Blackjack and Design

[AV1611VET]

Remember who you're asking, AV.

Then no wonder you find it disappointing.

 

[whois]

Hence the "like Noble".

there seems to be a petition that has been signed by almost 1000 scientists that are calling for a reexamination of darwinism.
are they wrong too?

 

[crjmurray]

there seems to be a petition that has been signed by almost 1000 scientists that are calling for a reexamination of darwinism.
are they wrong too?

Source?

 

[whois]

Source?

www.rae.org/pdf/darwinskeptics.pdf

 

[crjmurray]

www.rae.org/pdf/darwinskeptics.pdf

For someone that inisists that they aren't a creationist you sure have a penchant for creationist sources.

 

[whois]

For someone that inisists that they aren't a creationist you sure have a penchant for creationist sources.

i don't remember any of the signors being creationist, nor does this come from a creationist site.

you seem to like probabilities.
what are the probabilities that well educated people (113,000 by the authors words) would be sceptical of darwin?
the list was included.

what about that crjmurray, how many of those signors are creationist?

edit:
i'm not a creationist but i'm sceptical of darwinism, as a matter of fact i will outright state it's the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on man.
i have uncovered things that should make any scientist boil over.
this out right fraud about ayala for example.

furthermore, i honestly believe epigenetics will not become of any importance to darwinism.
there is a definite reason i say that too, and i don't have all the facts yet.

 

[crjmurray]

i don't remember any of the signors being creationist, nor does this come from a creationist site.

you seem to like probabilities.
what are the probabilities that well educated people (113,000 by the authors words) would be sceptical of darwin?
the list was included.

what about that crjmurray, how many of those signors are creationist?

Revolution against evolution is a creationist site.
From the site:

" The Revolution Against Evolution is a fellowship of Christian believers dedicated to answering the tough questions concerning science and the Bible."

"They conduct interviews of prominent creation scientists, and discuss many subjects related to the creation-evolution question."

That's an admission that would hold up in court without even going through the material on their site.

Also, it's 3,000 signors not 113,000. That 113,000 is an estimate based on a study that I have yet to look at but you can be assured that I will.

And I do like probabilities. What's the probability that out of the 3,000 people who signed a petition from a creationist website most of them are creationists in some form or another? Well I don't know the numbers but I'd say pretty damn good

 

[crjmurray]

i don't remember any of the signors being creationist, nor does this come from a creationist site.

you seem to like probabilities.
what are the probabilities that well educated people (113,000 by the authors words) would be sceptical of darwin?
the list was included.

what about that crjmurray, how many of those signors are creationist?

edit:
i'm not a creationist but i'm sceptical of darwinism, as a matter of fact i will outright state it's the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on man.
i have uncovered things that should make any scientist boil over.
this out right fraud about ayala for example.

furthermore, i honestly believe epigenetics will not become of any importance to darwinism.
there is a definite reason i say that too, and i don't have all the facts yet.

What fraud about Ayala? The fraud committed by the quote miners?

 

[bhsmte]

For someone that inisists that they aren't a creationist you sure have a penchant for creationist sources.

Several creationists have brought up this dissent thing before on this site, it is nothing new.

Never mind that many on this list are not Phd biologists (you know, the guys and gals that know the most about evolution) and they even have geologists on this list, with BS degrees.

When you compare the amount of Phd biologists on this list, with the one's who agree strongly with evolution, it becomes a bit of a joke.

 

[crjmurray]

Several creationists have brought up this dissent thing before on this site, it is nothing new.

Never mind that many on this list are not Phd biologists (you know, the guys and gals that know the most about evolution) and they even have geologists on this list, with BS degrees.

When you compare the amount of Phd biologists on this list, with the one's who agree strongly with evolution, it becomes a bit of a joke.

No offense bhsmte but I appreciate contributions to the conversation rather than the usual snide quips.

 

[whois]

What fraud about Ayala? The fraud committed by the quote miners?

i have already went through this with you.
you simply refused to acknowledge it.

 

[crjmurray]

i have already went through this with you.
you simply refused to acknowledge it.

That's quite literally the opposite of what happened. But don't ignore my previous posts addressed to you.

 

[whois]

crjmurray,
i like your signature "recent studies show ice cream is the leading cause of murder"
how do you suppose to prove that?
by probabilities and statistics perhaps?

