Jump to content

Canadians divided over creation and evolution


jdobbin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 857
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Segnasaur, WIP, etc..,

"Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process. He did not believe this process to be "perfectly smooth," but rather, "stepwise," with a species evolving and accumulating small variations over long periods of time. Darwin assumed that if evolution is gradual then there should be a record in fossils of small incremental change within a species.

But in many cases, Darwin, and scientists today, are unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin blamed lack of transitional forms on gaps in the fossil record, a good assertion, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are very small.

However in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation for the numerous gaps in the fossil record.

They suggested that the "gaps" were real, representing periods of stasis in morphology. They termed this mode of evolution "punctuated equilibrium."

The idea that species may remain relatively stable over time, then change within a short amount of time was actually suggested BY DARWIN HIMSELF...

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly ... nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Origin of Species, Page 91... http://books.google.ca/books?id=PvkRAAAAYA...num=7#PPA91,M1)

So, Darwin had a theory, and the evidence (in the form of the fossil record) supports that theory.

Puncuated Equilibrium is not some concept that overrides Darwin's theories, but they basically represent a fine-tuning.

You can argue and defend Darwin's evolution all you want....but it doesn't wash. So many holes.

Strange... about the only ones suggesting that there are 'holes' in the theory are those that don't do significant work in biology and related fields. I wonder why that is...

What I'm saying all along is that this theory should've been dropped a long time ago. Even Darwin himself knew something was wrong.

Actually no, he didn't. And there is nothing wrong with his theory.

Other scientists are giving their own different theories...

Actually, no there aren't.

You see, there is a particular definition of "theory" which is used by scientists... theory does not mean "guess" or "belief"... the term is only applied to concepts that A: have withstood considerable analysis, B: can be falsifiable.

The vast vast majority of people who work in biological fields accept evolition as the only reasonable explaination that fits the observed data.

.why shouldn't we give those alternatives a good look?

Well, lets see...

The Raelians have an idea of how humans came to be on earth. Should we give their alternative a look? If yes, then I have to ask, just what would it take for you to discount ANY alternative as being useless? And if you said no, then why the hypocracy? Why assume that YOUR beliefs are acceptable but the Raelian's are not?

Dawkins and followers remain firm in their own theory and wouldn't even consider the very idea of Intelligent Design simply because of their fanatical belief that there is no God - therefore their minds are closed to anything that might suggest - or even hint - that yes, there is.

The theory of evolution has also been accepted by the Catholic church, Episcopalians (Anglicans), and others.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ristianity.html

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm

So, its not just athiests who have accepted evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, we have real evidence by mutation and natural selection coming at us in the form of a possible flu pandemic; so religious authorities who are trying to keep the dark ages alive are guilty of criminal negligence, in the effects they have had in dumbing down science education both in the U.S., and now here in Canada, in the form of creationists he is putting in government to appeal to his religious conservative wing of the Conservative Party. It's tragically ironic to have a creationist put in charge of science funding at a time when there are so many issues that require improving science funding and education, instead of trying to destroy it like they have done in some Muslim countries like Turkey!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY IN A NUTSHELL

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Darwinists believe natural selection did the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."

Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer, standing in contrast to Darwinian evolution, which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature.

More detailed explanations about this theory…...

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IN A NUTSHELL

How Darwinian Evolution Works:

1. Random mutations cause changes, or variation, in a population of organisms.

2. These different organisms then compete to survive and reproduce.

3. Those which are best able to survive and reproduce do so, and tend to leave the most offspring. This is called “natural selection.”

4. Over time, if some organisms survive and reproduce more than others, a species will "evolve."

Evolution claims:

- All organisms are related through "common ancestry."

- All organisms arose through the random process of mutation.

- All organisms arose and persist because of unguided natural selection, which can only select for actual beneficial mutations.

http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/faq.php

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Santorum Amendment (2001, 2002)

• On June 13, 2001, the United States Senate strongly supported an amendment which states,

"(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science;

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."

• Introduced by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania); supported by a vote of 91-8.

• Afterwards, 3 senators made noteworthy comments:

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts):

"the language itself, is completely consistent with what represents the central values of this body. We want children to be able to speak and examine various scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is available to them so they can talk about different concepts and do it intelligently with the best information that is before them."

Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia):

"I think, too often, we limit the best of our educators by directing them to avoid controversy and to try to remain politically correct. If students cannot learn to debate different viewpoints and to explore a range of theories in the classroom, what hope have we for civil discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors? Scientists today have numerous theories about our world and its beginnings. I, personally, have been greatly impressed by the many scientists who have probed and dissected scientific theory and concluded that some Divine force had to have played a role in the birth of our magnificent universe. These ideas align with my way of thinking. But I understand that they might not align with someone else's. That is the very point of this amendment--to support an airing of varying opinions, ideas, concepts, and theories. if education is truly a vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying viewpoints should be welcome as part of the school experience."

Senator Brownback (R-Kansas):

"In August of 1999 the Kansas State School Board fired a shot heard 'round the world. Press reports began to surface that evolution would not longer be taught. The specter of a theocratic school board entering the class to ensure that no student would be taught the prevailing wisdom of biology was envisioned. Political cartoons and editorials were drafted by the hundreds. To hear the furor, one might think that the teachers would be charged with sorting through their student's texts with an Exacto knife carving out pictures of Darwin. However, the prevailing impression, as is often the case was not quite accurate. Here are the facts about what happened in Kansas. The school board did not ban the teaching of evolution. They did not forbid the mention of Darwin in the classroom. They didn't even remove all mention of evolution from the State assessment test. Rather, the school board voted against including questions on macro-evolution--the theory that new species can evolve from existing species over time--from the State assessment. The assessment did include questions on micro-evolution--the observed change over time within an existing species. Why did they do this? Why go so far as to decipher between micro and macro-evolution on the State exam? How would that serve the theocratic school board's purpose that we read so much about? Well, the truth is . . . their was no theocratic end to the actions of the school board. In fact, their vote was cast based on the most basic scientific principal that science is about what we observe, not what we assume. The great and bold statement that the Kansas School Board made was that simply that we observe micro-evolution and therefore it is scientific fact; and that it is impossible to observe macro-evolution, it is scientific assumption. The response to this relatively minor and eminently scientific move by the Kansas school board was shocking. The actions and intentions of the school board were routinely misrepresented in the global press. Many in the global scientific community, who presumably knew the facts, spread misinformation as to what happened in Kansas. College admissions boards, who most certainly knew the facts, threatened Kansas students. The State Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the State universities were threatened based on the actions of school board. All of these effects caused by a school board trying to decipher between scientific fact and scientific assumption. The response to the actions of the board, appeared to many as a response to the commission of heresy."

• The NCSE tries to weaken bill and force it to include all controversial theories.

• Apart from the NCSE's lobbying, the actual amendment remained basically in its original form. However, it was not included in the final version of the bill, but rather was included in the "Conference Report," which is meant to explain the intent of the bill.

The report said:

The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should Prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from the religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.

• President Bush signed bill into law on January 8, 2002 as H.R. 1, the "No Child Left Behind Act,"

• The Santorum Amendment is now one of the primary arguments being used to allow for the inclusion of intelligent design into the curriculum in Ohio, and also to allow for criticisms of evolution to be taught.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is intelligent design theory often controversial?

The Short Answer:

Because it challenges the reigning philosophical paradigm reigning over science, as well as the reigning theory of origins in biology, namely evolution. Additionally, it challenges the metaphysical beliefs of many practitioners of science. These changes lead to predictable "paradigm change resistance" that characterizes the discovery and promotion of new ideas in science

The Long Answer:

Intelligent design theory is often controversial because it claims that aspects of the natural world are the result of intelligent action rather than naturally occurring chance, or law-governed processes. For example, the scientific theory currently dominating scientific thought regarding the origin of biological organisms is the highly regarded theory of evolution, which offers chance-law-governed mechanisms (mutation and selection) to explain observed characteristics of life. Intelligent design theory claims that at least some aspects of the biological realm are the result of intelligent action, rather than a chance or law-governed processes, such as the mutation-selection mechanism thought to be driving evolution. By proposing intelligent cause over mechanistic cause, intelligent design theory presents a competing hypothesis to the highly regarded dominant evolutionary paradigm of biological origins, and thus often finds itself facing much opposition from the scientific community.

Intelligent design theory is also controversial because it possibly (though not necessarily) implies that non-mechanistic causes were involved in the origins and history of life on this planet. This presents a potential challenge to both the methodological naturalism of those who practice science and also to the philosophical naturalism held to be true by many scientists. While intelligent design theory does not necessarily imply that any intelligent causes were non-natural or supernatural, the possible philosophical implications of the existence of an intelligent designer challenges the worldviews and metaphysics of many. This is often an unidentified, unrecognized, unrealized, or unadmitted source of opposition to intelligent design theory.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1160

I've explained my position and my views....and said all there is to say.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is intelligent design theory often controversial?

