Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

Hoghead1 · Dec 17, 2015

Just what is your definition of the scientific method, Justalookout? Also, I believe that credentials make the man. If you are going take off against science, then you better have some, big, big credentials and some big,big evidence. So just what are your credentials?

mickiio · Dec 17, 2015

Hoghead1 said:
Just what is your definition of the scientific method, Justalookout? Also, I believe that credentials make the man. If you are going take off against science, then you better have some, big, big credentials and some big,big evidence. So just what are your credentials?

What are yours?

Dr GS Hurd · Dec 17, 2015

mickiio said:
Gorillas or Apes? There is a difference you know. Maybe you should educate yourself on classifications. My statement stands.

One obvious problem is that your graph does not reflect scientific thinking for the last 60 years.

You might try to keep up with the class.

Hoghead1 · Dec 17, 2015

Here are my, Mickiio. I have an M.S. in the behavioral sciences, specially clinical psychology. I also have a doctorate in theology.

Dr GS Hurd · Dec 18, 2015

Hoghead1 said: ↑

Just what is your definition of the scientific method, Justalookout? Also, I believe that credentials make the man. If you are going take off against science, then you better have some, big, big credentials and some big,big evidence. So just what are your credentials?

mickiio said:
What are yours?

Well, if you will honestly respond in turn;

I earned my U. Cal. doctorate in 1976. My first research fellowship was as an undergrad in nuclear geochemistry. So was my
second. My third research fellowship was in nuclear geochemistry in graduate school. Just to break the pattern, my fourth research fellowship was in anthropology as was my 1976 doctorate. My first industry job was as an analytical polymer chemist, and my first professorship was in medicine. One of the more popular seminars I led was on statistical analysis. I of course published in psychiatry. I also have publications in math models and topology (graph theory). I have also published in geochemistry and biology. Starting in 1982 I initiated a pattern of engaging students in active research projects. For example;
1982 "Clinical Implications of Some Graph Centrality Measures" Hurd, G. S, Bonney Jennings. Sun Belt Social Network Conference

1982 "Adjacency Matrix Density and Consensus," Hurd, G. S., Kathy Hammond. Sun Belt Social Network Conference

1982 "Functional Equivalence in Social Relations," G. S. Hurd, M. Migalski. American Anthropological Association, Washington D.C. November

After 1988 my interest turned to (mostly) archaeology. I was a director of a natural history foundation and museum. In that role I wrote science curriculum for K-12 schools in California. After 1995, I engaged dozens of undergraduate students in new research studies which began their academic careers. (References on request).

You are merely an anonymous internet warrior. You might as well pretend you are the Galactic King Kiss-my-fanny.

justlookinla · Dec 18, 2015

Hoghead1 said:
Just what is your definition of the scientific method, Justalookout?

This.....

Also, I believe that credentials make the man. If you are going take off against science, then you better have some, big, big credentials and some big,big evidence. So just what are your credentials?

I believe evidence, based on the scientific method, proves the claim. Where's your evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution? This isn't about my credentials, it's about the complete and total failure by you, and everyone else, to offer such evidence.[/QUOTE]

justlookinla · Dec 18, 2015

Dr GS Hurd said:
One obvious problem is that your graph does not reflect scientific thinking for the last 60 years.

You might try to keep up with the class.

More evidence of the wishy washy science 'truths' which are ever changing. This means you cannot trust the 'scientific thinking' of today because whatever is being promoted today may change......and on and on and on.

lesliedellow · Dec 18, 2015

justlookinla said:
I believe evidence, based on the scientific method, proves the claim. Where's your evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution? This isn't about my credentials, it's about the complete and total failure by you, and everyone else, to offer such evidence.

I know you are going to refuse to take your earplugs out, no matter how often that is answered, because you don't want to hear the answer. But here it is, one more time:

a.) The paleontological record
b.) Evidence from DNA

Now you can carry on singing your la, la, la song.

justlookinla · Dec 18, 2015

lesliedellow said:
I know you are going to refuse to take your earplugs out, no matter how often that is answered, because you don't want to hear the answer. But here it is, one more time:

a.) The paleontological record
b.) Evidence from DNA

Now you can carry on singing your la, la, la song.

I know you're not going to actually offer evidence for the 'how' of Darwinism but will instead offer one-liners, i.e., no evidence based on the scientific method.

Pick a or b, or both if you're so inclined, and give the evidence for the 'how'. We both know your response, if any, will be nothing but more empty and baseless claims.

lesliedellow · Dec 18, 2015

justlookinla said:
I know you're not going to actually offer evidence for the 'how' of Darwinism but will instead offer one-liners, i.e., no evidence based on the scientific method.

Pick a or b, or both if you're so inclined, and give the evidence for the 'how'. We both know your response, if any, will be nothing but more empty and baseless claims.

Like I said before, if you were really interested you could buy yourself a popular level book on the subject. They don't cost much, but you won't because you are not really the least bit interested. You just want to go on believing your current nonsense, and you are fearful that actually reading a biologist who knows what he is talking about would compel you to change your mind. So you will just keep making the limp excuse that you want somebody on here to do it in a couple of sentences.

justlookinla · Dec 18, 2015

lesliedellow said:
Like I said before, if you were really interested you could buy yourself a popular level book on the subject.

The internet should be full of the information.

They don't cost much, but you won't because you are not really the least bit interested.

You're not the least bit able to offer any evdience, based on the scientific method. Of course you can keep making your empty and baseless claims.

You just want to go on believing your current nonsense, and you are fearful that actually reading a biologist who knows what he is talking about would compel you to change your mind. So you will just keep making the limp excuse that you want somebody on here to do it in a couple of sentences.

More evasion. Surely you can give one link and reference the portion of the link which offers evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution.

The truth is, you can't.

Dr GS Hurd · Dec 18, 2015

justlookinla said:
The internet should be full of the information.Surely you can give one link and reference the portion of the link which offers evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution.

The truth is, you can't.

I already know from your past behavior that you are either unwilling to learn, or unable to learn.

However, see if you might learn;

Understanding Evolution

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Dr.Thewissen’s excellent material in whale evolution

The Institute of Human Origins

Nature Magazine's website on human evolution

justlookinla · Dec 18, 2015

Dr GS Hurd said:
I already know that from your past behavior that you are either unwilling to learn, or unable to learn.

However, see if you might learn;

Understanding Evolution

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Dr.Thewissen’s excellent material in whale evolution

The Institute of Human Origins

Nature Magazine's website on human evolution

Pick one...reference the area in the link which offers the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution.

You're not going to do it. Book titles and worthless links aren't evidence, it's just more of your evasion.

Dr GS Hurd · Dec 18, 2015

justlookinla said:
Pick one...reference the area in the link which offers the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution.

You're not going to do it. Book titles and worthless links aren't evidence, it's just more of your evasion.

That was my last effort to show you anything. Adios.

justlookinla · Dec 18, 2015

Dr GS Hurd said:
That was my last effort to show you anything. Adios.

You've shown nothing but failure.

Vaya con Dios.

bhsmte · Dec 18, 2015

Dr GS Hurd said:
That was my last effort to show you anything. Adios.

It is too painful to acknowledge this evidence for fundies.

If and when the day comes it becomes too painful to keep fooling themselves, then they will get it. Some get there, some don't.

Hoghead1 · Dec 18, 2015

Can you provide but one example of a wishy-washy scientific truth? Just one? On the other hand, we are learning new things everyday and so why shouldn't science be in a continual state of flux?

PsychoSarah · Dec 18, 2015

justlookinla said:
More evidence of the wishy washy science 'truths' which are ever changing. This means you cannot trust the 'scientific thinking' of today because whatever is being promoted today may change......and on and on and on.

Display that change makes something unreliable.

PsychoSarah · Dec 18, 2015

justlookinla said:
Pick one...reference the area in the link which offers the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution.

You're not going to do it. Book titles and worthless links aren't evidence, it's just more of your evasion.

Well, if that is how you feel, what would you consider to be evidence then? As in, give an example of a hypothetical medium of information by which I can display evidence, that you would consider valid.

justlookinla · Dec 19, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
Display that change makes something unreliable.

If a scientific 'truth' is changed, that means that the original 'truth' was unreliable, not true, wrong. The implication of this is that the original 'truth', which in fact was error, was produced either by incompetence or bias dismissing the scientific method.

How do you know that the new, replacement, scientific 'truth' is valid?

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency