Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

What's with the widespread distrust of science around here?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Author

Message

RevJP
Moderator

Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005

Location: USA

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:02 pm Post subject:

P123 wrote:

In fact, I've offered to send you guys relevant scientific papers which I have access to through my university and the general public doesn't. I've made this offer more than once to Pondering, and once to you, and never have you guys shown even the slightest interest at seeing the evidence for yourselves.

Gee, I could swear I informed you that I have access to every paper you have at my own university - or did you choose to ignore that?

Quote:

You would rather deny it based on things you read in the media or hear from other people rather than read the raw findings yourselves. That's NOT scientific, so I stand by my statement.

A statement based on an assumption. You assume that anyone that does not agree with what you believe gets all their information from Fox news or some such. You are so blinded by your faith in what you choose to believe you cannot fathom someone else forming a differing conclusion based on a critical analysis of the evidence.

Quote:

The descent of man from lower primates is a mainstream conclusion in biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and especially in evolutionary biology. You don't believe that humans evolved from lower primates. You state that you don't have a problem with science, but rather that you have a problem with people who misapply science and logic. Therefore it follows logically that you must believe that the mainstream biologists (and especially all of the ones in evolutionary biology -I'm talking about 99.999% of the people working in the field) are misapplying science.

Let us look at what you say, and what you fail to acknowledge as truth even when you state it for yourself:

Quote:

The descent of man from lower primates is a mainstream conclusion in biology, microbiology, biochemistry

What is in disagreement, particularly between you and I, is the conclusion. We look at the same evidence but derive different conclusions - logically that indicates that the evidence is NOT self-conclusive. If it were, then there would be/could be NO debate.

Quote:

You state that you don't have a problem with science, but rather that you have a problem with people who misapply science and logic. Therefore it follows logically that you must believe that the mainstream biologists (and especially all of the ones in evolutionary biology -I'm talking about 99.999% of the people working in the field) are misapplying science.

Your premise is faulty and your conclusion is subsequently faulty. Certainly I have a problem with those who misapply science and logic. The main issue here is that the 'mainstream' as you so often refer to researches evolutionary evidence based on the conclusion that something is true, and not from a purely scientific approach to discover what the evidence may or may not infer.

More specifically, my issue is with people like you who, by your own admission, are unqualified to make credible inferences regarding biological science telling others that something is a fact when it is definitively NOT a fact, and then relying on the tired argument that 'every biologist' says so. To be more precise, it is my view that you, and those like you - including many scientists in the 'evolutionary field' commits egregious errors of logic in their approach to this particular field.

Quote:

No, you really haven't. Evolution doesn't rely on a single piece of evidence or a single logical conclusion. It is an extremely well-supported and theory which is supported by compelling evidence from hundreds of *independent* research areas, from continental drift to biochemistry to the fossil record, etc. You haven't even come CLOSE to showing that ANY of these, let alone ALL of these are 'misapplications of science'.

I am honestly at a loss as to how I can make this issue any clearer.

Quote:

You've made this same argument like 50 times on this board, and you have not pointed out a single assumption which is made by evolutionary biology.

I'd *LOVE* it if you would start a thread entitled, "The assumptions made by evolutionists and why their conclusions are unsound", or something like that. Whenever you think of one of these assumptions, put it in there.

I pray, for the sake of all that is sane, that you are intentionally being dense.

Have I not stated ad nauseum that it is the conclusion of macro-evolutionary change despite no demonstrable, repeatable, observable evidence to support it, which is the issue I have a problem with? That you have the audacity to say I have not pointed out a single assumption? Rolling Eyes

It is the assumption that because a species mutates and presents minor changes over time that it means that they will demonstrate major changes given millions of years.

Quote:

Saying 'please see above' doesn't change the fact that you've never given a scientific argument against global warming or given an alternative hypothesis why the Earth is warming.

Firstly, I've never argued against 'global warming', or rather - I've never argued against global climate change. What I have argued against is the assumptions and conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

As for an 'alternative hypothesis' goes... I suppose I've never said anything about cyclical climate changes, or anything like that, have I?

Quote:

You do it all the time! You believe that the entire mainstream of biology is misapplying science when they conclude that humans evolved from lower primates. Just to tell you how important evolution is to mainstream biology, they call it their 'unifying theory'. It is what ties all of the different areas of biology together. If you're right, and the conclusion that humans evolved from lower primates is a 'misapplication of science', or a 'fallacious conclusion based on assumptions', then it means that the entire field of biology and the VAST majority of experts in it have misapplied science.