The Short Answer:

Because it challenges the reigning philosophical paradigm reigning over science,

Yes, exactly, and that paradigm is "You must have evidence to back up a claim, and that claim must be clear and make specific predictions."

Here's a challenge. What is the precise mechanism that the alleged Designer used to create life? What specific events during the development of life were attributable to the Designer, and how did the Designer go about making those changes? What specific observations would be incompatible with an Intelligent Designer being responsible for any or all aspects of life?

These are the kinds of questions that are tossed at ID, and thus far I know of no answer. In fact, ID can best be described "Somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution." In fact, you can't even get the main ID advocates to agree on what precisely has been designed. Behe accepts evolution and common descent, and appears to take a theistic evolutionist's view, that there were points where the Designer must have assuredly moved to make more complex structures (ie. the bacterial flagellum and the vertebrate immune system), while other ID advocates, in particular people like the Dover School Board, appear to be out-and-out special Creationists.

And do you know why this is? Because ID was meant to be the Big Tent that would unite the theistic evolutionists, the Old Earth Creationists and the Young Earth Creationists into a single united force, and use a de-Godicized version of Creationism to sneak Creationism past the First Amendment, since Creationism itself was effectively barred from being taught in public school classrooms after Edwards v. Aguillard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard . That's where the infamous Of Pandas and People suddenly, in the midst of editing, changed from an overtly Creationist publication into a ID one (the infamous "cdesign proponentsists" of the Dover trial).

In short, ID has nothing to do with science. It makes no proposal that's the least bit useful in determining if anything is designed. Dembsky's information filter has been laughed out of mathematical circles, and Behe's few supposed examples irreducible complexity have in fact been more than adequately explained by much more mundane, natural processes. In fact, IC was even predicted as an outcome of molecular evolution long before Behe came on the scene http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I said it all....

For those of you posting so many questions and/or dismissing the ID theory, it will serve you well to read the latest link that provides information about ID....so you can truly say that you are well-informed in this subject.

Though to the faithful disciples and followers of messiah Dawkins, Darwin's theory - Dawkin's own bible I guess - is being evangelised as the one and only rightful path that should be travelled in seeking the truth,....

clearly there are those who say.....baloney!

The Santorium Ammendment is quite telling and interesting.

We are talking SCIENCE! Challenges should and must be welcomed.

Open-mind, a definite requirement - not necessarily to mean outright acceptance that new ideas are right - but to be able to take a real look and to consider (especially when your own theory is full of holes to begin with).

Why should we all settle for just one theory that's riddled with holes? A theory that even its own creator came to question? Repeatedly refuted? A theory that's clearly just propped up by patch-up explanations?

A theory being kept afloat not for science, but more for personal philosophical beliefs?

Science shouldn't be hijacked and used to promote personal beliefs (religion or philosophical).

I am a Creationist ...that is based in my faith in God.

But that is not the point in this discussion.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpts from.....

EVOLUTION HALL OF SHAME

When Darwin presented a paper to the Linnaean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, Evolution from Space, p. 159).

"Some of the classic evidences given in support of the "fact" of evolution are embarrassingly flawed. Yet they continue to be displayed as "proofs" for evolution. [The word "proofs" is set off because in science, this is a misuse of the word, yet that is what must occur for evolution to be a "fact."]

Three things can be alleged about the thinking of those who allow such flagrant disregard for honest science. They must be thinking that ...

1) evolution is a fact regardless of the evidence,

2) this is the best evidence evolution has to offer,

3) most people will not know the difference, so use it.

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny: Haeckel's Fraud

In 1866, guided by the bias of evolution and atheism, German embryologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel, concluded that evolutionary the stages of species from single cells to humans (phylogeny) were repeated in embryological development (ontogeny) of each species. He surmised that, being highest on the evolutionary tree, human embryos should pass through the stages of the lower or more primitive species, namely single cell, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, to human. So convinced that he was right, he self-proclaimed the "Biogenetic Law": Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. However, it was neither a law nor correct. It was fraud.

Haeckel supplied drawings as evidence of his “scientific law,” which can still be found in textbooks to convince students that evolution is a fact. The truth is, Haeckel’s drawings are wrong. Worse yet, they were intentionally created to mislead viewers to “see” what Haeckel believed to be true.

Haeckel falsified his drawings to depict the appearance of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.

German scientist, Wilhelm His “… accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates …” (Stephen Jay Gould, 1977, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, p. 430).

To support his case [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 120.

During the trial, Haeckel confessed that he had altered his drawings, but excused himself by saying: “I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm (1977), Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications), p. 128).

