Total Posts:428|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why is evolution smeared as a "fraud"?

JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 3:07:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Some common smears I hear of evolution by fundie Creationists/IDers is that evolutionary theory is a "fraud" and/or a "sham", labels that make me wince not only because it"s demonstrably not the case, but also because of how lightly they seem to throw the labels around. To call something a fraud, one is by definition labelling it as "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain", and similarly with "sham" one would be labelling something as "not what it is purported to be" and being "falsely presented as the truth".

So in other words, they"re accusing scientists working in biology as well as other evolution-related fields as people who are committing crimes by acts of lying and cover-ups.

Again, this is the sort of accusation that feels really irresponsible to throw around, especially since considering the nature of other people and organisations in major news stories and what has happened to them when they've been caught being criminally deceptive, one would expect that if the scientists truly are lying, then it"s a massive scandal absolutely worth pursuing to the fullest extent so as to expose it, and yet the fact that I"ve never seen a single creationist/ID individual or organisation go to such efforts to reveal evolutionary theory as "fraudulent" is extremely revealing about how weak their case is.

Now at this point, I would consider entertaining a hypothetical situation where the fundies wind up being right and it turns out that scientists have been hiding evidence that has falsified evolutionary theory and it turns out they"ve been lying and covering-up the truth in favour of protecting a false scientific theory. But that's exactly the point: Evidence of that nature cannot be covered up. Because to be valid it would have to be out there, in nature, and reproducible, such that anyone who looks for it, will find it. Even if some scientists tried to cover it up, they would fail. Even if ALL scientists tried to cover it up, they would fail, because it doesn"t take a scientist to do science. Anyone can. Everyone can.

Conspiracies of that nature simply not possible in science. If even a single person with a vested interest in revealing that evidence existed (and there is just no one out there with a vested interest in wanting to see evolutionary theory fail, right?), it would come out.

So there is no need to even consider a hypothetical. There are a million or so scientific papers that back the Theory of Evolution, both directly and indirectly. If the ToE was falsified, there would be a Nobel prize, accolades, etc, waiting for the scientist showing that conclusive evidence. Actually, the odds of that happening are far less than the godbots showing the equivalent of an eternally burning bush for their imaginary deity. If it isn"t there, why are they covering it up?

So I guess the question here is: Considering the above, exactly how can those on the anti-evolution side justify so lightly throwing labels like "fraud" around against this subject, and if they really feel so strongly about this "fraudulent" subject being around in science and taught to their children, what exactly are they doing about it to change it?

(I'll add as an extra note here that in contrast, Creationism/ID are shams and court cases like Edwards vs Aguillard and Kitzmiller v Dover as well as sites like Expelled Exposed and Talk Origins as well as the work of groups like the ACLU and FFRF have done a lot of our work for us in showing how much a fraud creationism/ID clearly is.)
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 4:58:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 3:50:54 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
This is what evolutionists actually believe http://imgur.com....

So what you're going with in response is a straw-man as well as an Argument from Incredulity?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 6:18:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 4:58:08 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/14/2013 3:50:54 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
This is what evolutionists actually believe http://imgur.com....

So what you're going with in response is a straw-man as well as an Argument from Incredulity?

You atheists really believe that a sponge can turn into a squirrel though. It's a very effective analogy for faitheists beliefs.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 6:28:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I love how some special people conflate evolution with atheism, as though acknowledging the legitimacy of evolutionary theory were reserved for a small group of people only. Never gets old.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 6:31:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As far as why people would go so far as to say evolution were a scam or smear campaign, people do this because they fear what they don't understand and what potentially undermines their entire belief structure. Beneath every creationist and anti-evolutionist is a scared little child afraid of the world and desperate for validation.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 7:19:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 6:18:51 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/14/2013 4:58:08 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/14/2013 3:50:54 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
This is what evolutionists actually believe http://imgur.com....

So what you're going with in response is a straw-man as well as an Argument from Incredulity?

You atheists really believe that a sponge can turn into a squirrel though. It's a very effective analogy for faitheists beliefs.

Firstly, your conflating what atheists believe with a straw-man version of what you perceive evolution to be. There are many evolutionists who are NOT atheists, such as:

-Sir Ronald Fisher -- the most distinguished theoretical biologist in the history of evolutionary thought. He was also a Christian (a member of the Church of England) and a conservative whose social views were somewhere to the right of Louis XIV.
-Pope John Paul II -- a social conservative.
-Pierre Teilhard de Chardin -- a paleontologist and priest who taught that God guided evolution.
-President Jimmy Carter -- a devout and active Southern Baptist.

In addition, more than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)

Secondly, nowhere does Evolution say anything like what you describe, whereas creationism claims we're descended from piles of dust, if you want to go down the road of Argumentum ad Absurdum. Contrary to what you claim evolutionary biologists say, what is actually the case is that if a sponge suddenly "gave birth" to a squirrel we"d have ironclad evidence that evolution is false. Demanding evidence that would disprove evolutionary theory is, well let us just say it marks you as suffering from severe ignorance. I know that sounds kind of harsh, but this question is so common it is simply astonishing. "I ain"t seen no goat give birth to no fish, evolution is wrong!" Gee, maybe because a goat giving birth to a fish would be evidence of the supernatural? Could that be it? Heck, if I saw that I"d probably say, "Okay, you win God really did make Adam and Eve. Game over. Too bad evolutionary theory and all you biologists, better start looking for new jobs." Instead, this lack of evidence of the divine is somehow a mark against evolutionary theory.

These are the kinds of "standard arguments" that creationists think are terribly devastating to evolutionary theory. They don"t realize that things like chemistry has rules and certain things aren"t going to happen, or that natural selection is not random, etc. And from this ignorance are born the doppy objections to evolutionary theory.

But anyway, you haven't answered the question from the OP. Why precisely is evolution a "fraud" to you, how on earth do you propose that any scientists could ever manage to cover up any evidence against it, and what precisely are you doing about what you and your crackpot buddies believe to be a "fraud", aside from showing deliberate trolling ignorance of what evolutionary theory actually IS?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 8:12:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is taken from another post, which was kinda of ignored but this thread is sort of more relevant:

This is what Creationists do; they don't argue science, they don't argue scientifically, or in a scientific medium; they simply argue in mediums such as their own websites, or public forums, or on news channels and simply present the same ridiculous, repeated fundamental inaccuracies, misrepresent positions, misrepresent evidence, engage in straw men, and flat out lie. You have "Doctors" with "PhDs" who do not understand the difference between "Evolution" and "Abiogenesis", or even don't understand the difference between a Genome, a Gene, a Base Pair, and a Chromose (Hovind)

Their problem is that no evidence, in any way, shape or form will ever convince them otherwise. Their dogma makes it impossible for them to even consider the possibility that you may be wrong, no matter how much reality disagrees with them. If they are wrong, you are wrong forever. Not only that, on many Creationist websites they even state this much is true.