ESL? It is a misapplication of logic, and certainly, in your case where you refuse to acknowledge or consider contradictory evidence (don't make me remind you of how often you dismiss something out of hand because the scientist involved didn't attend a school you approve of, or some other such nonsense, for it is your mode of operation to immediately label anything contravening your conclusions as not 'credible) it is a misapplication of the scientific method.

Quote:

You've tried to attack my logic many times, and you ALWAYS get it wrong. For example, you have no idea what fallacies are, and you misuse the term all the time. You think that when I cite experts, it's a fallacious appeal to authority. It isn't, because they are experts.

Considering your appeal was a gross generality, it does certainly qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority.

Quote:

Your 'slippery slope' argument in the global warming thread was also a misapplication. Why is that?

I do not feel it was. The debate on your justification for it is still under review.

Quote:

Did you actually LEARN anything in the class you took?

I've learned quite a lot actually. I'll admit however, that you may indeed be more educated in logic that I, for you are nearly a PhD, if I understand you correctly. I on the other hand am not so fortunate to shut myself off from the real world to further my education that far. I will settle for the few degrees I do have until I can continue to pursue my own doctorate.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject:

PrysdieHeer! wrote:

How much times do I have to tell you.
I`m Not Against Science-

Yes you are! You've even gone so far as to say that common sense is more important than education!

PrysdieHeer! wrote:

I like science-
I`m Against the flaws mixed in with it,, which you call science.

Me and virtually every scientist alive today. These 'flaws' as you call them, virtually every scientist alive believes them to be sound scientific conclusions. Are they ALL wrong?

PrysdieHeer! wrote:

Science should go through the right procedures, your theories don`t.

Which step of the scientific method did continental drift skip? Which step did radiological dating skip? What about evolutionary biology? And astronomy? Cosmology? Geology? Which steps did they skip?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject:

RevJP wrote:

P123 wrote:

Gee, I could swear I informed you that I have access to every paper you have at my own university - or did you choose to ignore that?

No, I didn't ignore it. If you recall, I quite rightly pointed out that not being psychic, you can't possibly know which papers I was going to send to you. So how exactly were you going to find them in the library if you don't know which papers they are? Were you just going to read ALL of the papers out there?

The truth is that you (much like Pondering) just aren't interested in reading any papers I want to send you, and that's why you made the weak excuse that you can get the papers yourself. You tried to make it sound as if you would read the papers, but it doesn't take much deductive reasoning to show that there's no way you could possibly do that, given that you didn't even know what they were. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you know that you can't find a paper in a library if you don't have a title, author, journal name, or any other critical detail, which lets me conclude that you had absolutely no interest in hearing the scientific arguments in the papers which I wanted to send to you.

If you did read my papers, then you might have to reexamine your position, and I don't think you guys want to do that.

You know what, I'm going to give you the papers anyways. Here they are:

http://rapidshare.com/files/103698465/Papers.zip.html

Two of them are ice core papers from Antarctica which show the natural carbon cycle. These papers conclusively show that humans are to blame for increasing CO2 levels above the natural 300 ppm barrier. The other two papers are about global dimming, and they dispel the myth that the Sun was the cause behind the current phase of global warming which we are in. Please read them.

As an aside, you call it a fallacy if I cite scientific experts, and when I want to give you their *actual* arguments in their original papers, then you don't want any part of it. Please tell me what you would like me to do in order to get valid arguments across to you? I can't cite them as experts, and I can't give you their arguments.

RevJP wrote:

Quote:

You would rather deny it based on things you read in the media or hear from other people rather than read the raw findings yourselves. That's NOT scientific, so I stand by my statement.

Oh, so does that mean that you got your information about global warming from the peer-reviewed literature? You've read a bunch of papers?

Could you please reference what you consider to be the three most important ones? I am honestly curious to see where you get your conclusions from.

RevJP wrote:

Let us look at what you say, and what you fail to acknowledge as truth even when you state it for yourself:

Quote:

The descent of man from lower primates is a mainstream conclusion in biology, microbiology, biochemistry

What is in disagreement, particularly between you and I, is the conclusion.

Correction: the disagreement isn't just between us two. It's between you and ALMOST EVERY RELEVANT SCIENTIST IN ANY AREA OF BIOLOGY ON THE PLANET! 99.9% of the relevant experts say our evolution from lower primates is a scientific fact, and you disagree.

RevJP wrote:

We look at the same evidence but derive different conclusions - logically that indicates that the evidence is NOT self-conclusive.

Logically it indicates that either you are making a mistake, or that the entire scientific mainstream of experts in the biological sciences is making a mistake.

