However, that is what the site you pulled the names from is using them for. And it doesn’t mean anything.
Opinions yes. However, as recent testimony in the Dover trials states, there is no controversy in the factual evidence of evolution in the scientific community. There is no unwavering commitment and there is no cult.
If you say so. After all I guess you are the defacto final authority here on this subject. (The aforementioned "If-I-say-it’s-so-then-it’s-so mentality)[/quote]
I don’t understand what you mean. The Dover trail is on right now. You can easily research it for yourself.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You don’t understand what I mean? OK. Here we go: You stated, “that is what the site you pulled the names from is using them for. And it doesn’t mean anything.” It doesn’t mean anything because you arbitrarily dipped your scepter and deemed it so? [/quote]
No. It’s like a celebrity endorsement. Just because a pro athlete like TO wears nike it doesn’t make it better. It doesn’t add anything to the credibility of the product other than TO wears nike. ID supporters using people with advanced degrees in science who also believe in the literal translation of the Bible do not add credibility to the argument. ‘Look TO wears nike shoes, they must be good.’ ‘Look, Larry Butler believes in ID, it must be correct.’ It doesn’t follow.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sure it does. It refutes the idea repeated on this thread by you and your supporters that only stupid people would believe a theory like ID. If you want me to refresh your memory on this, I can cut and paste the numerous posts that say and/or imply just that. [/quote]
I’ve never written anything like that. I do not think that people who believe in ID are stupid. Are you confusing me with someone else? I mean that seriously.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
On a similar note the Dover trial testimony is not the final word either on whether “there is no controversy in the factual evidence of evolution in the scientific community”. How presumptuous. For instance, if you were to contact (or read abstracts etc. from) the I.D. scientists mentioned above you might surely find the alleged elusive or non-existent controversy that you mention. [/quote]
Why does any of this have to be the final word? I don’t understand how you’re getting that or what that has to do with anything. Science, specifically biology and the history of biology, is all about getting the next word. There is no final word. Just better theories based on the empirical evidence that help explain the natural world.
At the Dover trial, Dr. Miller said this:
“But I think the relevant and interesting point is that there is no controversy within science over the core propositions of evolutionary theory.”
Now this isn’t taking an athlete and asking him about sneakers. (Athletics and sports ware are related but not dependant. Like a cook is in an industry related to farming.) This is a PhD biologist teaching at Brown University questioned on the subject of his expertise. That carries much more weight to it. I posted earlier on it and the transcripts go into further detail.
OK. Now go back to the list I posted. Choose one (or several) of the many PhD biologists listed and ask THEM if there is a consensus or controversy. They will say differently than you (or the Brown U. biologist) have and by your own words “that carries much more weight to it”.[/quote]
“that carries much more weight to it” was stated in reference to questioning an expert in the subject of his expertise and not using people with advanced degrees in science who also believe in the literal translation of the Bible to add credibility to the argument.
Supporters of ID claim the controversy in science. Supporters of evolution claim there is no controversy since ID is faith based and not science. The website that listed the names has a mission to only use the Bible in understanding the natural world, as they state on their site – other words, faith based which is an incredibly personal decision. Those that use empirical evidence to explain the natural world carries much more weight.
I’ve never written anything like that. I do not think that people who believe in ID are stupid. Are you confusing me with someone else? I mean that seriously.
Really?
The only dead end we hit was the one you made. This has not been a debate. This has been those understanding science and the theory of evolution along with the place of ID, and those clasping their hands to their ears and saying “nah nah nah nah nah.”
If you continue to ignore this I don’t think we can take you seriously anymore.
I will admit that you alone have been the most civil of the bunch. Some if not all of the others must be college boys or such and have resorted to childish ridicule and name-calling to try and get their point across. But that is to be expected on an internet website.[/quote]
Yes really. I do not think that people who believe in ID are stupid. And I stand by my earlier comments. I do not state that ID believers are stupid. The rebuttals seem to ignore the evidence presented and we have to ask if they even read the articles and links that are posted.
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
Professor X wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
Any second year engineering student would be able to come up with a better design for an eye, for example. Fancy having the nerve endings on the front of the retina, so that the nerves have to pass back through the retina to reach the brain, causing a blind spot.
I would love to see a second year engineering student do this and make it viable…while detecting and distinguishing color, depth, and hue. Could you point out someone who has? The blind spot you speak of is pin point in design and, truthfully, the human eye is one of the most amazing creations on the planet…yet to you it is so child-like that anyone with minor education could do better? How did some of you come to think so highly of yourselves?
Sorry if my knocking of ID has upset you, Prof X. But I think you’re helping me make my point. Why should an eye that is so marvellous in so many other ways have such an obvious design flaw?[/quote]
Just because your pea-brain can’t figure it out doesn’t mean it is a flaw. Your ability to understand something is not the criteria of whether it is a flaw or not.
I’ve never written anything like that. I do not think that people who believe in ID are stupid. Are you confusing me with someone else? I mean that seriously.
Really?
The only dead end we hit was the one you made. This has not been a debate. This has been those understanding science and the theory of evolution along with the place of ID, and those clasping their hands to their ears and saying “nah nah nah nah nah.”
If you continue to ignore this I don’t think we can take you seriously anymore.
I will admit that you alone have been the most civil of the bunch. Some if not all of the others must be college boys or such and have resorted to childish ridicule and name-calling to try and get their point across. But that is to be expected on an internet website.
Yes really. I do not think that people who believe in ID are stupid. And I stand by my earlier comments. I do not state that ID believers are stupid. The rebuttals seem to ignore the evidence presented and we have to ask if they even read the articles and links that are posted. [/quote]
And yet, you, and everyone like you, still can’t explain where the matter came from to have a “big bang” in the first place. So how stupid it that?