Science, on the other hand, as has been repeatedly demonstrated over hundreds if not thousands of years: When it's wrong, it corrects itself. Consider the above; you have simply not explained anything; you have not presented any positive claims, not explained ANY of the features of life; you are simply ignoring reality based on what you beleive rather than letting the evidence takes you where it takes you: As science does.

I have yet to see Creationists ask a question, or ask for evidence in a way where they actually make it clear what they want; or actually ask for something that evolution states is possible. With kinds, it's most hilarious: They ask for a kind turning into another, and refuse to define what a kind is. All Creationists do this, and for Good reason: If you actually said something reasonable, scientifically defensible; when it is proven wrong some part of you has to accept it

They claim science is part of a community that is responsible for "filling our kids heads with nonsense"; where as a creationist I should point out that the PACE books provided by Creation are filled with massive lies such as a basking shark that turned out to be a basking shark is a pleisaur; that the Lock Ness monster exists; and the sun is actually a big gas boiler and is shrinking (some of these have been corrected, but numerous revisions and many years after the "fact" turned out to be false), and these are only a few. This book also states: "If a scientific theory contradicts the Bible, then the theory is wrong and must be discarded."

Yet they tell you that current science books are attempting to "indoctrinate children".

Creationists are demonstratably liars, deceivers, dishonest charlatans. Prominent Creationsts still ask for the Crocoduck; still say "Evolution is just a theory" still talk about the Piluxany dinosaur tracks. Prominent Creationists have said that there is very few papers about molecular biology concerning "ID" Systems; which turned out to be a massive lie as there were thousands. Prominent Creationsts cite they have "Biology PhD's" and say that a "Base Pair is a gene", and don't understand thermodynamics. They try and invent words like Evolutionist and Evolutionism to paint Evolution to make it sound like Evolution is a religion without actually trying to demonstrate it. They claim that Evolution has no supporting evidence; yet provide NO evidence of their own, no rebuttal to the vast swaythe of evidence; simply ignoring it out of existance.

Many repeatedly claim that "Science thought a pigs tooth was a human tooth and reconstructed a whole skeleton from it!" where that is such a flagrant lie that is beggars beleif: The tooth was never accepted through peer review, it was a science magazine that drew it's own conclusions (and even the originating scientist complained that it is simply not possible to make such ludicruous extrapolations)". THIS IS STILL BEING REPEATED TODAY!. A fake raptor fossile was touted as "fooling the entire scientific world", wherein it fooled literally 3 guys, and catastrophically failed to make it through peer review as it was pointed out how horrible it is. You consistently repeat that "Creationists can't make it into peer reviewed papers", and yet when asking peer reviewed journals, only a minute handful of papers have ever been submitted with most journals not receiving any.

Piltdown man was a hoax, discovered by science after many new ways of testing became apparent and was thrown out by science; and was regularly used to say that all science is fraudulent; and that all the thousands of hominid fossiles are false.

I am not talking about the contentious stuff that, while still ridiculous, takes far more time and energy to disprove and rebutt (because it's complicated); but the never ending stream of horrible fabrication and never ending falsehoods that come from the Creationist Camp; the very basic stuff; continuously using the same "facts" that have been continually and completely demonstrated as absolutely false.

Most statements along the line of suggesting evolution is a lie, or false, or being falsely represented as not science is a dishonest lie, a gloriously deceiptful fabrication; there is only one group in this debate that is arguing from the point of view of legitimate, well evidenced science; and that is Science. Creationists flagrantly lie, distort and propogate rumour after rumour knowing that their facts are false and that rather than being hounded out of the field for propogating such lies; they simply get promoted.

This is why there is even a debate; one side is having a debate based on evidence and what can be demonstrated, with the truth and honest being prized among all else and where such trust is broken careers are destroyed. The other side is having a mud slinging match, throwing whatever ridiculous lies, misrepresentation and poor science it likes at the other, knowing that there is literally no accountability for dishonesty.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 9:30:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 7:19:25 AM, JonMilne wrote:

But anyway, you haven't answered the question from the OP. Why precisely is evolution a "fraud" to you,

https://www.youtube.com....

This is why. Evolution claims flashes of lightening on little pieces of matter can create life. That's worse than magic.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 9:48:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:30:02 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/14/2013 7:19:25 AM, JonMilne wrote:

But anyway, you haven't answered the question from the OP. Why precisely is evolution a "fraud" to you,

https://www.youtube.com....

This is why. Evolution claims flashes of lightening on little pieces of matter can create life. That's worse than magic.

Please provide studies, links, quotes or other documentary evidence that shows that the above is part of a genuine movement or hypothetical model used in biology right now.

Firstly, Evolution DOESNT say this. The fact that you are repeating this falsehood, either shows you do not understand evolution, or are simply lying because it makes your case sound better.

Secondly, in reality what is suggested for abiogenesis is: non-organic -> organic chemistry (IE: Amino acids) -> formation of RNA chains -> formation of simple self replicating RNA -> formation of lipid bilayers -> self replication to self catalyzation -> prebiotic life -> evolution. Several of the above steps can be demonstrated as possible in the lab.

Thirdly, what you are saying is a gross misrepresentation of the argument; and thus becomes a simple, easy straw man. I am pretty sure that you are doing this because it makes your argument sound stronger than it is: It is very hard to make Abiogenesis look impossible and stupid if you actually use what it states.

I am awaiting your evidence that this is indeed what scientists believe, rather than a rather dishonest attempt to paint the science as something is not in order to convince people on the grounds of your false portrayal, rather than what the science actually is.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 9:56:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:48:03 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:30:02 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/14/2013 7:19:25 AM, JonMilne wrote:

But anyway, you haven't answered the question from the OP. Why precisely is evolution a "fraud" to you,

https://www.youtube.com....

This is why. Evolution claims flashes of lightening on little pieces of matter can create life. That's worse than magic.

Please provide studies, links, quotes or other documentary evidence that shows that the above is part of a genuine movement or hypothetical model used in biology right now.

This is a very common topic in biology. Google it ffs.

Firstly, Evolution DOESNT say this. The fact that you are repeating this falsehood, either shows you do not understand evolution, or are simply lying because it makes your case sound better.

My high school biology textbook said precisely the opposite.

Secondly, in reality what is suggested for abiogenesis is: non-organic -> organic chemistry (IE: Amino acids) -> formation of RNA chains -> formation of simple self replicating RNA -> formation of lipid bilayers -> self replication to self catalyzation -> prebiotic life -> evolution. Several of the above steps can be demonstrated as possible in the lab.

Show they're possible in a lab, post a paper on it or something.

You're just making empty assertions.

Thirdly, what you are saying is a gross misrepresentation of the argument; and thus becomes a simple, easy straw man.

I'm stating exactly what is said in every academic piece of literature on science that I have seen. I have college education in biology and I know enough to know that is not a strawman.

I am pretty sure that you are doing this because it makes your argument sound stronger than it is: It is very hard to make Abiogenesis look impossible and stupid if you actually use what it states.

Or maybe it is impossible and stupid, it's not proven and is in fact part of evolution.

I am awaiting your evidence that this is indeed what scientists believe, rather than a rather dishonest attempt to paint the science as something is not in order to convince people on the grounds of your false portrayal, rather than what the science actually is.

The evidence is in the video, Einstein. Look up everything about peptide bonds etc and you'll see the scientific evidence behind it.

I know you know I believe in God and I'm therefore obviously incapable of being a brilliant scientist like you for some reason, but lets not talk down to each other now.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 10:10:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:30:02 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/14/2013 7:19:25 AM, JonMilne wrote:

But anyway, you haven't answered the question from the OP. Why precisely is evolution a "fraud" to you,

https://www.youtube.com....

This is why. Evolution claims flashes of lightening on little pieces of matter can create life. That's worse than magic.

No it doesn't. Provide me with actual scientific peer-reviewed papers in the field of biology that say this as opposed to what some obscure YouTube video says.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 10:25:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 10:10:26 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:30:02 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/14/2013 7:19:25 AM, JonMilne wrote:

But anyway, you haven't answered the question from the OP. Why precisely is evolution a "fraud" to you,

https://www.youtube.com....

This is why. Evolution claims flashes of lightening on little pieces of matter can create life. That's worse than magic.

No it doesn't. Provide me with actual scientific peer-reviewed papers in the field of biology that say this as opposed to what some obscure YouTube video says.

In addition, much like other creationists, you're conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution is NOT about how life got started, it relates to the diversity of species. Abiogenesis is about how life got formed. And we have plenty of evidence for abiogenesis: http://www.talkorigins.org... , http://www.talkorigins.org... , including the Miller-Urey Experiment http://www.talkorigins.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 10:43:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:56:42 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:48:03 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:30:02 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/14/2013 7:19:25 AM, JonMilne wrote:

But anyway, you haven't answered the question from the OP. Why precisely is evolution a "fraud" to you,

https://www.youtube.com....

This is why. Evolution claims flashes of lightening on little pieces of matter can create life. That's worse than magic.

Please provide studies, links, quotes or other documentary evidence that shows that the above is part of a genuine movement or hypothetical model used in biology right now.

This is a very common topic in biology. Google it ffs.

What you are stating is not biology. If I google it no legitimate non creationist website portrays abiogenesis in this way.

Firstly, Evolution DOESNT say this. The fact that you are repeating this falsehood, either shows you do not understand evolution, or are simply lying because it makes your case sound better.

My high school biology textbook said precisely the opposite.

I highly doubt it.

Proove it. As I can find no evidence of your claim that science says what you say it does.
Secondly, in reality what is suggested for abiogenesis is: non-organic -> organic chemistry (IE: Amino acids) -> formation of RNA chains -> formation of simple self replicating RNA -> formation of lipid bilayers -> self replication to self catalyzation -> prebiotic life -> evolution. Several of the above steps can be demonstrated as possible in the lab.

Show they're possible in a lab, post a paper on it or something.
There are many. Google it.... ffs. You can simply look at the wiki page for it that cites the studies and, more importantly doeant misrepresent or dishonestly portray the hypothesis.

You're just making empty assertions.

Well no. If you look at the studies or attempt to google it you will realise it is not empty. More importantly the evidence for an against these theories is changing the subject away from your horrible misportrayal of what the science actually says.

Thirdly, what you are saying is a gross misrepresentation of the argument; and thus becomes a simple, easy straw man.

I'm stating exactly what is said in every academic piece of literature on science that I have seen. I have college education in biology and I know enough to know that is not a strawman.
No your not. You are grossly misrepresenting what is a complex set of biological principles into a riduculous straw man. If science realy says this, which it doesnt, proove it.

I am pretty sure that you are doing this because it makes your argument sound stronger than it is: It is very hard to make Abiogenesis look impossible and stupid if you actually use what it states.

Or maybe it is impossible and stupid, it's not proven and is in fact part of evolution.

Ah yes. The "it is evolution" statement. Dont be an idiot.
Evolution by any definition doesnt include abiogenesis as the principles mechanisms and processes required for evolution are different from abiogenesis. They are seperate and distinct and will remain so no matter how many times you state they are.

I am awaiting your evidence that this is indeed what scientists believe, rather than a rather dishonest attempt to paint the science as something is not in order to convince people on the grounds of your false portrayal, rather than what the science actually is.

The evidence is in the video, Einstein. Look up everything about peptide bonds etc and you'll see the scientific evidence behind it.

I know you know I believe in God and I'm therefore obviously incapable of being a brilliant scientist like you for some reason, but lets not talk down to each other now.
I will talk down to you if you misrepresent the science and invoke straw men to lend your opinion more credence because you have made the opposing viewpoint more stupid by not accurately summarising the argument.

I have given you ample opportunity to justify your misresentation by actually demonstrating what you claim abiogenesis is matches what science says it is.

I see no point where you have actually done so.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 1:09:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Installgentoo: I think that you should sue whichever highschool and college you went to for passing off propaganda riddled fiction for biology textbooks, and redo your education.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 1:31:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 6:18:51 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/14/2013 4:58:08 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/14/2013 3:50:54 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
This is what evolutionists actually believe http://imgur.com....

So what you're going with in response is a straw-man as well as an Argument from Incredulity?

You atheists really believe that a sponge can turn into a squirrel though. It's a very effective analogy for faitheists beliefs.

No evolutionist believes that. Your analogies are false analogies, and straw-mans. maybe you should take the time to actually understand what evolution is. Because it is clearly you have no idea.

What creationists actually believe [http://www.reactiongifs.com...]
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 1:32:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1- Sometimes, people tell "small lies" in order to serve what they believe to be greater truths; there have certainly been frauds within the Toe (Earnst Haeckels, Piltdown man, Nebraska Man). I agree that it is wrong to question the intentions of people or scientists alike without evidence, it is beyond cruel when they are hardworking. Of course, that does not change whether someone is indoctrinated and dogmatic.