Hmmm.... Which do you think it is?

RevJP wrote:

Quote:

Your premise is faulty and your conclusion is subsequently faulty.

Oh, so all of the expert scientists out there who conclude that we did evolve from lower primates... They're NOT misapplying science???

You don't have very many choices here, RevJP. Either they're misapplying science, in which case you think that 99.9% of the relevant experts are misapplying science, or they're NOT misapplying science, in which case our evolution from lower primates is a solid scientific conclusion.

Which is it going to be?

RevJP wrote:

The main issue here is that the 'mainstream' as you so often refer to researches evolutionary evidence based on the conclusion that something is true, and not from a purely scientific approach to discover what the evidence may or may not infer.

So you believe that the thousands of expert scientists who hold the mainstream scientific opinion on the issue of human evolution have ALL reached a fallacious conclusion? Is that right?

RevJP wrote:

More specifically, my issue is with people like you who, by your own admission, are unqualified to make credible inferences regarding biological science

When did I say that? I've studied quite a bit of biology at the undergraduate and even at the graduate level. I don't pretend to have a Ph.D. in the area, but I certainly understand the evidence and arguments, and I assert that this makes me qualified to make credible statements concerning the topics. Besides, all of my conclusions are synonymous with what the mainstream concludes. If I disagreed with the scientific mainstream, then you'd have a point.

Hey wait a minute! Now we're describing YOU! I'd say your argument applies FAR more aptly to you than it does to me.

RevJP wrote:

telling others that something is a fact when it is definitively NOT a fact, and then relying on the tired argument that 'every biologist' says so.

First of all, it's not a tired argument because they're the experts. If you have a question about bridges, you defer to bridge engineers. If you have a question about physics, you defer to physicists. If you have a question about law, you defer to a judge or lawyer or legal scholar. And when you have a question about biology, then you defer to the biologists. Why? Because they know more about the topic THAN ANYONE ELSE ALIVE. And when 99.9% of them say that our evolution from lower primates is a factual scientific conclusion, then who are you to argue? You're a lay person, and they're ALL experts. Any ONE of them knows more than you do and is more qualified to make statements in the area, and certainly ALL of them together do.

RevJP wrote:

To be more precise, it is my view that you, and those like you - including many scientists in the 'evolutionary field' commits egregious errors of logic in their approach to this particular field.

No we're getting somewhere. First of all, it isn't just evolutionary biologists who state that our evolution from lower primates is a fact, it's virtually ALL scientists in EVERY area of the biological sciences. But I'm glad that you've finally admitted that you think they're all wrong. That wasn't like pulling teeth.

RevJP wrote:

Quote:

So what's the assumption? There is NO evidence to support macroevolution, and they assume that there is? Is that what you're saying? If so, then this has been rebutted ad nauseum by MANY different people on this board who have pointed out VERY GOOD evidence for macroevolution. The fossil record, microbiology / DNA, and atavisms are just a few examples of this evidence, and they have been pointed out MANY times. Saying that there is no good evidence for macroevolution is just plain dishonest at this point, because you know better.

I want you to tell me *specifically* which assumptions you think biologists make when they conclude that macroevolution happens.

RevJP wrote:

It is the assumption that because a species mutates and presents minor changes over time that it means that they will demonstrate major changes given millions of years.

Ok, good. Now we have one alleged assumption which biologists make. Are there any more?

RevJP wrote:

Quote:

Saying 'please see above' doesn't change the fact that you've never given a scientific argument against global warming or given an alternative hypothesis why the Earth is warming.

The same goes for this topic. Please tell me which erroneous assumptions climatologists are making, and where the lack of evidence is located.

RevJP wrote:

As for an 'alternative hypothesis' goes... I suppose I've never said anything about cyclical climate changes, or anything like that, have I?

I meant a plausible alternative hypothesis which hasn't been refuted. Please see the papers I sent you above if you want to understand why this argument is wrong.

RevJP wrote:

Quote:

It is a misapplication of logic, and certainly, in your case where you refuse to acknowledge or consider contradictory evidence

Sweet! You've got some evidence which contradicts our evolution from lower primates? Let's see it!

RevJP wrote:

(don't make me remind you of how often you dismiss something out of hand because the scientist involved didn't attend a school you approve of,

Are you talking about Kent Hovind or the Discovery Institute? Or are you talking about creationist web pages?

RevJP wrote:

or some other such nonsense, for it is your mode of operation to immediately label anything contravening your conclusions as not 'credible) it is a misapplication of the scientific method.

