Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

What some scientists think of evolution

MasonicSlayer
Posts: 3,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 10:45:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2016 7:16:00 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I'll just leave this here for a mo...

https://ncse.com...

What was that supposed to do?
Iredia
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 10:50:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm sure you know the no of scientists in Project Steve outnumber that dissent from Darwinism list. Majority of scientists support evolution. That's not.to say the theory is true but I'm just saying.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 11:07:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is an argument from authority fallacy. Being a scientist doesn't make your dissenting opinion valid, unless your opinion is derived from the scientific method. Intelligent Design can never be scientific because it relies on the existence of a designer, an assumption that can be neither proved nor disproved. And even if there is a designer, it's clear that he's implemented his design changes through "random" mutation and natural selection, making the entire debate redundant.
Annnaxim
Posts: 435
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 1:09:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2016 5:33:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

I'm not starting this thread in an attempt to convince Darwinists they're wrong, only they can do that by honest and open minded study.
Well... at least that's good to know. :)

Then there are some of the key issues themselves, I won't post references here because if you're truly curious you can easily search and explore the web yourself, but here's a list that you should be aware of:

1. No support from the fossil record - yes, go and check yourself about why some scientists say this.
So what?
What would the fossil record look like, if a flood had killed most of the species?

2. No known chemistry can explain how homo-chirality arose in nature. (Abiogenesis more than evolution).
Maybe you are not aware of the research going on in this area...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Here's a quote from the study...
"More than 60 years ago, Frank developed a mathematical model for an autocatalytic reaction mechanism for the evolution of homochirality. The model is based on a simple idea: a substance that acts as a catalyst in its own self-production and at the same time acts to suppress synthesis of its enantiomer enables the evolution of enantiopure molecules from a near-racemic mixture. The experimental challenge to discover a reaction with these features was posed in the last sentence of this purely theoretical paper: "A laboratory demonstration may not be impossible" (Frank 1953; Wynberg 1989)."

3. The origin of DNA's huge information content.
Life, as we know it, has been going for a long time. The information in DNA had close to 4 Bn years to accumulate, so wh not call it "huge"?


4. The Cambrian explosion record points to sudden appearance not gradual.
That must be the longest lasting explosion in history! During the Cambrian It took around 70 Million years for new species to appear on the evolutionary landscape.

That's not really an explosion by anybodies standards. :lol:


5. It's not a falsifiable theory as it purports to be.
That statement is simply a creationist myth and completely wrong.
Evolution is falsifiable. I think you are confusing falsifiability with the fact that so far, no one has been able to falsify evolution.


If you are undecided (and there's nothing wrong with being undecided, it's better than being dogmatic) then open mindedly explore these issues for yourself. See what each side has to say about these issues.
Indeed! A very good point.


Try to stick to the science, focus on what scientists say be they for or against and way up each side.
The trouble with that statement is, that there are no reputable scientists who are against evolution. By "reputable", I mean scientists from the top Universities worldwide.

There's a lot out there and there are a lot of scientifically knowledgeable dissenters.
Are they really knowledgeable, or just ignorant?

As the philosopher Daniel Dennett wrote in Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1993)
"Anyone who doubts that the variety of life on the planet developed through a process of evolution, is inexcusably ignorant."
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 5:45:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2016 11:07:54 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
This is an argument from authority fallacy. Being a scientist doesn't make your dissenting opinion valid, unless your opinion is derived from the scientific method. Intelligent Design can never be scientific because it relies on the existence of a designer, an assumption that can be neither proved nor disproved. And even if there is a designer, it's clear that he's implemented his design changes through "random" mutation and natural selection, making the entire debate redundant.

My OP didn't mention ID it mentioned scientists and mathematicians who take issue with some of the postulated processes attributed to nature.

It seem for you that materialism is axiomatic, that is you insist that it is true and formulate your views on that assumption.

Any intellectual structure is only true if its axioms are true and you cannot prove an axiom (which is why its called an axiom).
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 8:22:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2016 8:05:54 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
But I wasn't, he accused me of that but I wasn't. I was not presenting or trying to present a proof of anything other than there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists and that those objections seem to be unknown to most atheists.