2- The ToE is not science; it is a historical hypothesis. Therefore, it cannot be falsified. Don't really get what is there to falsify.

3- The issue is not fraud which can't be thrown lightly. The issue is in indoctrination and dogma. Blindly trying to prove the theory and fit the evidence into it rather than letting the evidence lead you.
In the same way this attempts to prove a geocentric earth: http://withfriendship.com...

4- The court cases had nothing to do with Evolution vs ID/Creationism (I do not believe any of these three to be science btw). It was about suppressing the existence of alternative beliefs and preventing people to neutrally have a look at them. The real winner of these expensive lawsuits in a bad economy are the lawyers who got money into their pockets and the thought police. The loser was the freedom of thought.

5- No doubt abiogenesis did occur on this planet. However, there is no scientific answers for how it occurred. The evolutionary version which is similar to spontaneous generation of an "undiscovered simpler cell" + jumping through hoops of astronomically improbable steps.
Abiogenesis is not demonstrably happening anywhere on this planet. Not in nature and not in experiments. We are not within light years of making living cells that can nourish themselves, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. Science simply don't know what "Life" is and what makes it. And evolutionists don't like that.
The evolutionist's version of abiogenesis they have to believe in is simply unprovable figments of imaginations they try to pass as science. Therefore, they will either demean those who do not believe in their fairy tale, or try to ignore that they have to believe in it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 1:34:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:30:02 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/14/2013 7:19:25 AM, JonMilne wrote:

But anyway, you haven't answered the question from the OP. Why precisely is evolution a "fraud" to you,

https://www.youtube.com....

This is why. Evolution claims flashes of lightening on little pieces of matter can create life. That's worse than magic.

That is science; not magic (amino acids have been created spontaneously in labs). What's your theory? God just thunk it, and it happened?! That's retarded. Also, how life started deals with Abiogenesis; not evolution.

If you don't even know the difference between Abiogensis and evolution; you are not equipped to debate me on evolution.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 1:39:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also Installgentoo, you avoided the other parts of the question I asked you, namely: how on earth do you propose that any scientists could ever manage to cover up any evidence against evolution, and what precisely are you actually to combat what you and your crackpot buddies believe to be a "fraud", aside from showing deliberate trolling ignorance of what evolutionary theory actually IS?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 1:49:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 1:39:59 PM, JonMilne wrote:
Also Installgentoo, you avoided the other parts of the question I asked you, namely: how on earth do you propose that any scientists could ever manage to cover up any evidence against evolution, and what precisely are you actually to combat what you and your crackpot buddies believe to be a "fraud", aside from showing deliberate trolling ignorance of what evolutionary theory actually IS?

Exactly. Installgentoo as proven that he doesn't know what evolution is. How can you argue against something, if you don't know what it is?!
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 2:09:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 1:32:56 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
1- Sometimes, people tell "small lies" in order to serve what they believe to be greater truths; there have certainly been frauds within the Toe (Earnst Haeckels, Piltdown man, Nebraska Man). I agree that it is wrong to question the intentions of people or scientists alike without evidence, it is beyond cruel when they are hardworking. Of course, that does not change whether someone is indoctrinated and dogmatic.

The existence of small lies does not equate to one big conspiracy in the scientific community. If you believe there is a conspiracy, prove it with hard evidence.

2- The ToE is not science; it is a historical hypothesis. Therefore, it cannot be falsified. Don't really get what is there to falsify.

Nonsense. There are plenty means to falsify evolutionary theory: http://www.talkorigins.org... as well as http://www.talkorigins.org... and http://rationalwiki.org... . Since there are means to falsify it, it's therefore a scientific theory

3- The issue is not fraud which can't be thrown lightly. The issue is in indoctrination and dogma. Blindly trying to prove the theory and fit the evidence into it rather than letting the evidence lead you.
In the same way this attempts to prove a geocentric earth: http://withfriendship.com...

The evidence is there in nature regardless of whether we wish to apply evolutionary theory to it or not. The theory explains the evidence. Oh, and learn your scientific terms: nothing is ever "proved", we simply find "evidence". We're more than aware that something could turn up that would overturn evolution and fit far better into the evidence, but in the meantime, beyond reasonable doubt, evolution is the best explanation for the evidence we have. And again, if you're alleging some super secret conspiracy where scientists are suppressing any evidence of evolution being false and lying and covering up the truth in favour of protecting a false scientific theory, then the onus is on YOU to demonstrate this with hard evidence.

4- The court cases had nothing to do with Evolution vs ID/Creationism (I do not believe any of these three to be science btw). It was about suppressing the existence of alternative beliefs and preventing people to neutrally have a look at them. The real winner of these expensive lawsuits in a bad economy are the lawyers who got money into their pockets and the thought police. The loser was the freedom of thought.

Again, if you allege such a massive conspiracy exists to silence rival beliefs of equal legitimacy within the scientific field (because Kitzmiller v Dover especially were to do with what is actually allowed to be taught as science in the classroom), demonstrate it with hard evidence.

5- No doubt abiogenesis did occur on this planet. However, there is no scientific answers for how it occurred. The evolutionary version which is similar to spontaneous generation of an "undiscovered simpler cell" + jumping through hoops of astronomically improbable steps.
Abiogenesis is not demonstrably happening anywhere on this planet. Not in nature and not in experiments. We are not within light years of making living cells that can nourish themselves, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. Science simply don't know what "Life" is and what makes it. And evolutionists don't like that.
The evolutionist's version of abiogenesis they have to believe in is simply unprovable figments of imaginations they try to pass as science. Therefore, they will either demean those who do not believe in their fairy tale, or try to ignore that they have to believe in it.

Read these links in order, especially the last one. These should cover all bases of your complaints. We're more than able to explain abiogenesis. Your accusations are baseless.

1) http://www.talkorigins.org...
2) http://www.talkorigins.org...
3) http://www.talkorigins.org...
4) http://www.talkorigins.org...
5) http://www.talkorigins.org...
6) http://www.talkorigins.org...
7) http://www.talkorigins.org...
8) http://www.talkorigins.org...
9) http://www.talkorigins.org...
10) http://www.talkorigins.org...
11) http://www.talkorigins.org...
12) http://www.talkorigins.org...
13) http://www.talkorigins.org...
14) http://www.talkorigins.org...
15) http://www.talkorigins.org...
16) http://www.talkorigins.org...
17) http://www.talkorigins.org...
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 2:13:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 2:09:47 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/14/2013 1:32:56 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
1- Sometimes, people tell "small lies" in order to serve what they believe to be greater truths; there have certainly been frauds within the Toe (Earnst Haeckels, Piltdown man, Nebraska Man). I agree that it is wrong to question the intentions of people or scientists alike without evidence, it is beyond cruel when they are hardworking. Of course, that does not change whether someone is indoctrinated and dogmatic.

