JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
it was the math example, which showed once again your total lack of comprehension.
I am working on a paper on the definition of a species. Could someone give me a clear definition of the term species? How do we scientifically determine if two animals are one or two species? Remember most species reproduce asexually (some both sexually and asexually).
the ususal definition is: animals belong to different species if they cannot produce fertile offspring in nature. ...but i guess you knew that already.
most species reproduce asexually
PS: did you see the article in PNAS this week dealing with chimp-human similarity? humans and chimps have 99.4% of the coding DNA in common.
ThiChi I think that you usually have done a fairly good job of defending yourself. I would like to have a student analyze these posts (all of them) not for facts but argumentative techniques. It always amazes me that Darwinists and Theists use very different approaches in dealing with this topic. For example note A person who fully understands a topic can summarize and pull small quotes to back up points where necessary. It is evident, both by your style and by the content you are pasting, that you do not have a firm grasp of the concepts. Interesting and unsurprising quote from Gould. Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the context it was written in. If you did, you would never have posted it. about your other post....what is the purpose of your crusade against evolution with simply copy pasting trash from creationist webpages? Contrast this with your responses (usually, but not always, different in form and approach). Does anyone else note this?
PS: did you see the article in PNAS this week dealing with chimp-human similarity? humans and chimps have 99.4% of the coding DNA in common. Yes I did. Now we are back up to 99%! Many of my students, in addition to biology majors, are premed or health science majors of some type. I spend some time on health (such as trans fatty acids and cancer) and find many are skeptical of science as a whole. They argue that science implies that everything causes cancer and one day scientists say this, the next day it is a new story (eggs are bad for you now they are OK; fats are bad for you now they are good - some types are, at least, such as monounsaturated). I think that science now has a big creditability problem with the public and it is not hard to see why. Part of the problem is the news media is not always very accurate in reporting our findings, but part is our own fault. We need to deal with this problem.
ThiChi, do you have a problem? Evolution topic; BING! ThiChi, the instant expert, armed with Google searches. Islam topic; BONG! ThiChi, the instant expert, armed with Google searches. Is there no beginning to your knowledge?
First of all, in your last post, you only quoted what I said partially. Normally an ellipsis is considered appropriate to indicate the omission of part of a sentence, but if you’d done that people would see how much you were twisting what I said. Amusing.
You betray yourself. Any college educated person knows the value of questioning an Author or submitting questions related to the field of interest within a debate. Your comments show that you are either not college educated, or ignorant and closed minded to the value of intercourse
Now, I have no problem with you questioning an author, or submitting questions. What I have a problem with is someone who doesn’t know the difference between them making a good point and making themselves look silly. If you need a friend to help you, then get him to come here; like I said it might help if we talk to the Organ grinder rather than the monkey. Oh, and if my girlfriend heard you say that I’m “ closed minded to the value of intercourse. “, she’d wet herself laughing.
I have proved by this example that I have more than a passing interest and willing to go to the source.
This should read, “willing to type keywords into a search engine, go to the web sites found, and then cut and paste articles without knowing their relevancy, accuracy or honesty”.
Your claim of standing on your own arguments is betraying the work and progress of others in the arena of Ideas, and really impossible.
Oh please don’t twist things… people really aren’t that stupid Thi Chi. I’m asking you to put the argument in your own words. Like I do. Just like they expect at University. It indicates that you understand the argument you’re making.
However, it seems you have invented some sort of closed, self sufficient world where you and you alone can postulate and argue without the benefit of anyone else. Bravo! Do you sell tickets to the event? Outrageous? Yes it is, but so is your claim.
More bollocks. I just doubt your competence to discuss the issues, based on the fact you have cut & paste material that, as I said is;
""""By the fact you post outdated bollocks and very bad arguments. You don’’t know what you’’re talking about, and it shows in your argument.""""" The fact is the information was taken from a current College Based Group that is academically active and recognized in this field.
Why not read through the threads with me and Jerry on them properly Thi Chi? He’s a well respected Creationist amongst Creationists. I think you’ll find his evasion, his bad science, and his personal attacks and lies illustrative. Once you have a clear view in your mind of the level of academic responsibility one can expect, as Jerry has demonstrated, you can figure out why the data you c&p is unreliable. The amusing thing is, you ASSUME it’s okay, you don’t KNOW it’s okay, which is my point. Bring on the organ grinder please.
The only outdated information that really is obvious is your ever changing Facts related to this most interesting field of "Working Theories" as one Stanch Evolutionist exclaimed.
And you obviously haven’t read or are incapable of understanding simple questions you’ve not responded to, or the posts where this issue is discussed.
