It makes me sad every time...

[JonnStar]

I accept that evolution is fact. I would ask others who don't accept the observations that started the theory, never mind the theory itself, what exactly they think is the alternative? Speciation aside do they even consider the changes in human anatomy itself over time? Was all that just thrown in by a deity to test my faith? :erm:

I also don't entirely agree that evolution and creation is compatible. What I mean by this is that I think evolution can be explained entirely on its own without the need for creation but that one can however slot in creation wherever "convenient". I certainly cannot debate more detailed studies on the matter as I am no biologist, but my take is that even when trying to explain the key "driver" or "force" behind the direction of natural selection or fitness I don't see why one cannot accept that it is simply efficiency that dictates it. There is once again no need for any sort of preconceived direction. So slot in teleology all you want, and perhaps you are right, but I feel there is no need for that either and could also quite possibly be interfering with a clearer and truer pattern of thought. What if the entire process just owes itself to a history of efficiency and nothing more? What if I am right?

 

[Swa]

Read for yourself. Behe testified under oath that the book received more thorough peer-review than most scholarly journals. Turns out 4 of the 5 people that reviewed it disagreed quite strongly with this. One only got a 10-minute rundown over the phone. Another one disagreed completely with his conclusions, and the other two rejected the book outright. Behe completely misrepresented the one reviewer's own work regarding blood clotting, quite knowingly. The book is filled with quote-mines and misrepresentations of other scientists' work on the matter.

Disagreeing on a conclusion is quite different from showing it incorrect. Do we need to return to the fact disagreement here actually means "we think evolution could have done it anyway so no reason to ask questions?" Oh the old evolutionist quote-mine tard. Now I know you're just grasping at straws and spewing crap.

Dembski's record speaks for itself. After the Dover trial he also made a snarky animation ridiculing the Judge, and everyone else involved in the trial.

Guess you don't have anything good to say about Shapiro then.

Sorry, but it has. It doesn't have to be an evolutionary advantage. The creature just has to survive and reproduce.

Yes the common "we believe as long as it survives and reproduces time and chance will magically take care or the rest." Just because you believe it could does not mean your view doesn't have problems. Funny how with evolutionists we have two maybe's and you always jump to the one that supports your view as the correct one that "debunks" the other. Flippin' amazing. :wtf:

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

Seems we're dealing with a comprehension problem here. There's a difference between arguments for creation and arguments against evolution. I brought up the latter.

. Guess I should point out again that the last 150+ years of inquiry into the matter has shown the theory's strength, and it's affirmed by various scientific disciplines and new evidence gathered almost daily. If you think it's false, then show me the evidence gathered to support this. Others, like Dembski and Behe, have only been able to come up with is misrepresentations of actual scientists' work, ignoring evidence, or sometimes blatant lies. This is the best 'your side' has to offer?

Not something impressive. There can be many reasons for that. I again refer you to this. The best 'your side' can do is "Hey guys best not look in that direction where the other evidence is, if we keep acting with ostriches it won't exist."

I guess every reputable science institution and society in the world also has this 'obvious agenda', huh? It must suck when only charlatans like the Discovery Institute support your views.

What gross inaccuracies and misinformation? Look at the references at the bottom of every page he cites. Those are actual scientists who work in the field every day. They don't reference lawyers or philosophers like the ID crowd is in the habit of doing.

The website has a specific section for addressing common creationist arguments. Why does this bother you? Does it bother you that it's mostly nonsense?

I don't see reputable scientific institutions regularly misrepresent facts and positions. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html is a perfect example of their bias. She lists a bunch of so-called transitional fossils as if X is an agreed upon transitional species for Y and Z. For every one of her examples I can probably find counter claims WITH references. You know actual scientists working in the field every day who would say X is a better fit between V and W or even is not a fit between any two species at all. But instead it's presented as "trollollol we're all singing to the same tune" while everyone is in fact singing their own song.

What am I supposed to be seeing?

Perhaps you missed what he claimed was criteria for judging science but omitted that it was not generally agreed upon among philosophers. Larry Laudan and Philip Quinn among others criticised it and the decision to put a definition on science. OT: But hey perhaps their criticism of the judge and others involved also speaks for itself like Dembski's does.