The existence of small lies does not equate to one big conspiracy in the scientific community. If you believe there is a conspiracy, prove it with hard evidence.

2- The ToE is not science; it is a historical hypothesis. Therefore, it cannot be falsified. Don't really get what is there to falsify.

Nonsense. There are plenty means to falsify evolutionary theory: http://www.talkorigins.org... as well as http://www.talkorigins.org... and http://rationalwiki.org... . Since there are means to falsify it, it's therefore a scientific theory

3- The issue is not fraud which can't be thrown lightly. The issue is in indoctrination and dogma. Blindly trying to prove the theory and fit the evidence into it rather than letting the evidence lead you.
In the same way this attempts to prove a geocentric earth: http://withfriendship.com...

The evidence is there in nature regardless of whether we wish to apply evolutionary theory to it or not. The theory explains the evidence. Oh, and learn your scientific terms: nothing is ever "proved", we simply find "evidence". We're more than aware that something could turn up that would overturn evolution and fit far better into the evidence, but in the meantime, beyond reasonable doubt, evolution is the best explanation for the evidence we have. And again, if you're alleging some super secret conspiracy where scientists are suppressing any evidence of evolution being false and lying and covering up the truth in favour of protecting a false scientific theory, then the onus is on YOU to demonstrate this with hard evidence.

4- The court cases had nothing to do with Evolution vs ID/Creationism (I do not believe any of these three to be science btw). It was about suppressing the existence of alternative beliefs and preventing people to neutrally have a look at them. The real winner of these expensive lawsuits in a bad economy are the lawyers who got money into their pockets and the thought police. The loser was the freedom of thought.

Again, if you allege such a massive conspiracy exists to silence rival beliefs of equal legitimacy within the scientific field (because Kitzmiller v Dover especially were to do with what is actually allowed to be taught as science in the classroom), demonstrate it with hard evidence.

5- No doubt abiogenesis did occur on this planet. However, there is no scientific answers for how it occurred. The evolutionary version which is similar to spontaneous generation of an "undiscovered simpler cell" + jumping through hoops of astronomically improbable steps.
Abiogenesis is not demonstrably happening anywhere on this planet. Not in nature and not in experiments. We are not within light years of making living cells that can nourish themselves, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. Science simply don't know what "Life" is and what makes it. And evolutionists don't like that.
The evolutionist's version of abiogenesis they have to believe in is simply unprovable figments of imaginations they try to pass as science. Therefore, they will either demean those who do not believe in their fairy tale, or try to ignore that they have to believe in it.

Read these links in order, especially the last one. These should cover all bases of your complaints. We're more than able to explain abiogenesis. Your accusations are baseless.

1) http://www.talkorigins.org...
2) http://www.talkorigins.org...
3) http://www.talkorigins.org...
4) http://www.talkorigins.org...
5) http://www.talkorigins.org...
6) http://www.talkorigins.org...
7) http://www.talkorigins.org...
8) http://www.talkorigins.org...
9) http://www.talkorigins.org...
10) http://www.talkorigins.org...
11) http://www.talkorigins.org...
12) http://www.talkorigins.org...
13) http://www.talkorigins.org...
14) http://www.talkorigins.org...
15) http://www.talkorigins.org...
16) http://www.talkorigins.org...
17) http://www.talkorigins.org...

I'll add to this by also saying that in science, a theory is not a hypothesis.

Nor is the "theory of evolution by natural selection" (to be now abbreviated as TOEBNS) a hypothesis of any kind. It is a conceptual framework that describes what we know about and how we understand the consistent tendency of certain biological hypotheses to be confirmed by experiment while certain other hypotheses have been consistently disconfirmed.

The hypotheses themselves not only are testable, they have been tested. The conceptual framework is tested by deriving new hypotheses that should be true (though some are framed as a "shouldn"t", but this is just a different kind of should) if the TOEBNS is true. Where the TOEBNS fails, we are shown the conceptual limits of the theory. For instance, the conceptual framework can describe things that demonstrably do happen, but that doesn"t mean that it is impossible for things like unselected genetic drift to alter a population. Such things are described by theory outside of TOEBNS, but they do not, when tested, violate TOEBNS.

"not least because TOEBNS is the framework of what we know to be true from experiment, not a framework of things we think or wish might be true. The latter are hypotheses or religions, the former are theories.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 2:17:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To return more to the OP, it might be interesting to consider just how big such a scam/coverup would have to be. Take it seriously and see where it takes you. E.g. it can"t simply be a matter of hiding some evidence. The evidence we have is sufficient to make it all but certain that some kind of evolution must be occurring. If some evidence had been suppressed, at most it could result in a revision of evolutionary theory.

So, we would have to assume that false evidence had been disseminated. This is no small undertaking, though, since research is so spread out and easily verifiable by labs in various countries. E.g. simple phylogenetic analyses alone provide strong support for common ancestry, so the conspiracy would have to control which sequences were available in databanks and prevent people from doing independent sequencing. This itself is problematic because a single individual who could be bothered to save up for it could buy the necessary machinery, gather the samples and sequence the genes, to verify the facts.

So, in order for evolution to be faked, we"d have to postulate a world-wide conspiracy, controlling universities, publications, facilities and even private access to machinery. It would have to be truly staggering in size, having operatives in every country and every institution. After all, it would only take one unsupervised undergrad to sabotage the entire project.

It"s simply out of the question that something of this size could be kept secret. In the real world, the secrecy of a conspiracy is inversely proportional to its size. As the saying goes: "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 4:35:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 2:09:47 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/14/2013 1:32:56 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
1- Sometimes, people tell "small lies" in order to serve what they believe to be greater truths; there have certainly been frauds within the Toe (Earnst Haeckels, Piltdown man, Nebraska Man). I agree that it is wrong to question the intentions of people or scientists alike without evidence, it is beyond cruel when they are hardworking. Of course, that does not change whether someone is indoctrinated and dogmatic.

The existence of small lies does not equate to one big conspiracy in the scientific community. If you believe there is a conspiracy, prove it with hard evidence.

You consider indoctrination and dogma to be a conspiracy? Perhaps in some group psychology subconscious sense?
In any case, nice strawman.

2- The ToE is not science; it is a historical hypothesis. Therefore, it cannot be falsified. Don't really get what is there to falsify.

