Re: T.O. is quite the pro-evolution nursery.

NashtOn <nana@xxxxx> wrote in
news:73Fvf.151005$Ph4.4607365@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> Gary Bohn wrote:
>> Since I started posting on t.o. three years ago I've heard a number
>> of 'purposes' explicitly and implicitly stated for its existence. It
>> is obviously one of the best sources of information for evolution and
>> against the arguments of those that for one reason or another fear
>> the ToE. I suspect that it also accomplishes its main purpose of
>> drawing loons away from the 'serious' science newsgroups but I
>> haven't personally verified that particular function.
>>
>> A purpose I haven't seen advertised for t.o. and that is perhaps its
>> most important function is as a nursery and school for budding
>> pro-evolution educators. Many, myself included, first come here
>> curious about the creation/evolution debate hoping to get a clearer
>> understanding of the arguments of both sides. The fulfilment of this
>> desire for understanding turns out to be just a drop in the bucket of
>> intellectual changes reaped by us 'self endangered felines'. (yes I
>> can mix 'em up with the best of 'em, - it just means curious)
>>
>> We not only absorb scientifically accurate information from the
>> highly qualified educators who post here, we inherit their energy and
>> enthusiasm for all of science. The education and encouragment we
>> receive here gives us the courage to venture into other forums intent
>> on countering the misinformation spread, intentionally or in
>> ignorance, by creationists. I say 'we' here because I have witnessed
>> this happening not only in my case but in at least one other.
>>
>> I have witnessed a tendency for the proponents of evolution here and
>> elsewhere to tire of the battle, become frustrated with the
>> intransigence of the creationists and ultimately lose at least some
>> of their enthusiasm for the education of the willfully uneducable.
>> One way of countering this is to 'post for the lurkers', another
>> highly important function of t.o., rather than simply attempt to
>> convert the creationists, trolls and otherwise, who frequent the
>> newsgroup.
>>
>> I just want the scientists and educators here who invest their time
>> and their knowledge in 'our' education to know that their efforts are
>> not wasted and are appreciated. (I mean, really, where else can you
>> ask questions and get answers from the people who actually do the
>> work and are true wells of information?( Wells? Hell, bloody
>> underground 'lakes' of information))
>>
>> So, to all those professional scientists, professors, educators, and
>> PhD's named 'John', your attempts to educate are working well
>> (possibly even better than you imagine).
>>
>> Thanks Guys.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Keep in mind that the ToE is still nothing but a theory.

This is quite true, but since no scientific 'theory' ever graduates to
some higher stature but is the pinnacle of science, you recognizing it
as a theory is a step in the right direction.

> Is it falsifiable? No.

Sure it is. You just have to falsify all the theories in the synthesis.
For starters, find a mammal fossil in the PreCambrian.


> Is it something that can explain the increasing
> complexity it is supposed to predict? No.
>
Would you care to define 'complexity'? I'll make the assumption that you
consider an increase in genome size or number of chromosomes to be an
increase of complexity.

If so I suggest you consider the size of the _Amoeba dubia_ which has a
genome size of 670,000,000,000 bp. Or the Eastern box turtle -
_Terrapene carolina_ which has a genome size of 4.18 mbp and 50
chromosomes.

You might investigate gene duplication if you are looking for the
mechanism.

> From what you're saying, you find that the forum is a source for
> arguments against those who for whatever reason, disagree with the
> proposition that random, uncontrolled and mostly deleterious mutations
> can, given time, transform slime into living, thinking and highly
> spiritual beings, namely humans.

No, I'm saying that this ng and the related TalkOrigins.org web site is
a source for accurate information. Information that because of its
accuracy refutes creationist arguments.

Mutations are mostly neutral for a given environment, not deleterious.
If you do the calculatons you'll see that beneficial mutations do not
have to occur as rapidly as you hope and the number that does occur is
more than enough to result in the variation we see.

> If this gives you the necessary
> enthusiasm to continue to learn, fine, but it doesn't prove that the
> theory is right.
>

I don't believe I said, or even implied that it did. There is enough
evidence from multiple independent sources to be quite conclusive.

> In fact, the manner in which this theory is advocated, defended and
> debated in this ng is indicative that it is not only a scientific
> theory, it is a religion in its own right.

I'm sorry, but your attempt to bring science down to the level you
obviously consider religion to reside on, by simply asserting it to be
so, is convincingly unconvincing.

> Real scientists don't go
> around insulting people, neither do they feel the need to prove to
> anybody but their peers,the veracity of their postulates. If the ToE
> was a little more than an endeavor of deterministically minded
> atheists/naturalists and if it had a solid footing in the data, nobody
> would be discussing it on this forum or would be trying to advocate
> it.
>

I take it you feel science shouldn't defend itself against the archaic,
repressive, ultimately damaging anti-science misinformation being spread
by the creationist and ID religious sects?

If ID was such a fine science, why do the proponents of such feel the
need to push ID into high schools rather than fight for a place in
science and science education, as all other fields do, by researching,
publishing in scientific journals and defending their theories in front
of other scientists?


>
>
> Nicola
>
>



--
Gary Bohn

Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NOVA on Dover
    ... scientists who had cracked up and become fundamentalists. ... There is nothing wrong with any real science that happens to ... "science" of evolution have to put up with zealots who threaten people ... objective science when the guys that lied to the creationists about ID ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The story of the golfers without clubs and the toy knive that need to be sharpened..
    ... How did that fi rst self-replicating RNA ... This is what we call "science". ... Why not consider the fact that creationists are so lacking in faith ... "True" scientists do. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: NOVA on Dover
    ... credentials of the authors might have meant something, but the science ... "science" of evolution have to put up with zealots who threaten people ... Remember, scientists have historically ... objective science when the guys that lied to the creationists about ID ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: T.O. is quite the pro-evolution nursery.
    ... >> pro-evolution educators. ... >> creationists. ... >> I have witnessed a tendency for the proponents of evolution here and ... >> I just want the scientists and educators here who invest their time and ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Ho hum. Pagano blathers on.
    ... enough to be outside the bounds of study by science. ... Modern secular scientists make exactly the same ... What I was pointing out was that creationists never test their own ... hypothesis testing anywhere in the creationist literature. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading