Re: Evolution Deniers


"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrndq0gve.10gv.wettering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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

Hi Mark
Being already nocturnal is not the same as eyes adapting to polar
conditions. Or is that too subtle for you?
Who said that the bodies were swept across hundreds of miles of seas? Not
me.
You see, the Antarctic continent was joined to Australia at the time and
being swept north south by water is not impossible.
I suggest you do a search with "Asteroid Tsunami" and all will be revealed.
al


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... explained by evolution in small incremental steps, ... Science does not claim to know all the answers. ... species or new species? ... The scientists involved seem quite happy with it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... There are also examples of Darwinian evolution being used to justify ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... some concern amongst both scientists and non scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Conversation with an Evolutionist Part 3
    ... theists who also believe in evolution, and I prefer to remind you. ... But in fact inferences are what science is all ... That is indeed an inference which appears to be nothing more then ... scientists that evolution takes place in much the same way one would ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)