Nonsense. There are plenty means to falsify evolutionary theory: http://www.talkorigins.org... as well as http://www.talkorigins.org... and http://rationalwiki.org... . Since there are means to falsify it, it's therefore a scientific theory


* a static fossil record; Protected with ad-hocs: Living fossils, punctured equilibrium, stasis.
* true chimeras; Protected with ad-hocs: Convergent evolution.
* a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating; Sure, once it is shown that "accumulated mutations" leads to the creation of organs.
* observations of organisms being created. Similar historical events are unlikely to be reproducible for scientific tests. Their value as evidence works both ways. Observations of evolutionary abiogenesis will render creationary abiogenesis unlikely. I will consider this conceding that abiogenesis have to do with evolution.

3- The issue is not fraud which can't be thrown lightly. The issue is in indoctrination and dogma. Blindly trying to prove the theory and fit the evidence into it rather than letting the evidence lead you.
In the same way this attempts to prove a geocentric earth: http://withfriendship.com...

The evidence is there in nature regardless of whether we wish to apply evolutionary theory to it or not. The theory explains the evidence. Oh, and learn your scientific terms: nothing is ever "proved", we simply find "evidence". We're more than aware that something could turn up that would overturn evolution and fit far better into the evidence, but in the meantime, beyond reasonable doubt, evolution is the best explanation for the evidence we have. And again, if you're alleging some super secret conspiracy where scientists are suppressing any evidence of evolution being false and lying and covering up the truth in favour of protecting a false scientific theory, then the onus is on YOU to demonstrate this with hard evidence.

I did not use the terms incorrectly. I simply stated the effects of indoctrination and dogma, which is trying to prove something regardless of whether it is possible or not.
Are you implying that evolution offers scientific explanation rather than imagination? If that is the case, then shouldn't it offer scientific evidence for the possibility of their claims and provide rational physical steps for processes
Too many strawmen today. Might have to bring out my flamethrower.

4- The court cases had nothing to do with Evolution vs ID/Creationism (I do not believe any of these three to be science btw). It was about suppressing the existence of alternative beliefs and preventing people to neutrally have a look at them. The real winner of these expensive lawsuits in a bad economy are the lawyers who got money into their pockets and the thought police. The loser was the freedom of thought.

Again, if you allege such a massive conspiracy exists to silence rival beliefs of equal legitimacy within the scientific field (because Kitzmiller v Dover especially were to do with what is actually allowed to be taught as science in the classroom), demonstrate it with hard evidence.

False.

Kitzmiller v Dover did not happen because they wanted to teach creationism or ID in science classrooms (Which I do not support). It is because biology teachers refused to to announce that there is a book discussing an alternative viewpoint in the library. So the school made the announcement for them. Literally because some teachers refused to read a note encouraging students to explore an alternative view points.

Is the ToE so weak and unsure of itself that it have to prevent students from knowing that there is a book about a different idea that does not agree with evolution?
All that taxpayer money went to prevent an announcement about a book that talks about an alternative idea... If that is not indoctrination and dogma, I don't know what it is.


5- No doubt abiogenesis did occur on this planet. However, there is no scientific answers for how it occurred. The evolutionary version which is similar to spontaneous generation of an "undiscovered simpler cell" + jumping through hoops of astronomically improbable steps.
Abiogenesis is not demonstrably happening anywhere on this planet. Not in nature and not in experiments. We are not within light years of making living cells that can nourish themselves, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. Science simply don't know what "Life" is and what makes it. And evolutionists don't like that.
The evolutionist's version of abiogenesis they have to believe in is simply unprovable figments of imaginations they try to pass as science. Therefore, they will either demean those who do not believe in their fairy tale, or try to ignore that they have to believe in it.

Read these links in order, especially the last one. These should cover all bases of your complaints. We're more than able to explain abiogenesis. Your accusations are baseless.

1) http://www.talkorigins.org...
2) http://www.talkorigins.org...
3) http://www.talkorigins.org...
4) http://www.talkorigins.org...
5) http://www.talkorigins.org...
6) http://www.talkorigins.org...
7) http://www.talkorigins.org...
8) http://www.talkorigins.org...
9) http://www.talkorigins.org...
10) http://www.talkorigins.org...
11) http://www.talkorigins.org...
12) http://www.talkorigins.org...
13) http://www.talkorigins.org...
14) http://www.talkorigins.org...
15) http://www.talkorigins.org...
16) http://www.talkorigins.org...
17) http://www.talkorigins.org...

Lol @ the indoctrinated "WE".
I mean are you thinking as an individual? Do you consider yourself a person? identifying and placing yourself on a groupthink and hive mind where people all think and behave alike is such a dark hole of thought...

I fail to see how the link bombardment negates my points. Found a lot of the responses to be quite weak.
But lets start over. You said that you (or The-Group) is more than able to explain abiogenesis. So please provide the steps of how it happened.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 5:08:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I figure I will go into more detail about why Dragonfang is wrong by tackling his first post, because I was somewhat tired when I initially responded to him, and now I can fully rip his first post apart:

Sometimes, people tell "small lies" in order to serve what they believe to be greater truth

Only people who haven"t got enough evidence to make their case honestly.

Also, anything not a century old? No? Okay, then.

there have certainly been frauds within the ToE (Earnst Haeckels, Piltdown man, Nebraska Man)

Non Sequitur. None of those frauds were "small lies in service to a greater truth". They were quite big lies, in service to the self-aggrandizement of their perpetrators and perpetuators.

The ToE is not science; it is a historical hypothesis.

Fractally wrong. History is a science (quite a lot of interrelated sciences, actually). The ToE is not a hypothesis; many, many hypotheses have been made and confirmed within the framework of the ToE. Many other hypotheses have been made, falsified, and discarded, both within and without of the current ToE. The discarded hypotheses which were part of previous iterations of the ToE are no longer part of the current theoretical structure, as they have been falsified. Meanwhile, the hypotheses advanced by advocates of other theories regarding the diversity of life have been consistently falsified or shown to work with the framework of the ToE.

Also, evolution isn"t solely historical. If evolution is true, it"s something that"s going on right now. The fact that it was also going on back then doesn"t put it in a different category, no more than the fact that gravity was always around makes that a "historical hypothesis".

Therefore, it cannot be falsified. Don"t really get what is there to falsify.

The falsification of a sufficient number of the aforementioned hypotheses would have required a sufficiently large reworking of the aforementioned theories as to make the current ToE obsolete, thus "falsifying it." At this time, it is effectively not possible to falsify the nucleus of the current framework, as the existing body of evidence is overwhelming in its favour. A partial list of the evidence can be found in any college-level biology textbook, a large number of popularized science books written dozens of authors, and a vast number of scientific journals.

