Science Disproves Evolution

[John Jones]

And that vital difference is exactly why I said what I said as I said it, because that is exactly what some scientists do in the name of science.

Passive-aggressive much?

Name some scientists who do such "in the name of science."

 

[Marduk]

Passive-aggressive much?

Name some scientists who do such "in the name of science."

Andrew Goliszek
Martin Gardner

 

[joobz]

Clearly... no.

Then why did you call evolution a religion? You have an opportunity in this thread to actually refute the evidence. Instead, you lobbed a label at evolution attempting to equate it to your own faith.

 

[154]

Then why did you call evolution a religion? You have an opportunity in this thread to actually refute the evidence. Instead, you lobbed a label at evolution attempting to equate it to your own faith.

Again, "religion" = "system of belief." So what?

 

[Resume]

who seemed to know nothing of germ theory or deemed it unimportant to share with us.

BTW, do you have any actual criticism of the evidence?

Apparently he held a grudge about that apple thing.

 

[Resume]

"Wisdom begins with the reverential awe of God."

Which god? Why that one? What do you know about the others? How much study have you made of them?

 

[joobz]

Again, "religion" = "system of belief." So what?

Because that is all it is and all that your religion has. Evolution, on the other hand, is based upon evidence. Evidence which you have failed to actually discuss.

So, it is, as I said, quite telling. You seem to perhaps be jealous of the fact that evolution is better supported than your beliefs.

 

[John Jones]

Andrew Goliszek
Martin Gardner

You got me there.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Again, "religion" = "system of belief." So what?

Evolution is not a system of belief, 154. It is a scientific theory. Would you call gravity a system of belief? Or do you not believe in gravity, either?

 

[John Jones]

Again, "religion" = "system of belief." So what?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Your turn.

 

[Dinwar]

And that vital difference is exactly why I said what I said as I said it, because that is exactly what some scientists do in the name of science.

This makes no sense.

Science, as a means of learning about reality, tests hypotheses. Scientists studying abiogenesis are creating a number of hypotheses, which are then tested. Sometimes this is in classical experiments (making small amounts of early-Earth atmosphere and recreating the early-Earth conditions to see what happens), and sometimes this testing is done in a more historical science kinda way (they hypothesis that they should find Chemical Fossil X in Place Y, then go to Place Y to see if Chemical Fossil X exists).

People debating Philosophies of Origins, if anyone does this anymore, tend to sit around thinking deep thoughts in the absence of data.

THAT is the crucial difference. One side has actual facts to play with, while the other is satisfied with mere postulations.

"Wisdom begins with the reverential awe of God."

Assuming you mean the Christian god (maybe not a valid assumption, but I'm in the USA where it generally is), it's game over for you. The problem is you're doing it backwards--you already have the answer (whatever version of whatever interpretation of whatever translation of the Bible you want to use), and are piecing together evidence to support it. Scientists, on the other hand, look at the data and build hypotheses to explain it. Simply put, if you're going to start with a pre-set answer we cannot get away from, there's nowhere for this discussion to go. You're going to reject whatever data doesn't support your pre-set conclusion.

 

[Dancing David]

Why do you keep repeating that? I know what I said. I know what you said. We disagree. So what?

So you were rude and dismissive christians because they believe in the theory of evolution, with absolutely no bearing on their actual faith and life style.

Okay, you go to the church of Uncle Fungus then...

As a pagan witch high priest, I do worship Uncle Fungus, that would be silly. Especially since I am an atheist.

Yeah, got it, Uncle Fungus. Thanks professor. That was quite a profession of faith.

Now what i said at all, I said that the precursor was neither fish, nor dor, nor a combination of fishdog.

Of course I've considered such things. Big questions. Always.
Then I consider my speck of sand and your speck of sand before an Almighty Creator
and can stand in nothing but reverential awe.

perhaps you should consider that god may not have written the bible, but a human did.

"Wisdom begins with the reverential awe of God."

Wisdom begins with humility.

You say god, I say universe.

 

[sphenisc]

Could be but the proto animals were not dogs or fish...

That goes for Tiktaalik, it is neither dog nor fish, its succesors became them but it is neither.

Tiktaalik^WP (pronounced /tɪkˈtɑːlɨk/) is a genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fish from the late Devonian period. Did you read the site you quoted?

 

[X]

Again, "religion" = "system of belief." So what?

Bypassing the quibble on "belief" vs "acceptance based on overwhelming evidence", this would mean that:

Thermodynamics is a religion.
Stress Analysis is a religion.
Newtonian Physics is a religion.
General and Special Relativity are religions.
Chemistry is a religion.
Geoscience is a religion.
Engineering is a religion.
Electronics is a religion.
Computer Science is a religion.
Metallurgy is a religion.
Science is a religion.
Critical Thinking is a religion.
Citation Standards (MLA, IEEE, etc) is a religion.
Coaching is a religion.

And so-on and so-forth.

 

[Dinwar]

Citation Standards (MLA, IEEE, etc) is a religion.

This one I can actually see. Have you ever looked into some of the nuances of these citation methods? Or spoken with the people who study these? ~shudder~

 

[Lucian]

Citation Standards (MLA, IEEE, etc) is a religion.

This one I can actually see. Have you ever looked into some of the nuances of these citation methods? Or spoken with the people who study these? ~shudder~

Nah, MLA's not a religion: it's a cult.