What is very telling is that you have provided nothing (except a web site, double standards?) of substance, except your "pronouncements" of wright or wrong. Using your own requirements, you are a fraud.
I don’t want to waste time refuting stuff that has been refuted with someone who doesn’t know enough to know if it’s been refuted. As I pointed out, me posting that website was irony, as it was obviously the level of debate you wanted. But you’ve obviously not even gone there, as the vast majority of the material you c&p’d (without URLs for the most part) is comprehensively discussed there. Now, you might be to damn lazy to learn about a subject, but I think my request to you to list the topics that WEREN’T refuted there is quite reasonable, as was my offer to answer the topics that weren’t discussed there.
I have demmonstrated that even your Icons are more intellectually honest than you. An example: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology,
22 years old. Unlike the theory of god, the theory of evolution has changed in twenty years as there has been new evidence. Oh, and transitions discussed at length in the website I cited.
Your and Realist’s reply? Insults, and intellectually dishonest tactics and fallacies based on a hidden agenda.
And how would you describe your behaviour? Your willingess to plunge into debates, be they about Islam or Evolution, without knowing the basics, is to me dishonest, arrogant, and only make you look bad.
"Which do you think is more sensible to believe in? The theory that can show some evidence that such things can happen in such a way, or the theory that has no evidence?" Here is a good example of only offering a false choice. Your question itself begs the question: How much is "some evidence" compared to all the evidence? Is there one current theory or many? I provided recent and past quotes from Stanch Evolutionists pondering, basically the same questions. Which you and Realist reject out of hand. You two are either the Eienstein’s of the new millennium, or are closed minded, irreverent fools (sorry, but I am betting on the latter).
You didn’t answer the question, did you? As for one theory or many, if you don’t realise I’m taking about the standard model of evolution, which is a theory comprised of sub theories, then you really know nothing about what you’re arguing against. Let me rephrase it so we can get it past that piece of evolutionary evidence you keep between your ears;
Which do you think is more sensible to believe in?
A theory that can be demonstrated to apply consistently to many areas of natural development, a theory that can be seen in action, as much as is possible given the time scales involved, a theory that has large amounts of physical evidence that it is consistent with, a theory that works so well that Creationist have adopted it for their Intelligent Design theory, or a theory that is based on a supposition that undermines its own basic principle, and that has NO evidence.
I do know this as a fact, from a purely mathematically based perspective, if life does not qualify as a miracle, I do not know what does.
Oh, I didn’t know that your competence extends to biochemistry and statistics. If it DID, you’d know most statistical calculations of such probabilities start with many assumptions. Now, if you’re happy with Creation Book science, quoting Fred Hoyle and his dubious stats that prove nothing, well, be happy. But don’t expect me to believe it.
Please feel free to use any information that may be helpful to you. I am amazed at all the "false Dilemmas" that are created when discussing this matter.
I find it interesting too how the faithful explain away the quotes of their Icons. The response begs the question: Why was the observation/concern made if it was not necessary to state the claim in the first place? Wow!
It is interesting too how many here are very forgiving of the "Fact" tract record of Evolution. The presence of false facts in textbooks is indeed an indication of something--but whether it is of dogmatic Darwinist propaganda or mere laziness on the part of textbook writers, who knows?
Though I hate to fall into the "Authority" trap, I believe ID Supporters like Behe have put Stanch Neo-Evolutionists on the defensive. Just look at all the Attacts and insults, comming from the claimed "brightest" on this board. Very telling.
The following scientists stated that "a critical re-evaluation of Darwinism is both necessary and possible." Am I "Moron" to agree with these "Experts?" Who knows?
ANDREW BOCARSLY, Ph.D. Chemistry, Princeton University
HENRY F. SCHAEFER III, Ph. D. Quantum Computational Chemistry, University of Georgia
ROBERT TINNIN, Ph.D Biology, Portland State University
BENJAMIN VOWELS, M.D. Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania
STEPHEN MEYER (Ph.D. in History & Philosophy of Science University of Cambridge), currently professor of philosophy at Whitworth College.