And yet, you, and everyone like you, still can’t explain where the matter came from to have a “big bang” in the first place. So how stupid it that?
[/quote]
What in the world does that have to do with anything? Just because something cannot be explained yet (there are theories gaining credibility, check the links posted earlier) doesn’t make me or everyone like me stupid (and what does everyone like me mean?). There’s no cure for cancer, are cancer researchers stupid? I’m diabetic. There’s no known cure, so are endocrinologists stupid? How does not knowing something that isn’t knowable yet make someone stupid? Also, I’ve been posting about biological evolution, so your topic is a little (slightly) off topic.
I’m fairly certain I didn’t say that anyone who believes in ID is stupid. Anyone who believes ID itself is a science is misinformed, some people are quite stubbornly misinformed, going out of their way to actively ignore the evidence. This makes them stubborn and maybe a little ignorant but again, not stupid. That’s probably what makes all of this so frustrating, I don’t think you folks are stupid, well, most of you.
[quote]Xvim wrote:
I’m fairly certain I didn’t say that anyone who believes in ID is stupid. Anyone who believes ID itself is a science is misinformed, some people are quite stubbornly misinformed, going out of their way to actively ignore the evidence. This makes them stubborn and maybe a little ignorant but again, not stupid. That’s probably what makes all of this so frustrating, I don’t think you folks are stupid, well, most of you.
[/quote]
I think it is also important to understand that one has to be really intelligent to surpass a certain level of ignorance because after all you have to deal with a lot of cognitive dissonances, so the more you can pull things to an abstract level were everything consists of ideas that are debatable to some degree, the higher the level of ignorance is you can achieve.
If you are really desperate, you have to convince other people of your ideas, because if you can convince them, you cannot possibly be wrong, can you? Strenght in numbers, and so on.
I know that the same thing could be said about “believers” of the ET, but there is such a thing like the scientific method, designed to eliminate ideas that are the results of such flawed thinking.
So, if ID proponents could please come up with ideas that can be processed by the science apparatus, instead of trying to poke tiny little holes in a theory they did not bother to understand in the first place.
Gould and macroevolution, puulllease… Gould is one of the proponents of macroevolution and the gaps in the fossil chain mean to him (or meant to him) that macroevolution MUST have occured. To use him to prove that even evolutionists do not believe in macroevolution? Roflmao…
I’m going to dissent a bit here. Take a look at that list of scientists posted by Throttle and you can see that almost all of them are creationists who believe that the world is approximately 6,000 years old.
How else to describe that belief other than stupidity?? At best maybe it’s some sort of dissociative disorder. To actually believe such an absurd idea in the face of mountains and mountains of evidence…well, you guys call it what you want but I think you’re being a bit too kind in taking stupidity out of the equation.
For the most die hard among them, the response will always be that their God created the world with that kind of evidence in place to ‘test their faith.’ I have a problem with the idea of worshipping a God who’d go through that mouch trouble to mind-fuck you and still allow for things like child molestation and cannibalism but hey, that’s just me.
Looks like this is pissing off Native Maericans as well.
From Indian Country Today (‘The Nation’s Leading American Indian News Source’)19 Aug 2005
Indian Country Today Columnist John Mohawk this year published a succinctly edited book, ‘‘Iroquois Creation Story: Myth of the Earthgrasper,’’ which inspires with its clarity from ancient America. In fact, the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) creation story is the living basis of the ceremonial cycles in the longhouses of several reservations, source of origin and the truth of existence for traditional Haudenosaunee. Yet, no one here is suggesting that it be taught as ‘‘science’’ in the public schools.
Every Native culture across the hemisphere (and cultures from all over the world) would be in its right to line up, then, each with its origin story and each justifiably, as much as the Judeo-Christian Genesis, with its right to believe that its story is the true way that human beings came into existence.
Given the choice, we prefer the non-religious and secular space, such as public schools guided by universally shared scientific values and methods. Let each people have its religious approach and way of prayer. The other approach is a slippery slope to dangerous manipulation and intolerance. What little the various human cultures and societies have in common resides in the life of science and its search for open-minded truth.
[quote]Floortom wrote:
I’m going to dissent a bit here. Take a look at that list of scientists posted by Throttle and you can see that almost all of them are creationists who believe that the world is approximately 6,000 years old.
How else to describe that belief other than stupidity?? At best maybe it’s some sort of dissociative disorder. To actually believe such an absurd idea in the face of mountains and mountains of evidence…well, you guys call it what you want but I think you’re being a bit too kind in taking stupidity out of the equation. [/quote]
Look at personality disorders, especially those involving some kind of “ascetic” narcissism. If you manage to put the things you would believe anyway into the frame of religion, suddenly it is accepted and no longer seriously questioned by society. Convenient, isn?t it?
An allmighty father figure, ready to crush those who disobey him, a holy Mary pure, untouched, clean, completely asexual and not frightening, fear of homosexuality, the desperate need to persuade/persecute others…
You think stupidity is all that is going on? If you need to believe something, because everything else means triggering raw primal fear, you will believe it.
[quote]orion wrote:
…
Gould and macroevolution, puulllease… Gould is one of the proponents of macroevolution and the gaps in the fossil chain mean to him (or meant to him) that macroevolution MUST have occured. To use him to prove that even evolutionists do not believe in macroevolution? Roflmao…[/quote]
Speaking of cognitive dissonances… Orion needs some more reading comprehension skills…he apparently did not understand the use of the Gould quotes.