 

[Hawk one]

I'd like to take a moment to get back to Pahu's quote mining, before he turns up with more of it after his suspension is up. In particular, I'd like to remind him about the following posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6434473#post6434473
This post is a response to Brown's claim of the Chinese characters supporting the "global flood" idea. It tells several interesting facts about chinese characters, and as it turns out, Brown is simply lying, because the facts don't support the claims.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6434636#post6434636
Here we see one of the quote-mined George Wald. Well, that's not entirely accurate. It's not even quote-mined, it's simply made up. Since Pahu seems to have an aversion of clicking links, I'll quote the post:

For those of you interested, I seriously doubt the accuracy of the Huxtley quote, and the above, at least, is a bald-faced lie. While George Wald did write an article for Scientific American (quite possibly to the issue cited), the sentence above appeared nowhere in it. This 'quote' is twisted to vaguely resemble one of Wald's statements, but of course with the meaning completely twisted around. It's one of the nastiest examples of fundamentalist dishonesty out there.

I've unfortunately lost the link to my source; if anyone else happens to have it, I'd by grateful if you posted it.

ETA: Never mind, here it is. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

The article is from 1958, and as said, contains nothing with much resemblance to the above quote.

ETA2: No, sorry, 1954 after all. Think before posting, think before posting..

So here we have nothing but a pure, simple lie. Another poster even asked Pahu to retract his claim, which is something every decent, moral person would do. There are no posts of Pahu doing this.

Oh, and more posts showing examples of Pahu/Brown quote-mining, or simply making up quotes to suit his needs:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6434848#post6434848
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6436860#post6436860 <-- Take a real good look here, Pahu.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6455304#post6455304
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6458080#post6458080
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6462607#post6462607
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6462712#post6462712
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6465076#post6465076 <--- Slightly different, as pahu was showing quotes that may be accurate, but made by people whose ideas have been disproved a long time ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6479291#post6479291

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6479995#post6479995
A post daring Pahu to prove that one of his "these folks support Brown's conclusion" are actually correct. Never responded to, of course, since he would have to read and research those people first-hand, instead of just taking Brown's dishonest words for it.

So basically, whenever Pahu's shown quotes that appears to support Brown's religious beliefs, someone has taken the time to search out those quotes and see if they are accurately representative. As it turns out, not only is Brown quote-mining, he's going so far as to simply make up quotes whenever he needed.

And how does Pahu respond to all these posts showing evidence of him doing nothing but repeating lies of Brown? He runs away from them. He starts a new series of quotes and does the evasion dance all over again.


Let me ask you this, Pahu. You must have read those posts. You clearly ignore responding to them, but you've read them. Now, when you have already been exposed to post made-up quotes, why do you think it's a good idea to throw in some new quotes? I mean, if Brown's been caught lying half a dozen times with his quote mines - and again, the evidence is there in the posts I've linked - what makes you think another half a dozen of quotes are more believable? Shouldn't you instead actually be conserned enough about the truth to check the veracity of these quotes yourself? Heck, why didn't you even check the veracity on the Chinese characters? Such an easy task to do, yet you failed even at that.

And more importantly, what makes you think we will believe another one of your quote-storms when you still haven't apologised or admitted to the previous ones being false? What makes you think you can just run away from repeating Brown's lies? What makes you think you won't be held accountable for them? What makes you think telling falsehoods will establish any credibility? Surely you must realise that if you want to be taken seriously, you must respond to the facts presented to you?

Now, you may be tempted to ask something like "why would Brown lie?", in defense. But see, that only works if there is any doubt that he lied. There isn't any doubt that he did. All the evidence points to Brown lying, again and again. Instead, you should ask yourself "Why didn't Brown tell the truth about the Chinese characters?" and similar questions. Why didn't he get support from other scientists without quote-mining them? Why didn't he refrain from making up quotes to support his position?

I urge you... No, I plead with you to ask yourself those questions before making another post filled with nothing but C&Ped stuff from Brown's website, accepted by you without a single critical question, especially in the light of all the evidence shown to you that the man is a liar. I beg you to start admitting your errors. If not to us, then at least to yourself. I want you to especially read that post I quoted. There is no doubt about Brown simply making up a quote supposedly made by George Wald. Any honest person would reckognise that. Any person with decency and morals would admit to their mistake.

So there you have it, Pahu. And while you will surely be tempted to ignore this post - or only take a few parts of it that you think you can respond to and ignore the rest - I'm not going to let you. Every time you post another of your C&P posts, I will repeat these facts. I will not allow you to run away from Brown's lies. I will tell you the truth again and again until I see you doing the thing that Brown could never, ever do: The moral, decent, honest thing.

 

[Nonpareil]

You must have read those posts.

HA o

 

[Craig4]

Again, "religion" = "system of belief." So what?

Evolution is not religion then because no belief is required. We see evidence and develop an understand of how the process works. This is not belief.

To put it another way, seeing is not believing. Seeing is the end of belief because after seeing belief is no longer required.

 

[Nonpareil]

Evolution is not religion then because no belief is required. We see evidence and develop an understand of how the process works. This is not belief.

To put it another way, seeing is not believing. Seeing is the end of belief because after seeing belief is no longer required.

I believe the quote is:

"Seeing, contrary to popular wisdom, isn't believing. It's where belief stops, because it isn't needed any more."
- Terry Pratchett, Pyramids