|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2 |
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642." https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-in-rome-for-inquisition![[Linked Image from cropper.watch.aetnd.com]](https://cropper.watch.aetnd.com/public-content-aetn.video.aetnd.com/video-thumbnails/AETN-History_VMS/21/206/tdih_feb13_rebroadband_HD.jpg) Notice how we've come full circle back to Galileo's time: anyone who questions materialism or Neo-Darwinism is virtually driven from the academic public square---and this in a Nation whose Constitution defines that liberty which is good for you as a "blessing"---something good in the eyes of God and whose founding charter (the Declaration of Independence) appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". A famous Chinese paleontologist remarked a few years back "In China, you cannot question the government. In America, you cannot question Darwin." Sad but true. Truly, we are right back where Galileo started. Do you not see the parallels between theistic denials of Heliocentric Theory and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? You'e kidding right? You cannot possibly be that stupid. You have that backwards. And yes, in a modern academic setting people who deny The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection are considered just as misguided as those why deny Heliocentric Theory. The movement of the earth around the sun is an observable fact of present day reality. Neo-Darwinism is a deduction from an a priori philosophical premise which is held primarily on the basis of faith. The evidence for Neo-Darwinism is contradictory at best. This was the theme of a remarkably candid lecture lecture given by Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and the author of that museum’s general text on evolution, compared creationism (not creation-science) with evolution, and characterized both as scientifically vacuous concepts which are held primarily on the basis of faith. Many of the specific points in the lecture are technical, but two are of particular importance. First, Patterson asked his audience of experts a question which reflected his own doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about evolution: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing . . . that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.” Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not. One point of comparison was particularly striking. A common objection to creationism in pre-Darwinian times was that no one could say anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed to the “fact” of creation and conceded ignorance of the means. But now, according to Patterson, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity. Evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is not "under fire" in the scientific community. Not one bit. Nada, nill, zip..... Even your alleged source Colin Patterson disagrees with your out of context "quote mining": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Patterson_(biologist) Patterson did not support creationism, but his work has been cited by creationists with claims that it provides evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.[8][9] In the second edition of Evolution (1999), Patterson stated that his remarks had been taken out of context: Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.[10] I never said Patterson supported creationism. Patterson backed off his critical statements after he was besieged by Darwinists, but the fact remains he said what he said. The original question was whether Neo-Darwinism is akin to the heliocentric view of the universe. You've not responded to my point about that at all. And notice the conflating caricature (critics of evolution are young earth creationists who can't explain their own theory). That Darwinists have to use such dishonest tactics (including burden shifting) speaks volumes....
Last edited by Tarquin; 02/29/20.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4 |
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642." https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-in-rome-for-inquisitionNotice how we've come full circle back to Galileo's time: anyone who questions materialism or Neo-Darwinism is virtually driven from the academic public square---and this in a Nation whose Constitution defines that liberty which is good for you as a "blessing"---something good in the eyes of God and whose founding charter (the Declaration of Independence) appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". A famous Chinese paleontologist remarked a few years back "In China, you cannot question the government. In America, you cannot question Darwin." Sad but true. Truly, we are right back where Galileo started. Do you not see the parallels between theistic denials of Heliocentric Theory and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? You'e kidding right? You cannot possibly be that stupid. You have that backwards. And yes, in a modern academic setting people who deny The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection are considered just as misguided as those why deny Heliocentric Theory. The movement of the earth around the sun is an observable fact of present day reality. Neo-Darwinism is a deduction from an a priori philosophical premise which is held primarily on the basis of faith. The evidence for Neo-Darwinism is contradictory at best. This was the theme of a remarkably candid lecture lecture given by Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and the author of that museum’s general text on evolution, compared creationism (not creation-science) with evolution, and characterized both as scientifically vacuous concepts which are held primarily on the basis of faith. Many of the specific points in the lecture are technical, but two are of particular importance. First, Patterson asked his audience of experts a question which reflected his own doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about evolution: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing . . . that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.” Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not. One point of comparison was particularly striking. A common objection to creationism in pre-Darwinian times was that no one could say anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed to the “fact” of creation and conceded ignorance of the means. But now, according to Patterson, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity. Evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is not "under fire" in the scientific community. Not one bit. Nada, nill, zip..... Even your alleged source Colin Patterson disagrees with your out of context "quote mining": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Patterson_(biologist) Patterson did not support creationism, but his work has been cited by creationists with claims that it provides evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.[8][9] In the second edition of Evolution (1999), Patterson stated that his remarks had been taken out of context: Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.[10] I never said Patterson supported creationism. Patterson backed off his critical statements after he was besieged by Darwinists, but the fact remains he said what he said. The original question was whether Neo-Darwinism is akin to the heliocentric view of the universe. You've not responded to my point about that at all. And notice the conflating caricature (critics of evolution are young earth creationists who can't explain their own theory). That Darwinists have to use such dishonest tactics (including burden shifting) speaks volumes.... You made no point. What was made was a bald assertion supported by quote mining a respected scientist who's objected to Creationist like you dishonestly misrepresenting his position. If you want a more detailed response, here's one for you: Chromosome 2
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2 |
You said there was a parallel between heliocentrism and Neo-Darwinism. I pointed out why they were not comparable: the movement of the earth around the sun is an observation of present day reality whereas Neo-Darwinism is a deduction from an a priori metaphysical premise. From you we heard "crickets". I then added evidence for the larger point by quoting Colin Patterson. You accused me of quote mining but the fact remains Patterson said what he said. The pattern is always the same: a noted thinker criticizes Neo-Darwinism in a moment of brutal honesty but is bullied into a retraction by the "scientific" establishment. The same thing occurred with Karl Popper, but Popper had plenty of reasons for his criticism of Neo-Darwinism as essentially vacuous and Popper affirmed his original criticism toward the end of his life.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4 |
You made an absurd argument not worthy of response.
"Neo-Darwinism is a deduction from an a priori metaphysical premise."
We have the evidence, you don't. I save you what on the fire would be called a hint.
Go look it up.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2 |
We're not distinguishing evidence you dumb [bleep], we're on the topic of logic---the logical difference between the validity of heliocentrism and Neo-Darwinism as analogies (parallels). One is an observation of present day reality. The other is not an observation of present day reality (micro-evolution is not what we're talking about) but a deduction from an a priori philosophical premise in which the evidence is dredged up from the distant past. Stop being willfully obtuse.
Last edited by Tarquin; 02/29/20.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2 |
Chrome 2? Very weak stuff: Apes and humans are similar---each has two arms, two legs, a head and a torso. They are also very different in important respects. Humans only have 46 chromosomes while apes have 48.
It is a scientific fact that chromosomes can fuse together to form one big chromosome, so to explain away the difference in our chromosome counts, Darwinists take a leap of faith. They believe two chromosomes fused together in an unknown primate ancestor to form human chromosome 2. Then they claim this faith-based belief as their great proof for Darwinism. But multiple studies have revealed that sheep which have multiple chromosome fusions are indistinguishable from sheep which do not have the fused chromosomes. What this means is that such fusions do not create new and beneficial genetic information that causes one kind of critter, like an ape, to evolve into another kind, like a human. Science shows that human chromosome 2 contains complex genetic information that is not found in apes, including many protein coding genes. Likewise, scientists have never shown how such complex genetic information could come about by natural processes. It is the genetic data that is the big difference between ape and man – not the number of chromosomes holding the data. After all, tobacco plants, like apes, also have 48 chromosomes yet no one is claiming that they are close relatives! In other words, even if human chromosome 2 was the result of a fusion event it would be best explained as the fusion of two human chromosomes, not from a fusion that occurred, once upon a time, in some non-observed primate ancestor. So what does human chromosome 2 have to do with Darwinism? Absolutely nothing! The bottom line is that people must be careful to distinguish real science from biased Darwinian conjecture because claiming that Human Chromosome 2 is proof of goo-to-the-zoo-to-you evolutionism is nothing more than propaganda.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2 |
Last edited by Tarquin; 02/29/20.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4 |
Co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. nuff said.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2 |
Co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. nuff said. Once again you betray the weakness of your position by the invocation of an ad hominem fallacy to avoid responding to the actual points raised by Johnson. In logic this is known as a capitulation, a concession. You've just admitted your impotence do defend your pet theory for everyone on this board (who has at least a 3rd grade education) to see. Why are you so afraid?
Last edited by Tarquin; 02/29/20.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4 |
Co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. nuff said. Once again you betray the weakness of your position by the invocation of an ad hominem fallacy to avoid responding to the actual points raised by Johnson. In logic this is known as a capitulation, a concession. You've just admitted your impotence do defend your pet theory for everyone on this board (who has at least a 3rd grade education) to see. Why are you so afraid? Nope. Again, you understand so little about the modern scientific method, you are too ignorant to understand why the Discovery Institute, and similar creationist entities do not follow the scientific method. It's due to this lack of proper rigor that their ideas are excluded from serious consideration. There's a well defined path for their ideas to gain scientific acceptance, however they are too absurd to make it to the starting gate, let alone pass peer review with reputable journals. When Johnson is published in a reputable biological journal such as Nature, I'll take notice of his claims, the supporting evidence, and the review process. In contrast, lets see what the National Academy of Sciences has to say about Evolution: https://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.htmlMany scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
Please note, even the National Academy of Sciences compare the certainty of Heliocentric Theory with that of The Theory of Evolution.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 02/29/20.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,664 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,664 Likes: 1 |
You make daily affirmations of your faith without regard to what is being said. Always focussing on the poster while studiously avoiding debate on the topic. You and I are exactly the same. You believe what you read is factual. I have been on both side and know I am right. I have no belief about how the universe came to be. I am questioning those who do claim to know. The two are not the same. You are equivocating. I don't believe you. Or your are insane. You come here and argue against Christians because you don't have a belief. You need help. You just demonstrate that that you don't understand what is being said. It is the theist who claims knowledge where no knowledge exists, that the universe is created by a God.. .and it is the atheist who points out that this is an unjustified belief, that in fact nobody knows the ultimate nature of the universe, how it came about, whether it's cyclic, part of a greater system, etc...nobody knows, but some pretend to know...hence the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2 |
The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts. You just don't get that and so you double down on the same logical fallacy. When Einstein advanced a controversial aspect of his theory of relativity Hitler responded by trotting out 50 of his best scientists to say Einstein was wrong. But Einstein responded (quite correctly) "it only takes one to prove me wrong". Proponents of AGW employ the same fallacies as you (fallacies designed to convince others to not look at the evidence) to wit, 97% of scientists (or mainstream science) agree that global warming is human caused and will be disastrous if we don't restrict fossil fuel use. But science does not proceed by way of consensus. Something is true or correct (or likely so) not because everyone agrees that it is, but because the evidence fits the theory. You are afraid to respond to arguments showing the evidence does not fit the theory as evidenced by your constant invocation of consensus and the prestige of the proponents of your pet theory. But scientific consensus has often been spectacularly wrong. Defenders of the neo-Darwinian synthesis employ the same tired fallacies, but the gig is up because intelligent people are taking notice that the invocation of fallacies (like peer review for example) are really admissions of theoretical or evidentiary weakness. Don't be afraid DBT and AS, open your eyes and learn!