The fact of the matter is it can be falsified. Perhaps it"s more accurate to say that it could have been, since the facts are now so overwhelmingly in favor that it"s really not up for debate anymore. However, the theory could have been disproven a hundred times over. It just wasn"t.

The issue is in indoctrination and dogma. Blindly trying to prove the theory and fit the evidence into it rather than letting the evidence lead you.
In the same way this attempts to prove a geocentric earth:

Dogmatic attitudes are indeed problematic. That"s why we"ve come up with this nifty idea called the scientific method. Among it"s many ingenious features is the principle that evidence should be open to scrutiny. This allows anyone to go over the evidence and conclusions and check if they"re valid.

Ring any bells?

Otherwise, the above quote is classic apologist projection. Too absurd to respond further.

had nothing to do with Evolution vs ID/Creationism

That would be news to the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller, who quite plainly said the opposite. It would also be news to the Court that heard Edwards,, who said that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." http://en.wikipedia.org...

(I do not believe any of these three to be science btw)

One wonders what you do believe to be science.

However, there is no scientific answers for how it occurred

There is no scientific consensus as to how abiogenesis occured, because the presently available evidence is insufficient to distunguish between several equally likely models. The evidence is sufficient to indicate, however, that it was one of the current models, or at least a process quite close to same. This also has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution.

jumping through hoops of astronomically improbable steps

When there are astronomically many chemical events occurring over an astronomically long period of time, astronomical improbabilities happen incessantly.

Abiogenesis is not demonstrably happening anywhere on this planet

As far as we are presently aware, this is the case.

The conditions which would allow for abiogenesis are incompatible with the widespread presence of life. The types of complex organic molecule involved do not exist free-floating in large quantities, because some life form will consume them.

We are not within light years of making living cells that can nourish themselves, respond to stimuli, and reproduce.

Getting quite close, actually. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Science simply don"t know what "Life" is and what makes it.

Life is metabolism, reproduction, growth, and response to stimuli. Assorted chemical processes, many of which relate to proteins, make life.

The evolutionist"s version of abiogenesis they have to believe in is simply unprovable figments of imaginations they try to pass as science

As noted above, the theory of evolution is entirely neutral on the subject of the origins of life, and serves only to describe the adaptations of existing life. None of the hypotheses regarding abiogenesis require any deviations from known and demonstrable physical laws and processes, and thus require no a priori faith, although firmly asserting that, say Manfred Eigen"s hypotheses is the one true one would require a leap of faith. I"m not aware of anyone who does that, though.

Therefore, they will either demean those who do not believe in their fairy tale,

Nah, you haven"t garnered enough of my attention yet for me to demean you.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 5:22:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 3:50:54 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
This is what evolutionists actually believe http://imgur.com....

This what creationists actually believe:

1 = 2.
0x5f3759df
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 2:14:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 4:35:35 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
You consider indoctrination and dogma to be a conspiracy? Perhaps in some group psychology subconscious sense?
In any case, nice strawman.

This above quote fits into what I talked about in my OP quite nicely, where I pointed out that the anti-evolution side has a tendency to throw around accusations so lightly. Do you actually know what indoctrination and dogma are and what they imply? By definition, indoctrination is "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically" while dogma is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true".

In other words, you're implying that some super-secret cult exists in the scientific community where scientists recruit other scientists sort of like in a Masons fashion and teach them evolution is true regardless of the evidence, and that it should be treated as inerrant and protected even if is a false theory.

This is of course nonsense, for exactly the reasons I highlighted in Post #24 of this thread: http://www.debate.org... . No matter how determined any sect of scientists would be to protect a false theory, a cover-up of that scale would be impossible as long as any single person or people existed with a determination to demonstrate evolution to be false.

* a static fossil record; Protected with ad-hocs: Living fossils, punctured equilibrium, stasis.
* true chimeras; Protected with ad-hocs: Convergent evolution.
* a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating; Sure, once it is shown that "accumulated mutations" leads to the creation of organs.
* observations of organisms being created. Similar historical events are unlikely to be reproducible for scientific tests. Their value as evidence works both ways. Observations of evolutionary abiogenesis will render creationary abiogenesis unlikely. I will consider this conceding that abiogenesis have to do with evolution.

These are all just assertions without any evidence on your part about evolutionary theory. I want you to produce peer reviewed papers in reliable scientific journals that demonstrate evolution is wrong.

I did not use the terms incorrectly. I simply stated the effects of indoctrination and dogma, which is trying to prove something regardless of whether it is possible or not.

See above. No matter how determined anyone would be in science to have a super-secret cult of people who believe evolution is inerrant (which you've still provided no evidence for), a cover-up on that scale would be impossible.

Are you implying that evolution offers scientific explanation rather than imagination? If that is the case, then shouldn't it offer scientific evidence for the possibility of their claims and provide rational physical steps for processes

And it does. I would suggest that rather than regurgitating tired old creationist argument (which Ramshutu demolished brilliantly in this thread), you actually get off your arse and actually look for the evidence: http://necsi.edu... , http://evolution.berkeley.edu... , http://rationalwiki.org...

False.

Kitzmiller v Dover did not happen because they wanted to teach creationism or ID in science classrooms (Which I do not support). It is because biology teachers refused to to announce that there is a book discussing an alternative viewpoint in the library. So the school made the announcement for them. Literally because some teachers refused to read a note encouraging students to explore an alternative view points.

Because it amounted to messing up the regular curriculum with "Teach the Controversy" bollocks and promoting a so-called "scientific alternative" in ID despite the fact ID has never been found to be anything of the sort, not to mention it promoted using "Of Pandas and People" as a reference, which as you should know from studying the case, turned out to have been copied from other creationist literature just with all instances of "creator", "creationism" and "creation science" were replaced with "intelligent agent" and "intelligent design", leaving substantive content essentially unchanged. One copy of the book that surfaced during the case even contained the "missing link" between creationists and intelligent design proponents: the cdesign proponentsists.

Is the ToE so weak and unsure of itself that it have to prevent students from knowing that there is a book about a different idea that does not agree with evolution?

No, it's that when in a science classroom, you teach actual science, which ID has never been demonstrated to be. Evolution has. You might as well accuse conventional medicine as being "unsure of itself" when we don't teach "alternative" medicine like homeopathy to doctors in training. You teach people what is actually factual, not about some bogus controversy about "different ideas" which are not using actual science but instead politics to try and force their way into the classroom. Otherwise, that opens a whole can of worms where other fallacious "different ideas" are allowed to be taught to students in classroom even though they are false, including but not limited to astrology as an "alternative idea" to astronomy, climate change denialism as an "alternative idea" to global warming, perspectives based on racism where blacks are considered by some to be genetically inferior to whites, UFOs, 9/11 truthers, Flat Earthers, and Holocaust Deniers. If for even one of these idea you agree they shouldn't be taught as factual in classrooms as "different ideas" to what is actually established facts with evidence behind them, then you in turn concede that only factual content should be taught in classrooms and regardless of something being a "different idea", if there is no evidence to support it then it should not be taught in classrooms, and that's what was conclusively found about ID.