"The law of biogenesis has to use cheating tricks in order to fit data to the theory" (G. Rager, "Human Embryology and the Law of Biogenesis," in Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum 79 (1986), pp. 451-452. As quoted by http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm, accessed 10/24/04).

"Haeckel claims these works to be both easy for the scientific layman to follow, and scientific and scholarly….There is considerable manufacturing of scientific evidence perpetrated. Yet the author has been very careful not to let the reader become aware of this state of affairs" (L. Rutimeyer, "Referate," in Archiv fur Anthropologie (1868) p. 301-302. As quoted by http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm, accessed 10/24/04).

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpts from...

EVOLUTION HALL OF SHAME

Vestigial Organs

"Blind evolutionary bias is responsible for the fallacy of using vestigial organ evidence for evolution. Concluding that an organ with no apparent purpose was evidence of previous ancestral history, evolutionists have paraded such examples in classrooms as “proof” of evolution. However, discoveries revealing organ purpose and function reveal that the apparent non-purpose of organs was the result of ignorance of its purpose. Another oversight caused by blind bias was failure to recognize that organs without purpose were due to loss of function within the species not a remnant of ancient history.

What are vestigial organs? “Elements appearing in various life forms which, although often quite underdeveloped, are no longer needed or functional and represent a carry-over from more primitive forms. The human appendix is an example. (Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, edited by Douglas M. Considine, page 2281).

"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities" (Horatio Hackett Newman, 1990, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case, p. 268).

"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vo1. 8, p. 926).

Evolutionist Scadding wrote: "I suspect that this argument; [functionless organs] gained widespread use not because it proves anything about evolution, but because it was thought to have particular force against some varieties of creationism….

"There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion [i.e., the organ has no function) can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist . . since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically….

"Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational science…. Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution" (S. Scadding, "Evolutionary Theory," quoted in CRSQ. December 1982, p. 190).

Below are a couple of examples of "vestigial" organs cited as evidence for evolution, but have been discovered to have function.

Appendix:

Evolution myth: "The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost." Joseph McCabe, 1912, The Story of Evolution, p. 264

Fact: "There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure” (William Straus, 1947, Quarterly Review of Biology, p. 149).

'Anatomically the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function … There is experimental evidence as well that the vermiform appendix is a lymphoid organ which acts as reservoir of antibody producing cells.' "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory - Vol. 5 (May 1981) p.175.

Leg bones in whales: "Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall." —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84."

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpts from....

EVOLUTION HALL OF SHAME

The Peppered Moth

(See J. Well's article published in The Scientist.)

"Dr. Kettlewell published results from his 1955 experiment on natural selection in peppered moths in Birmingham, England concluding that, "birds act as selective agents, as postulated by evolutionary theory," and that industrial melanism was "the most striking evolutionary change ever actually witnessed in any organism."

"It seems that the classical example of natural selection is actually an example of unnatural selection. The fact that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks invalidates Kettlewell's experiments and poses a serious problem for the classical explanation of industrial melanism in peppered moths" (Jonathan Wells, The Scientist 13[11]:13, May. 24, 1999).

"The importance of industrial melanism in the peppered moth as one of the first, and still most cited examples of evolution in action, places emphasis on the need to be sure that the story is right. In the 40 years since Kettlewell's pioneering work, many evolutionary biologists, particularly in Britain, but also in other parts of Europe, the United States, and Japan, have studied melanism in this species. The findings of these scientists show that the precised description of the basic peppered moth story is wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete, with respect to most of the story's component parts. When details of the genetics, behaviour, and ecology of this moth are taken into account, the resulting story is one of greater complexity, and in many ways greater interest, than the simple story that is usually related (Melanism: Evolution in Action, Michael E. N. Majerus, 1998, p116).

Why does it persist in spite of the fraud being exposed? One evolutionist writes that the peppered moth is, "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed" (Wright S. 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Volume 4: Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. p. 186). "

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame2.htm

More examples of fraud given....

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it not occur to you that perhaps others HAVE taken a 'real look', considered the Xtian creationist POV, and found it preposterous at worst, non-illuminating at best?

The flat fact is, if you are talking creationism, you aren't talking science; you are talking religion. It isn't even a conflict between science and religion overall, but rather the pet issue of one arcane sub-branch of one larger religion, that has a special hangup over one of it's dopier articles of faith being dismissed as unsubstantiated and irrelevant in the circles that are single-mindedly devoted to evidence and discovery.

WIP used the term 'GODDIDIT'... That's a good package term.