 

[Swa]

I accept that evolution is fact. I would ask others who don't accept the observations that started the theory, never mind the theory itself, what exactly they think is the alternative? Speciation aside do they even consider the changes in human anatomy itself over time? Was all that just thrown in by a deity to test my faith? :erm:

Define evolution.

I certainly cannot debate more detailed studies on the matter as I am no biologist, but my take is that even when trying to explain the key "driver" or "force" behind the direction of natural selection or fitness I don't see why one cannot accept that it is simply efficiency that dictates it. There is once again no need for any sort of preconceived direction. What if the entire process just owes itself to a history of efficiency and nothing more? What if I am right?

This "efficiency" has never been shown to exist and indeed it has been shown that inefficiency appears to be a universal law.

 

[Spizz]

Define evolution.

Semantics. Yawnnnnnnnnn

This "efficiency" has never been shown to exist and indeed it has been shown that inefficiency appears to be a universal law.

Why do you require proof on some things and take a faith position on others? This truly baffles me, especially when the position you are not sure about is accepted as fact by pretty much everyone with half a brain?

Anyway, I read this earlier and thought of you. It's a letter to Tony Blair when he was PM, about a faith school in the UK teaching creationism from some concerned citizens and the unacceptable path these teachings are sending children down.

Dear Prime Minister,

We write as a group of scientists and Bishops to express our concern about the teaching of science in the Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead.

Evolution is a scientific theory of great explanatory power, able to account for a wide range of phenomena in a number of disciplines. It can be refined, confirmed and even radically altered by attention to evidence. It is not, as spokesmen for the college maintain, a ‘faith position’ in the same category as the biblical account of creation which has a different function and purpose.

The issue goes wider than what is currently being taught in one college. There is a growing anxiety about what will be taught and how it will be taught in the new generation of proposed faith schools. We believe that the curricula in such schools, as well as that of Emmanuel City Technology College, need to be strictly monitored in order that the respective disciplines of science and religious studies are properly respected.

Yours sincerely

The Rt Revd Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford;
Sir David Attenborough FRS;
The Rt Revd Christopher Herbert, Bishop of St Albans;
Lord May of Oxford, President of the Royal Society;
Professor John Enderby FRS, Physical Secretary, Royal Society;
The Rt Revd John Oliver, Bishop of Hereford;
The Rt Revd Mark Santer, Bishop of Birmingham;
Sir Neil Chalmers, Director, Natural History Museum;
The Rt Revd Thomas Butler, Bishop of Southwark;
Sir Martin Rees FRS, Astronomer Royal;
The Rt Revd Kenneth Stevenson, Bishop of Portsmouth;
Professor Patrick Bateson FRS, Biological Secretary, Royal Society;
The Rt Revd Crispian Hollis, Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth;
Sir Richard Southwood FRS;
Sir Francis Graham-Smith FRS, Past Physical Secretary, Royal Society;
Professor Richard Dawkins FRS

 

[JonnStar]

Define evolution.


This "efficiency" has never been shown to exist and indeed it has been shown that inefficiency appears to be a universal law.

How would you like me to define it? By re-reading and sharing what Darwin discovered during his voyage including his samples and observations on the Galapagos islands, apparently which he only intuited during his trip for which he actually did not want to go but if my memory serves he was forced to? Or by going into all the modern tedious biological observations I am nowhere near qualified to do? Or simply in my own words which would not do it any justice? Or by quoting a google dictionary search?

Given any 2 states of being no matter what they are invariably one would probably be more efficient than the other. Efficiency in the context of my post refers to its state of being in its environment. It is a relative term.

For example if something is more efficient at absorbing energy than something else. This development could have come about by a chance occurrence. Or a new seemingly "directed" development could actually be a result of a past play of efficiency as well. But here I am getting quite vague.

Apologies if I am unknowingly stepping on a biological or philosophical term.

 

[Swa]

Semantics. Yawnnnnnnnnn

It wasn't directed at you. Yawnnnnnnnn

Why do you require proof on some things and take a faith position on others? This truly baffles me, especially when the position you are not sure about is accepted as fact by pretty much everyone with half a brain?

/snip

Accepted as fact without proof and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Yet you require irrefutable proof of other beliefs. You're doing the same thing here. The only different is you're not willing to admit it to us or to yourself. At least I have thought one further than you.

