Why Evolution is True (2)

[Loudmouth]

so your saying that this site:

Jerusalem 101 - Lessons Introducing Jerusalem

is known for lying?

evidence please?

I am talking about sites like this one.

Evolution News & Views

They are one of your favorite sources, and they continually lie. More importantly, the authors of the articles at those sites are not the scientists who did the actual science they are reporting on. Any honest scholar would go to the primary source, the peer reviewed paper written by the scientists who did the science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am talking about sites like this one.

Evolution News & Views

They are one of your favorite sources, and they continually lie. More importantly, the authors of the articles at those sites are not the scientists who did the actual science they are reporting on. Any honest scholar would go to the primary source, the peer reviewed paper written by the scientists who did the science.

Yep, I just checked out that site. At the top there is a question "What is Intelligent Design". They link was another puppet of the Discovery Toot, though a much more open puppet, and it had the wrong answer. As we know as shown by the Dover trial the correct answer is Intelligent Design is creationism dressed up in a cheap suit.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yep, I just checked out that site. At the top there is a question "What is Intelligent Design". They link was another puppet of the Discovery Toot, though a much more open puppet, and it had the wrong answer. As we know as shown by the Dover trial the correct answer is Intelligent Design is creationism dressed up in a cheap suit.

My favorite lie is this one.

"Out of tens of thousands of ERV elements in the human genome, roughly how many are known to occupy the same sites in humans and chimpanzees? According to this Talk-Origins article, at least seven. Let's call it less than a dozen. "
Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

That was written in 2011, 6 years after the chimp genome paper was published. The chimp genome paper demonstrated that out of the 200,000 ERV's in the human genome, less than 100 did not have an orthologous match in the chimp genome.

They also lie to their readers by making them think that inserting into the same base and inserting into the same hotspot are one in the same. They aren't. Hotspots are made up of tens of thousands of bases.

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

Grady

The problems is that if it cannot be measured in some way, science cannot deal with it.

How do we measure God? How do we measure the divine?

The divine foot in the door, so to speak, would be for you to find a way of measuring it. It doesn't mean that it can't be done but that no one to date has done it.

Good luck, I await your showing us the way.

Grady

so then being admittedly wrong is better?

I am not understanding what you mean by "admittedly wrong". Can you clarifiy what you mean?

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

I am talking about sites like this one.

Evolution News & Views

They are one of your favorite sources, and they continually lie. More importantly, the authors of the articles at those sites are not the scientists who did the actual science they are reporting on. Any honest scholar would go to the primary source, the peer reviewed paper written by the scientists who did the science.

we have talked about this befoe. but are you changing the bars yet again? secondly this is non sequitur. it doesn't follow the conversation. would you like me randomly to post all the peer reviews on id, or randomly ask why evolution should be empirical science without evidence of macro evolution? then stop jumping topics when they get uncommon . this is called changing the bars.

 

[createdtoworship]

Dizredux

Grady I am not understanding what you mean by "admittedly wrong". Can you clarifiy what you mean?

Dizredux

it was a quote. please scroll back and read the posts. thanks

 

[Loudmouth]

we have talked about this befoe. but are you changing the bars yet again? secondly this is non sequitur. it doesn't follow the conversation. would you like me randomly to post all the peer reviews on id, or randomly ask why evolution should be empirical science without evidence of macro evolution? then stop jumping topics when they get uncommon . this is called changing the bars.

It follows the topic. It follows your propensity to use articles from Evolution News and Views over and over and over, even when you have been shown that they are liars.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yep, I just checked out that site. At the top there is a question "What is Intelligent Design". They link was another puppet of the Discovery Toot, though a much more open puppet, and it had the wrong answer. As we know as shown by the Dover trial the correct answer is Intelligent Design is creationism dressed up in a cheap suit.

lets see for one its changing the bars. 2- its non sequitur, it doest follow the conversation. 3-its an ad hominem which is attacking a source and not the argument of the source. 4-it's poisoning the well.5-its a red-herring- to distract from the original conversation.6- I guess it could be cosidered a genetic fallacy as its adress the origin of the source not the source. I think if this was baseball you and loudmouth would be heading back to the dugout. (strike three! plus!). I mean really is there a fallacy you didnt commit here? lets make an attempt at honesty please. after all it is a christian forum after all.

 

[Loudmouth]

lets see for one its changing the bars. 2- its non sequitur, it doest follow the conversation. 3-its an ad hominem which is attacking a source and not the argument of the source. 4-it's poisoning the well.5-its a red-herring- to distract from the original conversation.6- I guess it could be cosidered a genetic fallacy as its adress the origin of the source not the source. I think if this was baseball you and loudmouth would be heading back to the dugout. (strike three! plus!). I mean really is there a fallacy you didnt commit here? lets make an attempt at honesty please. after all it is a christian forum after all.

Are there any lies you will not repeat?