'Goddidit' is a wholly inadequate answer- an end to discovery, not a beginning. Even if accepted (on faith) as truth, it doesn't contribute a jot to answering any other questions (like when, why, or how) and so believing it or not is simply an irrelevancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the New Testament and Jesus now! The poll find that fifty-two per cent of Canadians think that He was “the actual Son of God who was crucified and then rose from the dead after being buried and then ascended into heaven.” A quarter of Canadians, including 15 per cent of believers, think Jesus was “a Jewish preacher or prophet . . .who was crucified and was buried but did not rise from the dead and was not the Son of God.” Fifteen per cent say Jesus didn’t exist at all — a belief held by seven per cent of those who believe in God — while 10 per cent of all Canadians, and eight per cent of the faithful, are unsure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY IN A NUTSHELL

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Which features? Be specific here. And calling Darwinism "chance-based" is like calling a spring turning into a river "chance-based".

Let me ask you, have you ever actually read a book by a biologist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a darn good thing that some folks have saw fit to go through Well's various critiques:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

Read it and weep.

I kinda found the site interesting but being skeptical, decided to know what is Talk.Origin. Apparently it's a newsnet news group.

Here's what their own faq says:

What is the purpose of the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup?

The purpose of the talk.origins newsgroup is to provide a forum for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins. See the talk.origins Newsgroup Welcome FAQ.

Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility?

Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?

We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive.. ....

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

"Don't take our word on it." Gee, at least thanks for the warning. :lol:

What do they mean by, "subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the archive?"

Cycles of what? Editing? Manipulating? Word Play?

Looks just like another message board....maybe the Oakleaf Forum.

If it walks like a beaver, and talks like an otter, it probably is a seal. See if you can find a LINK in that. :lol:

Is this your source? :P

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now, let me present the other side.....tadaaaaa!

TRUEORIGIN

• TrueOrigin FAQ Q&A

The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins). This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution origins model, including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website.

Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data. This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry.

The contributions posted at this site give some expression to the “other side”—dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:

1. The myth that the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution belief system—as heavily popularized by today’s self-appointed “science experts,” the popular media, academia, and certain government agencies—finds “overwhelming” or even merely unequivocal support in the data of empirical science

2. The myth that the alternative—biblical creation—somehow fails to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data

The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while heaping out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters, spurning the very advice of Darwin himself.

This site is one answer to such unreasonable—and unscientific—practices...

http://www.trueorigin.org/default.asp

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda found the site interesting but being skeptical, decided to know what is Talk.Origin. Apparently it's a newsnet news group.

Here's what their own faq says:

What is the purpose of the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup?

The purpose of the talk.origins newsgroup is to provide a forum for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins. See the talk.origins Newsgroup Welcome FAQ.

Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility?

Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?

We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive.. ....

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

"Don't take our word for it." Gee, at least thanks for the warning. :lol:

What do they mean by, "subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the archive?"

Cycles of what? Editing? Manipulating? Word Play?

Sounds just like another message board.... :lol:

Is this your source? :P

If you would bother to read the articles, you'd find it that the FAQs have full references to peer-reviewed and primary literature.

Talkorigins.org is a collection of FAQs and articles written by people, many of them actually scientists, who, over the last twenty five years, have posted to the Usenet group talk.origins (which was at one time net.origins). If you don't actually think the articles in question represent the views of scientists, you go to the bottom, to that thing called a bibliography, and then check what researchers actually say.

But you're not actually interested at all, I suspect, in what real scientists say. In fact, it's pretty clear that you have no idea what real scientists say. Whether this is out of terror or a complete lack of interest I'll leave to you to state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you would bother to read the articles, you'd find it that the FAQs have full references to peer-reviewed and primary literature.

I was reading the article WELLS AND HAEKEL'S EMBRYO....it was described as a review by a biologist. For the life of me, I can't seem to find the name of this biologist who did that article. Did I miss it?

WHo's the biologist who did that review?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talkorigins.org is a collection of FAQs and articles written by people, many of them actually scientists, who, over the last twenty five years, have posted to the Usenet group talk.origins (which was at one time net.origins).

Yeah I know....but it's hard to just ignore this one thing:

While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive.. ....

This kind of argument/rebuttal is actually an example of my skepticism with this so-called science....being led by Dawkins and disciples.

Several cycles - like patch-ups - before they get added to the archive! Wow!

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you justify this statement?

Dawkins says that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

This "appearance" is fundamental in the sense that there is no science without it; appearance is the product of consciousness.

God has only to say something to create it because appearance and consciousness are the product of symbol manipulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...