DAVID IVES, Ph.D, Biochemistry, Ohio State University
WILLIAM DEMBSKI, Ph.D. Philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago), Ph.D. Mathematics (University of Chicago)
ROBERT KAITA, Ph.D. Plasma Physics, Princeton University
FRED SIGWORTH, Ph.D. Physiology, Yale Medical School
LEO ZACHARSKI, M.D. Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School
DAVID VAN DYKE, Ph. D. Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
ROBERT JENKINS, Ph.D. Biology, Ithaca College
ROBERT C. KOONS, Ph.D. Philosophy, UT, Austin
GORDON C. MILLS, Ph.D., Biochemistry Emeritus, UT Medical Center, Galveston
DONALD D. HOFFMAN, Ph.D. Cognitive Science University of California, Irvine
ROBERT PRUD'HOMME, Ph. D. Chemical Engineering, Princeton University
ALVIN PLANTINGA, Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Notre Dame
GEORGE LEBO, Ph.D. Astronomy, University of Florida
JOHN FANTUZZO, Ph.D. Psychology in Education, University of Pennsylvania
WALTER BRADLEY, Ph.D. Chairman, Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M University
DONALD L. EWERT, Ph.D. Molecular Biology, Director of Research Administration, Wistar Institute
DOUGLAS LAUFFENBERGER, Ph.D. Cell & Structural Biology, University of Illinois
JACK OMDAHL, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of New Mexico
JOSEPH M. MELUCHAMP, Ph.D. Management Science, University of Alabama
KIRK LARSEN, Ph.D. Zoology, Miami University (Ohio)
PAUL CHIEN, Ph.D. Biology, University of San Francisco
WILLIAM SANDINE, Ph.D. Microbiology, Oregon State University
H. C. HlNRICHS, Ph. D. Physics, Linfield College
WILLIAM STUNTZ, J.D. Law Faculty, University of Virginia
CHRIS LITTLER, Ph.D. Physics, N.Texas State University
JOHN ANGUS CAMPBELL, Ph.D. Speech Communication, University of Washington
T. RICK IRVIN, Ph.D. Institute for Environmental Studies, Louisiana State University
DAVID WILCOX, Ph.D. Biology, Eastern College
STEPHEN FAWL, Ph.D. Chemistry, Napa Valley College
OTTO HELWEG, Ph.D. Civil Engineering, Memphis State University
J. GARY EDEN, Ph. D. Elect. & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois
H. KEITH MILLER, Ph.D. Biology (ret.), Capital University
JOHN COGDELL, Ph.D. Elect. & Computer Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
If you pursue this Evolution topic the same way you proceed from false assumptions, (regarding me), then I understand your reality. The issue is the merit of ID as opposed to Evolution. What are you doing?
You can attack me all you want, but the fact still remains that it is the information, or reasons for your claims, that really matter, not my intelligence, or even your poor communication skills for that matter.
""Now, I have no problem with you questioning an author, or submitting questions. What I have a problem with is someone who doesn’’t know the difference between them making a good point and making themselves look silly.""
Why not just state this up front. If this is what you really believe, then why did you say what you did? I feel that upon looking back at your words, you too realize that this was uncalled for.
"""" This should read, ""willing to type keywords into a search engine, go to the web sites found, and then cut and paste articles without knowing their relevancy, accuracy or honesty"""".
Wow, there you go again! Is this all you got? Yes, we know your paranoid feelings about me, But you say or do noting to disprove what was posted. Would it make you feel better if I re-typed the information for you? Get real.
"""Oh please don’’t twist things…… people really aren’’t that stupid Thi Chi. I’’m asking you to put the argument in your own words. Like I do. Just like they expect at University. It indicates that you understand the argument you’’re making."""
Words mean things. I refer you to your comment and claim. More backtracking? Once your words are explored, it does look very ugly, does it not?
""Why not read through the threads with me and Jerry on them properly Thi Chi? He’’s a well respected Creationist amongst Creationists. I think you’’ll find his evasion, his bad science, and his personal attacks and lies illustrative""
If I can find three, no ten Scientists that disagree with you, what would we have? Only the Fallacy of your claims of Absolute Adherence to a mantra that some may disagree with. Who knows?
Historically, how many times have we had the Science community denounce a viewpoint only to find out the minority was correct? Let me help you, History is not on your side. The less you believe, the less you are wrong. I will continue to explore both sides, and point out the good and the bad, on both sides.
Openminded, Fair and Balanced,
PS: here is the counter web site to what you posted: http://www.trueorigin.org/
Many of the scientists quoted believe strongly in evolutionary theory, but the point is that their comments on various aspects of evolutionary theory at least reveal that there is discontent and a lack of consensus over many crucial aspects of naturalistic theories. One does get the impression that evolutionary theory as a whole, or at least in part, is by no means without its qualified skeptics in the academic arena. It is my true desire that anyone with the belief that evolutionary theory is 100% solid and not doubted by any legitimate scientists might be dissuaded from that perspective by reading these quotes. It is my hope that after reading these quotes you would also be able to come to some of these conclusions for yourself.
the 95% refer to the entire genome....the 99.4% to the genes.
i agree...the media is generating the impression that health science and nutritional science is changing its mind constantly. this is unfortunate but probably can't be avoided.