But that isn't what the list is.

Indeed and I never said the list was that, else you'll be able to quote where you think I did say that won't you?

I pointed out how it appeared you used the list. You defended yourself by stating this was not your intention, but your intention was, and I quote:

"I was not presenting or trying to present a proof of anything other than there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists"

If showing a proof that there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists was your goal; and you agree that this is not what the list is.

I ask again.

Why post the list.

The list is just a list of scientists who agree with a statement. Not individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the "Darwinists".

Why are you insinuating something that isn't true? Pretending I said something and then attacking me for it is all you're doing here, why?

As I said; you made what appeared to be an argument from Authority by posting a list. You claimed your intent was not to post the list to make an argument from authority; but to show "a proof that there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists"

But the list doesn't support that argument, as I pointed out (and it's true, that list is not a list of scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of darwinists".

I did write "There are hundreds of career scientists who have signed the "Dissent from Darwinism" list" which is true is it not?

Which part of my OP don't you understand?

Did you think this statement "I won't post references here because if you're truly curious you can easily search and explore the web yourself" is unclear?

I am talking about the list: that statement isn't about the list.


You purposefully mentioned numbers in your reply; so you can assuredly understand how your choice of words was hideously poor; and made it sound almost exactly like you were making an argument from authority. Right?

No, wrong. Can you quote what you think is my "argument from authority"?

You identified a "poor choice of words" so can you quote me?

"First there seems to be a considerable lack of awareness about the true nature of the dissent against Darwinism"

"There are hundreds of career scientists who have signed the "Dissent from Darwinism" list. These people are willing to publicly assert their dissatisfaction with the Darwin doctrine:"

There is no clarification for the list; no explanation of what the list means in the context of your argument, or what relevance the list has to your argument other than to express the number of dissenters, and that they are career scientists with some reference to the degree of their credentials.

So, the only thing you said related to the list; the only context given to the list is: That people don't understand the true nature of dissent. That there are hundreds of people, that they have good credentials, and they dissent from Darwinism.

You haven't included a point in this post: why did you post the list? What does it show? How is that relevant? In so doing, you've left it to the reader to speculate what the point of the list was. And the most obvious conclusion without this context or clarification or point, is "Most people don't appreciate how large the dissent from Darwinism; there are hundreds of credible scientists who disagree with it"?

It's the lack of context and clarification that is the poor choice of words.

If truth isn't decided by democratic vote counting then why bother including a list at all?

There is no "if". Truth really isn't decided by votes Ramshutu.

Then why bother including a list at all?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 8:38:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2016 8:22:00 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/2/2016 8:05:54 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
But I wasn't, he accused me of that but I wasn't. I was not presenting or trying to present a proof of anything other than there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists and that those objections seem to be unknown to most atheists.

But that isn't what the list is.

Indeed and I never said the list was that, else you'll be able to quote where you think I did say that won't you?

I pointed out how it appeared you used the list. You defended yourself by stating this was not your intention, but your intention was, and I quote:

"I was not presenting or trying to present a proof of anything other than there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists"

If showing a proof that there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists was your goal; and you agree that this is not what the list is.

I ask again.

Why post the list.

I felt like including it, why do you object?


The list is just a list of scientists who agree with a statement. Not individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the "Darwinists".

Why are you insinuating something that isn't true? Pretending I said something and then attacking me for it is all you're doing here, why?

As I said; you made what appeared to be an argument from Authority by posting a list. :

Why did it appear that way to you?

You claimed your intent was not to post the list to make an argument from authority; but to show "a proof that there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists"

No that was the intention of the OP not the list in the OP.


But the list doesn't support that argument, as I pointed out (and it's true, that list is not a list of scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of darwinists".


I did write "There are hundreds of career scientists who have signed the "Dissent from Darwinism" list" which is true is it not?

Which part of my OP don't you understand?

You avoided my question.


Did you think this statement "I won't post references here because if you're truly curious you can easily search and explore the web yourself" is unclear?


But again you didn't answer my question.

I am talking about the list: that statement isn't about the list.


You purposefully mentioned numbers in your reply; so you can assuredly understand how your choice of words was hideously poor; and made it sound almost exactly like you were making an argument from authority. Right?

No, wrong. Can you quote what you think is my "argument from authority"?

You identified a "poor choice of words" so can you quote me?

"First there seems to be a considerable lack of awareness about the true nature of the dissent against Darwinism"


Why is that a poor choice of words?

"There are hundreds of career scientists who have signed the "Dissent from Darwinism" list. These people are willing to publicly assert their dissatisfaction with the Darwin doctrine:"


Why is this also perceived by you as a poor choice of words? do you not understand the words?

There is no clarification for the list; no explanation of what the list means in the context of your argument, or what relevance the list has to your argument other than to express the number of dissenters, and that they are career scientists with some reference to the degree of their credentials.


I posted the list for those who may have been unaware there is such a list.

Why did you not ask for clarification or meaning or context in your initial reply in post #15?

So, the only thing you said related to the list; the only context given to the list is: That people don't understand the true nature of dissent. That there are hundreds of people, that they have good credentials, and they dissent from Darwinism.


You haven't included a point in this post: why did you post the list? What does it show? How is that relevant? In so doing, you've left it to the reader to speculate what the point of the list was. And the most obvious conclusion without this context or clarification or point, is "Most people don't appreciate how large the dissent from Darwinism; there are hundreds of credible scientists who disagree with it"?


I have included a point in the OP but you failed to grasp it, why fixate over the list?

What do you think the list shows? why do you need to ask me what the list shows?




It's the lack of context and clarification that is the poor choice of words.

I disagree.


If truth isn't decided by democratic vote counting then why bother including a list at all?

There is no "if". Truth really isn't decided by votes Ramshutu.

Then why bother including a list at all?
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 9:06:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2016 5:45:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
My OP didn't mention ID it mentioned scientists and mathematicians who take issue with some of the postulated processes attributed to nature.

Because they believe in ID. Don't bullshit_me.

It seem for you that materialism is axiomatic, that is you insist that it is true and formulate your views on that assumption.

I'm not a materialist, I'm an empiricist. I don't accept anything unless it can be tested and disproved, and survives repeated testing without being disproved.

Any intellectual structure is only true if its axioms are true and you cannot prove an axiom (which is why its called an axiom).

I'm also not a rationalist, an idealist, or anything besides an empiricist and a pragmatist. Logic is useless if it doesn't conform to reality.
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 9:12:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2016 8:38:24 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/2/2016 8:22:00 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/2/2016 8:05:54 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
But I wasn't, he accused me of that but I wasn't. I was not presenting or trying to present a proof of anything other than there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists and that those objections seem to be unknown to most atheists.

But that isn't what the list is.

Indeed and I never said the list was that, else you'll be able to quote where you think I did say that won't you?

I pointed out how it appeared you used the list. You defended yourself by stating this was not your intention, but your intention was, and I quote:

"I was not presenting or trying to present a proof of anything other than there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists"

If showing a proof that there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists was your goal; and you agree that this is not what the list is.

I ask again.

Why post the list.

I felt like including it, why do you object?

Because you are arguing it does not sound like an argument from authority but, as I pointed out; without context or clarification in the OP; it appears to be so.


The list is just a list of scientists who agree with a statement. Not individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the "Darwinists".

Why are you insinuating something that isn't true? Pretending I said something and then attacking me for it is all you're doing here, why?

As I said; you made what appeared to be an argument from Authority by posting a list. :

Why did it appear that way to you?

I outlined in detail below.

You claimed your intent was not to post the list to make an argument from authority; but to show "a proof that there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists"

No that was the intention of the OP not the list in the OP.

Then it is irrelevant to my objection; which was about the list.

I assumed that the post was relevant to the list; given this was what I was and am talking about.


But the list doesn't support that argument, as I pointed out (and it's true, that list is not a list of scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of darwinists".


I did write "There are hundreds of career scientists who have signed the "Dissent from Darwinism" list" which is true is it not?

Which part of my OP don't you understand?

You avoided my question.

I detailed the exact nature of my objection, and why it is a valid objection below...


Did you think this statement "I won't post references here because if you're truly curious you can easily search and explore the web yourself" is unclear?


But again you didn't answer my question.

I answered this, and the previous question here:

I am talking about the list: that statement isn't about the list.

That statement is unrelated to the list; I am talking about the list.


You purposefully mentioned numbers in your reply; so you can assuredly understand how your choice of words was hideously poor; and made it sound almost exactly like you were making an argument from authority. Right?

No, wrong. Can you quote what you think is my "argument from authority"?

You identified a "poor choice of words" so can you quote me?

"First there seems to be a considerable lack of awareness about the true nature of the dissent against Darwinism"


Why is that a poor choice of words?

This is outlined below.

"There are hundreds of career scientists who have signed the "Dissent from Darwinism" list. These people are willing to publicly assert their dissatisfaction with the Darwin doctrine:"


Why is this also perceived by you as a poor choice of words? do you not understand the words?

This is outlined below.

There is no clarification for the list; no explanation of what the list means in the context of your argument, or what relevance the list has to your argument other than to express the number of dissenters, and that they are career scientists with some reference to the degree of their credentials.


I posted the list for those who may have been unaware there is such a list.

But you didn't say that. You presented the list without context. You have often used semantic arguments where you try and excuse yourself on the technicality "that isn't what I said", even though we had established it is what you believe, and is your opinion; and this cuts both ways.

Why did you not ask for clarification or meaning or context in your initial reply in post #15?

Because I would have expected you to clarify that you weren't intending to make an argument from authority in the post I was replying to, if you were not.

Instead, you said:

"Project Steve's significance is likewise an argument form authority is it not?

Implying that you were making an argument from authority; and my objection to the argument from authority in post 15 is based on this single statement.

So, the only thing you said related to the list; the only context given to the list is: That people don't understand the true nature of dissent. That there are hundreds of people, that they have good credentials, and they dissent from Darwinism.


You haven't included a point in this post: why did you post the list? What does it show? How is that relevant? In so doing, you've left it to the reader to speculate what the point of the list was. And the most obvious conclusion without this context or clarification or point, is "Most people don't appreciate how large the dissent from Darwinism; there are hundreds of credible scientists who disagree with it"?


I have included a point in the OP but you failed to grasp it, why fixate over the list?

What do you think the list shows? why do you need to ask me what the list shows?

I have explained in the above, that your lack of additional clarification and argument means that the only conclusion one can presume is that the point of the list was an argument from authority.

Paraphrasing for brevity, here is what you said:

1.) People don't understand the nature of dissent to darwinism.
2.) There are hundreds of people that dissent.
3.) They are credible career scientists.
4.) Here is the list.

There is no explanation of what the list shows; or clarification as to the nature of dissent.

It is solely:

More dissent than you think; there are hundreds of scientists that dissent.

You don't explain the relevance, or what it shows or what to infer, so it is left to the reader to invent it.

And the only reasonable conclusion is that your posting the link to support your position based on numbers, and credibility: an argument from ignorance.

Please explain which step in my argument unreasonable.

It's the lack of context and clarification that is the poor choice of words.

I disagree.

Then show me how it is more reasonable to take it any other way. Especially as you have needed to clarify the intent of the list with additional information to make it not-an argument from authority.
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 9:32:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2016 11:07:54 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
This is an argument from authority fallacy. Being a scientist doesn't make your dissenting opinion valid, unless your opinion is derived from the scientific method. Intelligent Design can never be scientific because it relies on the existence of a designer, an assumption that can be neither proved nor disproved. And even if there is a designer, it's clear that he's implemented his design changes through "random" mutation and natural selection, making the entire debate redundant.

