Re: Evolution Deniers

On 2005-12-14, al <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:BFC4F8DA.3002%tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On 12/13/05 4:12 PM, in article dnndav$qu3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "al"
>> <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > <jrsp8s@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:FVFnf.37141$tV6.23247@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>
>> >> <sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1134504052.326012.88750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>>
>> >>> CreateThis wrote:
>> >>>> sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >>>>
>> My advice, if you care to hear it, is to start learning about the natural
>> world. If you are upset about the Theory of Evolution, learn about the TOE
>> -- what it says and why it says it -- from their own sources. The sources
>> you will get on this subject from Pathlights, Answers in Genesis, and any
>> other Creationist source will be perverted and distorted.
>>
>> Scientists are very well able to discuss what they believe and why they
>> believe it. We do not need our enemies to speak for us.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Raymond E. Griffith
>
> Hi again Raymond

> You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap.

It's kind of like watching a three legged dog limp across the street.

> I would like to remind you that I have every right to think this and some
> very good reasons for arriving at this conclusion.

You have every right to have ignorant, irrational opinions, true.

> One of the complaints proffered by the evolution scrotes and (whatever
> female scrotes are) is that they claim that some reasons for rejecting
> evolution are unscientific. As I have said to Dana, this is totally a
> illogical and unscientific statement.

Uh. No. It isn't.

> Scientists are very good at collecting data. What they are not good at is
> interpreting said data.

No, actually scientists are good at that too. It's because the scientific
method is inherently adversarial, and irrelevencies and bias are eventually
burned away through discussion, experimentation, and the collection of
evidence.

> One of the posts in the thread about viral gene transfer laid out some
> perfectly good evidence and the accompanying data and then, at the end said
> something like "The sudden appearance is due to missing data and all that
> went before will be found".

Provide a citation. I'll bet you a jelly donut it doesn't say that.

> This is pure speculation but, however, is destined become consensus opinion.
> Most of the science of evolution is based on this consensus opinion. It's
> pure crap.

It might be convincing if you showed that the concensus opinion was, well,
_wrong_ in some way.

> Let me, if I may, give another example.
> An article some time ago in Sci Am. and also in New Sci. was about "Dinosaur
> Cove" where there is a large cache of dino' bones. One specimen was said to
> be good evidence of evolution in action as it lived in Antarctica and had
> evolved large eyes to enable it to forage for food during the long dark
> arctic winter.
> What they omit to mention is that many *nocturnal* animals have large eyes
> and that bone caches are usually the result of a catastrophe. The animal
> could quite easily have been from Australia and been swept to its present
> position by a large tsunami.

Uh, did you really think about what you said? Scientists said that
large eyes were an adaptation to the long polar winters. You seemingly
are saying "no, they could just have been nocturnal". The thing is,
that _is precisely what scientists are saying_: that the dinosaurs were
adapted for the nocturnal environment that dominates the polar regions
for half the year.

Additionally, I'd like to see some other instance of a localized collection
of bodies being swept hundreds of miles across open seas by a tsunami. Given
that tsunamis are all but undetectable in the open ocean, it seems that there
ability to transport anything is, well, fantasy.

> This is one of the worst examples of cherry picking that I have seen. And
> I'm sure it's been written up as another first for evolution.

Well, given that your crititicism of it consisted of one agreement and one
complete absurdity, perhaps you should withhold your own skepticism.

> So you see, much of science is unscientific and evidence does not have to
> have the stamp of science on it to be valid.

You have yet to show any evidence or reasoning to show that is true.

> The fact that someone has made a statement and omitted to use the correct
> terms does not invalidate it.

No. But, as you showed with your tsunami example, merely being able to
string words together does not actually invalidate scientific reasoning
either.

> Science fails to give credence witness testimony for reasons that support
> science to the exclusion of all the uninitiated.
> And so on............

Feel left out?

Mark
> al
>>
>
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question for Ray Martinez
    ... and had the evidence to back up his claims. ... scientist, or knowledgeable about science. ... This says as long as a person supports evolution they are doing good ... A belief held by scientists does not make that belief ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Humans did not have gill slits
    ... any claim you want about god, but it's not science. ... because evolution is science. ... What evidence do you have that "they radiate from a source indicating ... funny we scientists dont think so. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An Alternate View
    ... Darwin did not originate the theory of evolution. ... scientists would have worked on that. ... evolutionary science. ... Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... Not when used in science. ... set yourself up as an authority on the subject, was evolution ... Evolution is the evidence, it is the fact. ... outlook toward the methodology utilized by scientists both ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Your Communication Problems
    ... and I will go back and look at the evidence (which may ... > "Intelligent Design is Not Science." ... > the Flood" written by out and out creationist scientists (young earth, ... for evolution? ...
    (talk.origins)