Incidentally, I like how you didn't pay attention to the clear dishonesties in each of the testimonies of the IDers in that trial, especially from Bonsell and Behe.

All that taxpayer money went to prevent an announcement about a book that talks about an alternative idea... If that is not indoctrination and dogma, I don't know what it is.

Clearly you've never heard of Lemon v Kurtzman and the "Lemon Test". ID was found by K v D to be primarily religious and fostered unnecessary entanglement of church and state. The court further found that intelligent design is not science.

The 'Lemon' test examines three points. Does the action have a purely secular purpose, does the action promote or inhibit religion, and does the action result in an entanglement of the state and religion? A failure of any of the three conditions means it is unconstitutional under the establishment clause. ID failed the Lemon Test, thus it's unconstitutional to be taught in the classroom next to something that is an actual established and demonstrable science.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 2:57:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Lol @ the indoctrinated "WE".
I mean are you thinking as an individual? Do you consider yourself a person? identifying and placing yourself on a groupthink and hive mind where people all think and behave alike is such a dark hole of thought...

Rebutted this tired nonsense above. Actually demonstrate this super-secret cult of brainwasher scientists covering up the truth or shut the fvck up

I fail to see how the link bombardment negates my points. Found a lot of the responses to be quite weak.

This is just precious and shows your intellectual dishonesty. You provide no justification for the above quote, and it shows no matter what evidence I present, you'll just dismiss it because of your preconceptions formed by devotion to your magical sky daddy for whom you've provided no evidence whatsoever. And you call me indoctrinated? This is just laughable, dude. You can provide no evidence as to why we would deliberately protect a false theory, when, if anything, the history of science has demonstrated it's far more beneficial to challenge existing ideas in the scientific status quo and, through actually adhering to a reliable form of the scientific method, put in the work and the research to demonstrate that their new ideas fit the evidence better than existing ones. Look at Mendel and Darwin. Look at Einstein. Look at the people named here: http://www.expelledexposed.com... . It's made quite clear: if you actually put in the research and actually follow the scientific method in a credible fashion, then no matter how hard opponents of your theory try to debunk it, eventually, your ideas will become accepted. To quote:

So the scientific consensus can be and is challenged regularly. There is no unchallengeable orthodoxy, which is what Expelled would have you believe. The preceding stories are just a few well-known examples of biologists who challenged the scientific consensus, including principles of Mendelian genetics and of Darwinian evolution. These scientists prevailed because they did good science: they backed their challenges with successful predictions and empirical evidence. And, they were right. Scientists are constantly questioning, refining, and expanding theories, including evolution, and natural selection theory. As Michael Shermer writes, "Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference."


There is no reason why intelligent design proponents cannot follow in the footsteps of these distinguished scientists who overcame sometimes considerable opposition, sometimes for a very long time, before their scientific views prevailed. Unlike ID advocates, these researchers didn"t skip past the research phase to try to influence the public before they had scientific support. None of them formed groups to lobby school boards to teach their views in the public schools; they just buckled down and did the work. None of them drafted model legislation or penned op-eds in newspapers and magazines decrying the supposed persecution they suffered at the hands of The Establishment; they just buckled down and did the work. None of them hired former Nixon speechwriters or game-show hosts to compare their opponents to Hitler; they just buckled down and did the work.

The difference between what scientists do and what intelligent design proponents do is that when scientists question aspects of evolution they do it with science, while intelligent design proponents do it with dishonest movies, tired slogans, and slick marketing.


Scientists and other proponents who support the validity of the Theory of Evolution (or the elements you disagree with) have NOTHING to gain from protecting a false theory, not even grant money. A huge percentage of the knowledge of evolution comes from basic research. Know what"s not getting funded any more? Basic research. If it isn't applied, it isn't being funded. That means that every grant you can point to that is evolutionary and funded means that it is coming out with applied use, which means that it works. Whether you want to believe it's true or not, acting on the assumption that it's true gives results that actually work in applied ways in the real world. It takes a lot of circuitous reasoning on your part to come up with a worldview in which everything works as if evolution were true, but it somehow still isn't.


It would be considerably more profitable to actually try and find something that may disprove evolution, which is what scientists do anyway when they constantly do new experiments related to evolution that they try to falsify. Anyone who ends up succeeding at falsifying evolution and finding some new scientific theory for the diversity of life would, as I've said countless times, become a living legend in the scientific community and would be able to retire early with a big fat wad of cash and a Nobel Prize. The fact this hasn't happened yet is extremely telling about how structurally sound the theory of evolution currently is within the scientific community.

There's not even any beneficial political reason you can point as to why proponents of evolutionary theory as well as abiogenesis would blindly adhere to them. There is NO political correctness in the scientific community. In America alone, their political landscape is still majority Christian and a lot of it is anti-science; witness the continued cuts and threats to science funding. Being a solid evolutionist is a detriment, not a benefit, in today's political climate. Other countries have similar problems, although to varying extents.

But lets start over. You said that you (or The-Group) is more than able to explain abiogenesis. So please provide the steps of how it happened.

Already showed you explanatory evidence in abundance. You rejected it a priori. So I'd like you to explain where your imaginary deity came from. I will not allow you to change the subject. Either you provide the evidence you expect for abiogenesis, or you shut the fvck up about your imaginary deity/creator.

Fair is fair after all, considering you can't even justify why we should favour your own specialist brand of "Christian" religion when there's no more evidence for that than the Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Taoist, Sikh, Buddhist, Raelien, Scientologist etc etc versions of religion. The only reason you actually hold to your specific flavour of religion is geography, that is to say the area where you live, plain and simple. If you were born in the East, it's very likely you'd be spewing at least one of the first six religious beliefs at us.

Hell, since we're dealing in conspiracy theories in this thread, I'll hit back with one of my own. Like god exists, and there is evidence for it, but the god there is evidence for is a woman, who believes in feminism, communism, and males doing what they are told. The priesthood knows the evidence exists, but won"t show it because they will lose everything and be replaced by women. Frankly, as far as conspiracies go, even that one's more plausible than the garbage you spew about scientists working in areas of science relevant to evolutionary theory.
.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 8:27:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can't believe people still believe in evolution when Louis Pasteur disproved the idea that life could assemble itself from DNA 400 years ago.