Well it can be proved, but the first part of that experiment involves walking in front of a bus.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 11:59:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2016 9:32:35 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/30/2016 11:07:54 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
This is an argument from authority fallacy. Being a scientist doesn't make your dissenting opinion valid, unless your opinion is derived from the scientific method. Intelligent Design can never be scientific because it relies on the existence of a designer, an assumption that can be neither proved nor disproved. And even if there is a designer, it's clear that he's implemented his design changes through "random" mutation and natural selection, making the entire debate redundant.

Well it can be proved, but the first part of that experiment involves walking in front of a bus.

You'd never get funding for it.
chui
Posts: 561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 9:21:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2016 5:33:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:


There's a lot out there and there are a lot of scientifically knowledgeable dissenters.

761 dissenters represents 0.01% of the world population of science doctorates.

So if we are being honest there is very little out there and realistically no support from scientifically knowledgeable dissenters. Further it would be true to say that there is no consensus amongst the tiny number of dissenters of how life got here.
Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 1:03:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2016 9:21:25 AM, chui wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:33:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:


There's a lot out there and there are a lot of scientifically knowledgeable dissenters.

761 dissenters represents 0.01% of the world population of science doctorates.

So if we are being honest there is very little out there and realistically no support from scientifically knowledgeable dissenters. Further it would be true to say that there is no consensus amongst the tiny number of dissenters of how life got here.

Huge error in logic, there - but that's fine with me if you're satisfied every dissenter has no case, no credibility then that's your decision.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 1:08:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2016 9:06:22 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 11/2/2016 5:45:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
My OP didn't mention ID it mentioned scientists and mathematicians who take issue with some of the postulated processes attributed to nature.

Because they believe in ID. Don't bullshit_me.

Don't accuse me of writing something I never actually wrote. Is this an example of "educated" or "rational" - it's mob mentality my friend, get a grip.

It seem for you that materialism is axiomatic, that is you insist that it is true and formulate your views on that assumption.

I'm not a materialist, I'm an empiricist. I don't accept anything unless it can be tested and disproved, and survives repeated testing without being disproved.


But you accept empiricism which itself cannot be proven as the only way to ascertain truth, nothing with a healthy use of empiricism but insisting on is as your world view is not logically because its axiomatic not proven - you should at least know that I hope.

Any intellectual structure is only true if its axioms are true and you cannot prove an axiom (which is why its called an axiom).

I'm also not a rationalist, an idealist, or anything besides an empiricist and a pragmatist. Logic is useless if it doesn't conform to reality.

We have a lot in common then for the most part.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 1:15:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2016 9:12:06 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/2/2016 8:38:24 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/2/2016 8:22:00 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/2/2016 8:05:54 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
But I wasn't, he accused me of that but I wasn't. I was not presenting or trying to present a proof of anything other than there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists and that those objections seem to be unknown to most atheists.

But that isn't what the list is.

Indeed and I never said the list was that, else you'll be able to quote where you think I did say that won't you?

I pointed out how it appeared you used the list. You defended yourself by stating this was not your intention, but your intention was, and I quote:

"I was not presenting or trying to present a proof of anything other than there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists"

If showing a proof that there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists was your goal; and you agree that this is not what the list is.

I ask again.

Why post the list.

I felt like including it, why do you object?

Because you are arguing it does not sound like an argument from authority but, as I pointed out; without context or clarification in the OP; it appears to be so.


The list is just a list of scientists who agree with a statement. Not individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the "Darwinists".

Why are you insinuating something that isn't true? Pretending I said something and then attacking me for it is all you're doing here, why?

As I said; you made what appeared to be an argument from Authority by posting a list. :

Why did it appear that way to you?

I outlined in detail below.

You claimed your intent was not to post the list to make an argument from authority; but to show "a proof that there are competent scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of the Darwinists"

No that was the intention of the OP not the list in the OP.

Then it is irrelevant to my objection; which was about the list.

I assumed that the post was relevant to the list; given this was what I was and am talking about.


But the list doesn't support that argument, as I pointed out (and it's true, that list is not a list of scientifically educated individuals that have raised numerous deep objections to the claims of darwinists".


I did write "There are hundreds of career scientists who have signed the "Dissent from Darwinism" list" which is true is it not?

Which part of my OP don't you understand?

You avoided my question.

I detailed the exact nature of my objection, and why it is a valid objection below...


Did you think this statement "I won't post references here because if you're truly curious you can easily search and explore the web yourself" is unclear?


But again you didn't answer my question.

I answered this, and the previous question here:

I am talking about the list: that statement isn't about the list.

That statement is unrelated to the list; I am talking about the list.


<SNIP>

"First there seems to be a considerable lack of awareness about the true nature of the dissent against Darwinism"


Why is that a poor choice of words?

This is outlined below.

"There are hundreds of career scientists who have signed the "Dissent from Darwinism" list. These people are willing to publicly assert their dissatisfaction with the Darwin doctrine:"


Why is this also perceived by you as a poor choice of words? do you not understand the words?

This is outlined below.

There is no clarification for the list; no explanation of what the list means in the context of your argument, or what relevance the list has to your argument other than to express the number of dissenters, and that they are career scientists with some reference to the degree of their credentials.


I posted the list for those who may have been unaware there is such a list.

But you didn't say that. You presented the list without context. You have often used semantic arguments where you try and excuse yourself on the technicality "that isn't what I said", even though we had established it is what you believe, and is your opinion; and this cuts both ways.

Why did you not ask for clarification or meaning or context in your initial reply in post #15?

Because I would have expected you to clarify that you weren't intending to make an argument from authority in the post I was replying to, if you were not.

Instead, you said:

"Project Steve's significance is likewise an argument form authority is it not?

Implying that you were making an argument from authority; and my objection to the argument from authority in post 15 is based on this single statement.

So, the only thing you said related to the list; the only context given to the list is: That people don't understand the true nature of dissent. That there are hundreds of people, that they have good credentials, and they dissent from Darwinism.


You haven't included a point in this post: why did you post the list? What does it show? How is that relevant? In so doing, you've left it to the reader to speculate what the point of the list was. And the most obvious conclusion without this context or clarification or point, is "Most people don't appreciate how large the dissent from Darwinism; there are hundreds of credible scientists who disagree with it"?


I have included a point in the OP but you failed to grasp it, why fixate over the list?

What do you think the list shows? why do you need to ask me what the list shows?

I have explained in the above, that your lack of additional clarification and argument means that the only conclusion one can presume is that the point of the list was an argument from authority.

Paraphrasing for brevity, here is what you said:

1.) People don't understand the nature of dissent to darwinism.
2.) There are hundreds of people that dissent.
3.) They are credible career scientists.
4.) Here is the list.

There is no explanation of what the list shows; or clarification as to the nature of dissent.

It is solely:

More dissent than you think; there are hundreds of scientists that dissent.

You don't explain the relevance, or what it shows or what to infer, so it is left to the reader to invent it.

And the only reasonable conclusion is that your posting the link to support your position based on numbers, and credibility: an argument from ignorance.

Please explain which step in my argument unreasonable.


It's the lack of context and clarification that is the poor choice of words.

I disagree.

Then show me how it is more reasonable to take it any other way. Especially as you have needed to clarify the intent of the list with additional information to make it not-an argument from authority.

No, I'll waste no more time with your OCD Ramshutu, you're clearly not interested in the subject of this thread, the intent of what I wrote has clearly escaped you, the substance of my OP is of no interest to you, only he presentation and I'm no longer willing to respond to your whining - if the subject is of n
tkubok
Posts: 5,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 2:32:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2016 5:59:29 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/2/2016 8:09:35 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:33:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Then there are some of the key issues themselves, I won't post references here because if you're truly curious you can easily search and explore the web yourself, but here's a list that you should be aware of:
1. No support from the fossil record - yes, go and check yourself about why some scientists say this.
2. No known chemistry can explain how homo-chirality arose in nature. (Abiogenesis more than evolution).
3. The origin of DNA's huge information content.
4. The Cambrian explosion record points to sudden appearance not gradual.
5. It's not a falsifiable theory as it purports to be.

All of them have been debunked. If youre truly curious, i will list why. I wont make you dumpster dive through the web, because im nice. But yes, all of them have been debunked.

You mean you've been told they've been "debunked" I think. Your faith in Darwinism is so entrenched that doubt is inconceivable and any and all doubt is and must be seen as groundless, without merit.

No, theyve been debunked, which is why ive offered to demonstrate how they have been debunked, instead of simply asking you to "explore and search the web".

If you are undecided (and there's nothing wrong with being undecided, it's better than being dogmatic) then open mindedly explore these issues for yourself. See what each side has to say about these issues.

Try to stick to the science, focus on what scientists say be they for or against and way up each side.

There's a lot out there and there are a lot of scientifically knowledgeable dissenters.

Yes, and take a look at the counter-petition, Project Steve.


I'm aware of that and I have no shortage of books by Darwin advocates.

https://ncse.com...

This makes your petition, laughable.

I don't see why.

Not only have they restricted the people to those who have the name "Steve" or a derivative of that name, they also managed to gain more people, and more biologists, too.


Yes and that isn't surprising, not unexpected, but truth isn't decided by democratic vote counting.

I agree that we should see each side of the story. But trotting out a bunch of scientists and saying "look here, all these scientists disagree", is meaningless and is only an argument from authority. And its not even a good one, as demonstrated by the existance of Project Steve.

Project Steve's significance is likewise an argument form authority is it not? You just write "more people, more biologists"!!

First off, are you admitting that your list is an argument from authority?

Secondly, Project steve is a tongue-in-cheek parody. Infact, it says so on the website.

https://ncse.com...

"NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." "

So the NCSE understands that this is nothing more than an argument from authority, and just for fun, they decided to demonstrate why this is laughable as an argument from authority, because the number of scientists who deny evolution pale in comparison to those who accept it.

In other words, its a parody, and no one is seriously trying to use this as a justification to accept Evolution. It only exists in order to counter the list that already exists and was created by the Intelligent Design community.
chui
Posts: 561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 4:59:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2016 1:03:10 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/3/2016 9:21:25 AM, chui wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:33:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:


There's a lot out there and there are a lot of scientifically knowledgeable dissenters.

761 dissenters represents 0.01% of the world population of science doctorates.

So if we are being honest there is very little out there and realistically no support from scientifically knowledgeable dissenters. Further it would be true to say that there is no consensus amongst the tiny number of dissenters of how life got here.

Huge error in logic, there - but that's fine with me if you're satisfied every dissenter has no case, no credibility then that's your decision.

If that is a huge error of logic then how large is your logic error in dismissing the vast majority view? Is it logical to suppose that evolution has no credibility yet is supported by such large numbers?
Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 10:54:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2016 1:08:29 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/2/2016 9:06:22 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 11/2/2016 5:45:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
My OP didn't mention ID it mentioned scientists and mathematicians who take issue with some of the postulated processes attributed to nature.

Because they believe in ID. Don't bullshit_me.

Don't accuse me of writing something I never actually wrote.

I'm not. I'm accusing you of implying something that's dishonest and stupid.

Is this an example of "educated" or "rational" - it's mob mentality my friend, get a grip.

"Educated" or "rational" people (i.e. autistic libtard cucks) would refute your points in a 500-word essay with citations and everything. I prefer to just call your points bullshiit, because that's exactly what they are.

It seem for you that materialism is axiomatic, that is you insist that it is true and formulate your views on that assumption.

I'm not a materialist, I'm an empiricist. I don't accept anything unless it can be tested and disproved, and survives repeated testing without being disproved.


But you accept empiricism which itself cannot be proven as the only way to ascertain truth, nothing with a healthy use of empiricism but insisting on is as your world view is not logically because its axiomatic not proven - you should at least know that I hope.

Empiricism works, and that's all the defense it needs. Also, use some commas, otherwise your sentence is garbage.


Any intellectual structure is only true if its axioms are true and you cannot prove an axiom (which is why its called an axiom).

I'm also not a rationalist, an idealist, or anything besides an empiricist and a pragmatist. Logic is useless if it doesn't conform to reality.

We have a lot in common then for the most part.

I doubt that very much.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.