 

[crjmurray]

crjmurray,
i like your signature "recent studies show ice cream is the leading cause of murder"
how do you suppose to prove that?
by probabilities and statistics perhaps?

It's a criminology joke. Address post 67 and I'll happily discuss my Sig.

 

[whois]

That's quite literally the opposite of what happened. But don't ignore my previous posts addressed to you.

yes, i have considered all of it.
and it simply doesn't add up crjmurray.
the letters, the retraction, the original, the involvement of NAIG.
all of it.
it simply doesn't add up.

there is simply no way ayala would write to an anti religious agenda site about something he said in a respected science journal without contacting that journal.
you might buy such stuff, so just go for it.

 

[whois]

Revolution against evolution is a creationist site.
From the site:

" The Revolution Against Evolution is a fellowship of Christian believers dedicated to answering the tough questions concerning science and the Bible."

"They conduct interviews of prominent creation scientists, and discuss many subjects related to the creation-evolution question."

That's an admission that would hold up in court without even going through the material on their site.

Also, it's 3,000 signors not 113,000. That 113,000 is an estimate based on a study that I have yet to look at but you can be assured that I will.

And I do like probabilities. What's the probability that out of the 3,000 people who signed a petition from a creationist website most of them are creationists in some form or another? Well I don't know the numbers but I'd say pretty damn good

let's give you the benefit of doubt and say ALL of the signors are creationists.

how many of those signors would be willing to sign a petition that says the earth is flat?
how many for pi equals 3?

labeling something as "creationist" then canning it is not science crjmurray.

 

[crjmurray]

let's give you the benefit of doubt and say ALL of the signors are creationists.

how many of those signors would be willing to sign a petition that says the earth is flat?
how many for pi equals 3?

labeling something as "creationist" then canning it is not science crjmurray.

The source you quoted is a creationist site. I am not doing the labeling, they labeled themselves. I wouldn't expect a creationist to honestly represent the theory of evolution so a petition created by a creationist group does not carry much weight.

Now, to keep my word. Ice cream sales form a positive correlation with an increase in murder cases. This obviously means that ice cream causes murder right? Not quite. Most murders occur during the summer. Most ice cream is sold during the summer. This is a great example of how correlation does not equal causation. Most murders occur during the summer simply because more people are outside. More people outside means more interaction. More interaction means more confrontations that lead to violence. More violence leads to more murders. Ice cream is a separate statistic that happens to correspond with murder.

 

[whois]

It's a criminology joke.

i think it's a good illustration on how statistics can be abused.

with statistics and the right data, you can prove anything.
what's even crazier is that statistics can be a very valuable tool.
the trick is knowing what is being presented.
specifically i'm referring to the arch nemesis of statistics, false correlations.
anyway . . . here i am, rambling again.
i'm an old hag, i'm entitled.

 

[whois]

I wouldn't expect a creationist to honestly represent the theory of evolution so a petition created by a creationist group does not carry much weight.

it doesn't matter how they veiw evolution.
what matters is why, why do these educated people say darwin needs re-evaluated?
surely it can't be "well they missed the god evidence".
do you actually believe such nonsense?

Now, to keep my word. Ice cream sales form a positive correlation with an increase in murder cases. This obviously means that ice cream causes murder right? Not quite. Most murders occur during the summer. Most ice cream is sold during the summer. This is a great example of how correlation does not equal causation. Most murders occur during the summer simply because more people are outside. More people outside means more interaction. More interaction means more confrontations that lead to violence. More violence leads to more murders. Ice cream is a separate statistic that happens to correspond with murder.

i already knew what the story was.
it's the reason i brought it up.

 

[crjmurray]

i think it's a good illustration on how statistics can be abused.

with statistics and the right data, you can prove anything.
what's even crazier is that statistics can be a very valuable tool.
the trick is knowing what is being presented.
specifically i'm referring to the arch nemesis of statistics, false correlations.
anyway . . . here i am, rambling again.
i'm an old hag, i'm entitled.

It's an illustration of how statistics can be misunderstood. It shows why you should include as many factors as possible when examining any given statistic. No police department is campaigning against ice cream because of this correlation.

Anywhoozle, back to the point. Your source is, beyond a reasonable doubt, a creationist source. I've given you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are not a creationist. But do you honestly think a creationist source gives a good representation of what scientists actually think about the theory of evolution.