Actually, I label misapplications of the scientific method as not credible. This is why Hovind, the Discovery Institute, and creationist web pages *rightfully* don't get much consideration from real scientists: Because those frauds aren't practicing anything which even remotely resembles science.

RevJP wrote:

I will settle for the few degrees I do have until I can continue to pursue my own doctorate.

Hey, I don't have anything against your degrees. In fact, I applaud you for your academic achievements. Anyone with a degree should be proud of themselves. If you have multiple degrees, then you should be extra proud of yourself. I really mean that, and I hope that you do get yourself a Ph.D.

Incidentally, I know you have a degree in Psychology. What are your other degrees in?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

45degreeN
King Kong

Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2673

Location: Salem Oregon

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:08 am Post subject: distrusting science

Take for example "Java Man" or "Nebraska man" both frauds taken seriously. In physical anthropology there is so much professional jealousy and infighting that it is sometime hard to tell just which is the plain truth and what is manipulation of the media. Being humans we have this streak inside of us, PT Barnum (NO, I know he was NOT a scientist) who bought a "giant" even though he was certain that it was a fraud and promoted this fraud by asking whether it was a fraud or not. Made millions based upon the gullibility of humans. The last thing is the problem with scientists who just cannot say they don't know and/or cant figure it out (they need to shut up when this is the case). Many of what see think we know of dinosaurs is based upon tiny fractions of skeletons and speculation about the rest. They need to justify their grants therefore they offer us these "educated" guesses. _________________ My boss is a Jewish carpenter. Read the www.Christian-Thinktank.com

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: This is news?

45degreeN wrote:

Take for example "Java Man" or "Nebraska man" both frauds taken seriously. In physical anthropology there is so much professional jealousy and infighting that it is sometime hard to tell just which is the plain truth and what is manipulation of the media.

I would love to see any claims of that sort made in the last 50 years by anyone other than Bible Thumpers.

Quote:

Being humans we have this streak inside of us, PT Barnum (NO, I know he was NOT a scientist) who bought a "giant" even though he was certain that it was a fraud and promoted this fraud by asking whether it was a fraud or not. Made millions based upon the gullibility of humans.

Barnum didn't make as much as ICR and AIG are making now doing the same thing. In fact ICR and AIG don't even bother with field work which is the heart of most scientific endeavours. One of ICR's so called 'research' projects, the RATE project is not to learn anything new. The entire project is dedicated to discrediting radiometric dating.

It has been going on for ten years now. In that time not only have they failed miserably to discredit radiometric dating, new radiometric techniques have been discovered that give more accurate dates.

One should not be surprised. After all ICR has no goal beyond making pots full of money. At that because of gullible fools they are very successful.

Quote:

The last thing is the problem with scientists who just cannot say they don't know and/or cant figure it out (they need to shut up when this is the case).

So if a researcher doesn't have all the answers they should give up and shut up? Sounds like something handed down from a pulpit somewhere.

Scientists acknowledge they don't know things all the time. They don't have a book that gives them the infallible truth like Creationists have. They have to search for the answers. The ones they find tend to contradict the Bible and this scares the bejeezus out of Creationists.

Quote:

Many of what see think we know of dinosaurs is based upon tiny fractions of skeletons and speculation about the rest. They need to justify their grants therefore they offer us these "educated" guesses.

Better stay away from the doctor then. He/she learned what they know about medicine based on those 'guesses' for the most part. Perhaps you would prefer being bled and prayed over?
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

PrysdieHeer!
Rabid Pit Bull

Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 409

Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject:

P1234567890! Why Don`t we finish our debate and then see if you are intitled to claim we are anti-Science """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ________________________ Prys die Heer! . . . (edit Shortend line that was stretching page) - Nobby _________________ Love is never a problem, it is always the solution! If God did not exist, you would not Exist. Im a YEC. Find out more on www.yecheadquarters.org

Nobby
Board - Admin

Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5301

Location: Missouri

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject:

PH, when you put a line completely across the Type box you stretch the page way out to wide just the same as a long link, anything that dosen't have spaces in it. I will Fix it. Nobby

PrysdieHeer!
Rabid Pit Bull

Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 409

Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject:

Nobby wrote:

PH, when you put a line completely across the Type box you stretch the page way out to wide just the same as a long link, anything that dosen't have spaces in it.

I will Fix it. Very Happy

Nobby

Sorry and Thank you Nobby.
:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L:L
Prys die Heer!
_________________
Love is never a problem, it is always the solution!

If God did not exist, you would not Exist.

Im a YEC. Find out more on www.yecheadquarters.org

Dust
Big Lion