 

[StormanNorman]

again yes, yes it is fallacy. It is poisoning the well and it is something that every juror must fight against to be objective in criminal behaviour.


Say that my sources (my websites linked to) were on trial, and they had one or two felonies, does that make them outright guilty during the current trial? Or any and all trials afterward? It may may them suspect, but it will not convict them of wrongdoing, especially if there is no evidence of wrongdoing. You would be a bad juror, or judge regarding the logic of the matter here.

Christian sources are not guilty of error, simply by being christian.

Non science articles are not wrong, simply because they are not science.

furthermore, religiously motivated archaeology is not invalid simply because of the religion.

I would be just as well saying that everything you say is wrong, because atheists/agnostics have been proven wrong in the past.

again it's not the way to do debate. Not the way to do law, not the way to do logic.

I await your response.

I see it as basically a conflict of interest, grady. You said it yourself ... the Bible is the inspired word of God and absolutely cannot be wrong. So, when it comes to scientific questions like the age of the earth & universe, history and origins of humans, you and your creation sites had the infallible answers long before you did any science, long before you considered any of the physical evidence, etc. That's fine in the religious world .... and that's your business. It just doesn't fly in the science world. There is no reason for me to even remotely consider sources like that for questions like these.

 

[Loudmouth]

are you saying you disagree with evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin's statement regarding the "divine foot in the door"?

remember the end of the quote:

"we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.2”
2Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, 31.

this proves that evolution is materialistically biased.

if you disagree with your own commentators, what does this tell you of the theory of evolution in general?

It is also curious that you fail to give the two sentences after the quoted material.

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, 31.

Lewontin is saying that we don't insert God into science for the same reason that we don't insert evidence-planting Leprechauns in to forensic science. If you are going to propose miracles and gods who break natural laws, then you have given up any hope of finding the truth.

 

[dad]

Lewontin is saying that we don't insert God into science for the same reason that we don't insert evidence-planting ....

You insert belief and color evidence with it.


.

 

[dad]

... you and your creation sites had the infallible answers long before you did any science, long before you considered any of the physical evidence, etc. That's fine in the religious world .... and that's your business. It just doesn't fly in the science world.....

The religious nonsense of science doesn't fly in the real world. Think beyond the cult.



.

 

[Loudmouth]

You insert belief and color evidence with it.


.

Pigeon, meet chessboard.

 

[createdtoworship]

I see it as basically a conflict of interest, grady. You said it yourself ... the Bible is the inspired word of God and absolutely cannot be wrong. So, when it comes to scientific questions like the age of the earth & universe, history and origins of humans, you and your creation sites had the infallible answers long before you did any science, long before you considered any of the physical evidence, etc. That's fine in the religious world .... and that's your business. It just doesn't fly in the science world. There is no reason for me to even remotely consider sources like that for questions like these.

when was the last time I quoted a Bible verse on this thread? It seems to me you are logically out of ammo, so now you attack anything you can. It happens to be the religiouns of others. That is an ad hominem. Once again. (how many fallacies have you made now?- 6 or more?)

 

[StormanNorman]

when was the last time I quoted a Bible verse on this thread? It seems to me you are logically out of ammo, so now you attack anything you can. It happens to be the religiouns of others. That is an ad hominem. Once again. (how many fallacies have you made now?- 6 or more?)

I'm not attacking your religion; I'm attacking your ability to objectively consider those scientific questions which may contradict your religious faith.

 

[createdtoworship]

the tally is rising:

posts that storman norman has refused to answer:

1. http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66111891
   
2. http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-4/#post66108310

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not attacking your religion; I'm attacking your ability to objectively consider those scientific questions which may contradict your religious faith.

you know nothing about my religion, do you even know if I am a Biblical Creationist, an ID'er, a GID'er or a combination? I doubt it.

so please, don't try to change the bars, yet once again.

besides it's interesting that you are touting science as your view, when macro evolution has yet to be observed, and with such, cannot be a theory or science!

 

[StormanNorman]

the tally is rising:

posts that storman norman has refused to answer:

1. http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66111891
   
2. http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-4/#post66108310

I don't know what the first one has to with me; the second one is semantics, IMHO. If you wish, I'll rephrase: There are no absolute truths in the realm of science.

 

[StormanNorman]

you know nothing about my religion, do you even know if I am a Biblical Creationist, an ID'er, a GID'er or a combination? I doubt it.

so please, don't try to change the bars, yet once again.

besides it's interesting that you are touting science as your view, when macro evolution has yet to be observed, and with such, cannot be a theory or science!

You told me that the Bible was the inspired word of God and that it is literally true or something along those lines. Now, Grady, there is nothing wrong with that ... it's a free country the last time I checked. But, and no offense, that eliminates you as objective when it comes to certain scientific questions, IMHO.

Atoms haven't been directly observed either, grady; both atoms and macro evolution are inferred based on the physical evidence.