personal issues with integrity.

Not meaning the quote here is inaccurate.

His famous quote though is-“even if all the evidence in the universe turns against yec
I will still be yea, as that is what the Bible seems to indicate”

What we have there is a definitive statement of scientific / intellectual dishonesty.

Theres a profound disaster in the cognitive dissonance,
the glorifying of this renunciation of integrity, the assumption
of personal infallibility at choosing what religious beliefs
are Truth.

Such “faith” as he, and others of like mind
are claiming is not faith in any God.

No God or His teaching could be understood or worshipped
by mistaking personal renunciation of integrity for Faith.

 

[BCP1928]

1. What convinced YOU that the earth was round?

2. Did you believe the earth was round BEFORE you were convinced?

Instrumentality. Conceiving of the Earth as a sphere is more practical from the standpoint of things like navigation and astronomy than conceiving of it as a flat disc.

 

[The Barbarian]

His famous quote though is-“even if all the evidence in the universe turns against yec
I will still be yea, as that is what the Bible seems to indicate”

Mark Twain once defined faith as "believing what you know ain't so." I give Wise credit for openly admitting the evidence is against him, and he depends instead on his religious beliefs.

If only all YECs were that honest. He's not alone in that, BTW. I've encountered some others, and know of yet others who are equally honest.

One can disagree with his judgement, but not his integrity.

 

[The Barbarian]

Instrumentality. Conceiving of the Earth as a sphere is more practical from the standpoint of things like navigation and astronomy than conceiving of it as a flat disc.

And stuff like the motion of hurricanes in the north and south hemispheres, and being able to put larger payloads in orbit by lauching them eastward, close to the equator, and Foucault Pendulums, and....

 

[Astrid]

Mark Twain once defined faith as "believing what you know ain't so." I give Wise credit for openly admitting the evidence is against him, and he depends instead on his religious beliefs.

If only all YECs were that honest. He's not alone in that, BTW. I've encountered some others, and know of yet others who are equally honest.

One can disagree with his judgement, but not his integrity.

You find intellectual integrity in saying that
all the univere in the universe is nothing to his
personal infallibility in choosing how to read the Bible?

At best, his is the honesty of a scammer who
boasts of his thefts.

What do you say of a person who sells his integrity?


I will say this, you can’t ever buy it back.

 

[AV1611VET]

His famous quote though is-“even if all the evidence in the universe turns against yec
I will still be yec, as that is what the Bible seems to indicate”

What we have there is a definitive statement of scientific / intellectual dishonesty.

That's probably what the scientists said to Frances Kelsey, when she called for more testing, despite the fact that scientists stamped Thalidomide with the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

 

[The Barbarian]

You find intellectual integrity in saying that
all the univere in the universe is nothing to his
personal infallibility in choosing how to read the Bible?

I'm pointing out that he is honest enough to admit that he prefers his understanding of the Bible to the evidence. He even points out where the evidence very strongly indicates macroevolution, across classes and phyla.

I may disagree with his choice, but I can't fault his honesty.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's probably what the scientists said to Frances Kelsey, when she called for more testing, despite the fact that scientists stamped Thalidomide with the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

You got that wrong, too. It was businessmen who tried to do an end run around the FDA scientists:

But in 1960, when the application for thalidomide landed on the desk of FDA medical reviewer Frances Kelsey, she quickly grew suspicious. When she learned that the drug was causing severe birth abnormalities abroad, she and a team of dedicated doctors, parents, and journalists fought tirelessly to block its authorization in the United States and stop its sale around the world.

Jennifer Vanderbes set out to write about this FDA success story only to discover a sinister truth that had been buried for decades: for more than five years, several American pharmaceutical firms had distributed unmarked thalidomide samples in shoddy clinical trials, reaching tens of thousands of unwitting patients, including hundreds of pregnant women.

True Story of Thalidomide in the US | USA Thalidomide Survivors

New Random House book will tell the true story of "thalidomide babies" born in the United States for the first time later this year (2020).

usthalidomide.org

Kelsey was the scientist. And Merrel's corporate directors were businessmen who tried to hide the truth. Fortunately, they failed and while dozens of Americans were affected (compared to over 10,000 in other nations), the truth came out quickly enough to prevent the kind of disaster that happened elsewhere.

Thanks largely to Kelsey.

 

[Astrid]

I'm pointing out that he is honest enough to admit that he prefers his understanding of the Bible to the evidence. He even points out where the evidence very strongly indicates macroevolution, across classes and phyla.

I may disagree with his choice, but I can't fault his honesty.

Yes, he admits the evidence but his FEELINGS
win, uber alles That is Intellectual dishonesty, abandoment of integrity.

Thats way worse than ignorance.

I’m saying his is the honesty of a bank robber who says he did it
and that he is not merely justified but in the right.

I see nothing in thst to respect.

No honor, no honesty, no integrity.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was businessmen who tried to do an end run around the FDA scientists:

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing this.

If the scapegoats (businessmen) were the ones to blame, where did the scapegoats get enough moxie to lean on scientist Frances Kelsey like they did?

Every time I bring up Frances Kelsey, the buck gets passed to big pharmacy, big government, or big management.

But let's say you're right.

Let's say that not one of those businessmen were scientists; and not one of them knew what they were doing.

Why didn't the labcoats blow the whistle and make public statements warning against taking this thing?

After all, they are the ones who created it in the lab.

If anyone knows it's dangerous, they would be the ones to talk to.

They could have used their clout -- as the inventor and builder of this drug -- to stop its sale in its tracks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me where there is a space anywhere for integrity / scientific honesty from an educated yec.

"Scientific honesty" is a contradiction in terms.

Yes -- there are a handful of them (somewhere), but they are the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[Astrid]

You got that wrong, too. It was businessmen who tried to do an end run around the FDA scientists:

But in 1960, when the application for thalidomide landed on the desk of FDA medical reviewer Frances Kelsey, she quickly grew suspicious. When she learned that the drug was causing severe birth abnormalities abroad, she and a team of dedicated doctors, parents, and journalists fought tirelessly to block its authorization in the United States and stop its sale around the world.

Jennifer Vanderbes set out to write about this FDA success story only to discover a sinister truth that had been buried for decades: for more than five years, several American pharmaceutical firms had distributed unmarked thalidomide samples in shoddy clinical trials, reaching tens of thousands of unwitting patients, including hundreds of pregnant women.

True Story of Thalidomide in the US | USA Thalidomide Survivors

New Random House book will tell the true story of "thalidomide babies" born in the United States for the first time later this year (2020).

usthalidomide.org

Kelsey was the scientist. And Merrel's corporate directors were businessmen who tried to hide the truth. Fortunately, they failed and while dozens of Americans were affected (compared to over 10,000 in other nations), the truth came out quickly enough to prevent the kind of disaster that happened elsewhere.

Thanks largely to Kelsey.

The bogus complaint will be seen again.

 

[The Barbarian]

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing this.

Reality can be so tiresome, but it has the virtue of being real. Find a way to accommodate it.

If the scapegoats (businessmen) were the ones to blame, where did the scapegoats get enough moxie to lean on scientist Frances Kelsey like they did?

Money talks. But Kelsey, being a scientist, wasn't so easy to steamroller.

Let's say that not one of those businessmen were scientists; and not one of them knew what they were doing.

Well, let's just acknowledge that they were putting business ahead of science here. I suspect that most of them knew; they just put money ahead of doing the right thing. But science won out. Sometimes the good guys win.

Why didn't the labcoats blow the whistle and make public statements warning against taking this thing?

That's what Kelsey did. Instead of 10,000 damaged kids, only a few dozen, and those because the company responsible dodged regulations.

 

[Astrid]

Reality can be so tiresome, but it has the virtue of being real. Find a way to accommodate it.

Money talks. But Kelsey, being a scientist, wasn't so easy to steamroller.

Well, let's just acknowledge that they were putting business ahead of science here. I suspect that most of them knew; they just put money ahead of doing the right thing. But science won out. Sometimes the good guys win.


That's what Kelsey did. Instead of 10,000 damaged kids, only a few dozen, and those because the company responsible dodged regulations.

Fact v attitude. Guess which prevails.