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4 |
The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts. Exactly. And 100% of the arguments from the Discovery Institute are of the worst possible scientific quality. As for the 97% of scientist and global warming, that numbers not true. The claims made regarding that number are no where close to being true.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 02/29/20.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2 |
The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts. Exactly. And 100% of the arguments from the Discovery Institute are of the worst possible scientific quality. You're embarrassing yourself. You're simply arguing by assertion, which is no argument at all. Prove your point! Start with Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, which first rate atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel praised effusively. Debunk that one for us. And while you're at it, explain why, if anything from the Discovery Institute is suspect, the evidence convinced Antony Flew that evolution cannot possibly explain the origin of life. (Hint: the evidence convincing Flew did not come from the Discovery Institute). What is it that explains why bio-chemist James Tour (one of the top 50 scientists in this country) thinks evolution is bunk. (Its not anything he read from the Discovery Institute).
Last edited by Tarquin; 02/29/20.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,664 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,664 Likes: 1 |
Evolution of life and the origin of life are two different issues.
Last edited by DBT; 02/29/20.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2 |
Evolution of life and the origin of life are two different issues. Yes, but not in a way that helps the insurmountable odds for either evolution or origins of life research.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4 |
The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts. Exactly. And 100% of the arguments from the Discovery Institute are of the worst possible scientific quality. Demonstrate it. Start with Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, which first rate atheist philosopher praised effusively. And while you're at it, explain why the evidence convinced Antony Flew that evolution cannot possibly explain the origin of life. Tell me about the Peer Review process for Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell"?? Here's a convent index to many of your most absurd religiously motivated beliefs and why they are wrong. Enjoy: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4 |
Evolution of life and the origin of life are two different issues. Yes, but not in a way that helps the insurmountable odds for either evolution or origins of life research. You don't even understand the significance of numerators and denominators in determining odds. Let me know when you figure this out.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051 Likes: 2 |
The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts. Exactly. And 100% of the arguments from the Discovery Institute are of the worst possible scientific quality. Demonstrate it. Start with Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, which first rate atheist philosopher praised effusively. And while you're at it, explain why the evidence convinced Antony Flew that evolution cannot possibly explain the origin of life. Tell me about the Peer Review process for Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell"?? Here's a convent index to many of your most absurd religiously motivated beliefs and why they are wrong. Enjoy: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.htmlYou really like to double down on stupid don't you? Again, peer review is essentially irrelevant because once again, it partakes of the organic fallacy and very often it works to shield the status quo from disconfirming evidence. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/peer-review-science-wheel-misfortune-160036634.html See also: https://www.discovery.org/a/3835/ and https://www.wnd.com/2007/02/40179/ The Sternberg incident is literally Galileo all over again.
Last edited by Tarquin; 02/29/20.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,073 Likes: 4 |
The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts. Exactly. And 100% of the arguments from the Discovery Institute are of the worst possible scientific quality. Demonstrate it. Start with Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, which first rate atheist philosopher praised effusively. And while you're at it, explain why the evidence convinced Antony Flew that evolution cannot possibly explain the origin of life. Tell me about the Peer Review process for Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell"?? Here's a convent index to many of your most absurd religiously motivated beliefs and why they are wrong. Enjoy: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.htmlYou really like to double down on stupid don't you? Again, peer review is essentially irrelevant because once again, it partakes of the organic fallacy and very often it works to shield the status quo from disconfirming evidence. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/peer-review-science-wheel-misfortune-160036634.html See also: https://www.discovery.org/a/3835/ and https://www.wnd.com/2007/02/40179/ The Sternberg is literally Galileo all over again. Oh, So in other words, it wasn't peer reviewed and was unable to pass any level of scrutiny. Thanks you!!! If Meyer's what to make scientific claims, it might help if he actually did some science, and followed the scientific method.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 02/29/20.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
322 members (2alphas2, 10Glocks, 10ring1, 1Longbow, 1badf350, 163bc, 36 invisible),
1,899
guests, and
1,052
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,214
Posts18,503,952
Members73,994
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