 

[Spizz]

It wasn't directed at you. Yawnnnnnnnn


Accepted as fact without proof and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Yet you require irrefutable proof of other beliefs. You're doing the same thing here. The only different is you're not willing to admit it to us or to yourself. At least I have thought one further than you.

Of course there is proof. We have the fossil record and brains that allow us to think.

As a certain Mr Dawkins says of a murder trial, the detectives were not witnesses, but they pieced together the evidence and made a case which the jury accepted as fact.

Why is that so hard to do for certain people with certain religious leanings? I can understand it from a bunch of red neck Yanks who are too stupid and insular to think for themselves. But doesn't that group of signatories in the letter I posted earlier put you to shame? They prove it is possible to have religion and think at the same time. What's your excuse?

 

[Swa]

/snip
mindless drivel

You still have not answered my question and continue along with the same misrepresentations. I'm done with you. Please continue living in your self delusions, don't mind the real world.

How would you like me to define it? By re-reading and sharing what Darwin discovered during his voyage including his samples and observations on the Galapagos islands, apparently which he only intuited during his trip for which he actually did not want to go but if my memory serves he was forced to? Or by going into all the modern tedious biological observations I am nowhere near qualified to do? Or simply in my own words which would not do it any justice? Or by quoting a google dictionary search?

That's not really defining but more describing. Forgetting about the biological definition of evolution of which there are actually many, when you make the statement that evolution is fact what example(s) of it would you consider as fact? Bacterial resistance? Adaptation from existing traits in a population? Changing of traits? Development of new traits? Development of new species but with the same body plan still? The development of all life from a single cell (goo-to-you evolution)?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Disagreeing on a conclusion is quite different from showing it incorrect. Do we need to return to the fact disagreement here actually means "we think evolution could have done it anyway so no reason to ask questions?" Oh the old evolutionist quote-mine tard. Now I know you're just grasping at straws and spewing crap.

When you claim that your work was peer-reviewed more stringently than scientific journals, and you completely misrepresent the nature of that peer-review, namely that 3 of them disagree profoundly with what you're actually saying in the book, and 1 which got a 10-minute phone call, then it's dishonest and disgusting behaviour. The book was rejected from a different publisher because of the reaction of the 2 of the reviewers. Twisting and misrepresenting the work of one of those reviewers to fit your agenda is even more appalling.

Guess you don't have anything good to say about Shapiro then.

Sure, deflect the issue. It seems that's all that's left.

Seems we're dealing with a comprehension problem here. There's a difference between arguments for creation and arguments against evolution. I brought up the latter.

Nonsense. In that instance you accused me specifically of not giving creationist arguments their due, and praising your own efforts to read up on evolution. Memory going off a bit?

Not something impressive. There can be many reasons for that. I again refer you to this. The best 'your side' can do is "Hey guys best not look in that direction where the other evidence is, if we keep acting with ostriches it won't exist."

Seems you're applying some of that ignorance yourself. If you think that's what the last 150 years in biology can be summed up as, then you're hopelessly deluded.

I don't see reputable scientific institutions regularly misrepresent facts and positions. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html is a perfect example of their bias. She lists a bunch of so-called transitional fossils as if X is an agreed upon transitional species for Y and Z. For every one of her examples I can probably find counter claims WITH references. You know actual scientists working in the field every day who would say X is a better fit between V and W or even is not a fit between any two species at all. But instead it's presented as "trollollol we're all singing to the same tune" while everyone is in fact singing their own song.

Then go ahead, do that.

Perhaps you missed what he claimed was criteria for judging science but omitted that it was not generally agreed upon among philosophers. Larry Laudan and Philip Quinn among others criticised it and the decision to put a definition on science. OT: But hey perhaps their criticism of the judge and others involved also speaks for itself like Dembski's does.

So two philosophers disagree with him regarding a philosophical issue, and to you this translates as lying under oath?

Incidentally, it seems the Intelligent Design community has repeatedly misrepresented Laudan's views, too. Who'd have thunk?

 

[Techne]

Sometimes the same people also believe nothing exploded.

What's wrong with that? It would be an example of creation. As long as you don't believe nothing exploded from nothing, that would be irrational of course.

I also don't entirely agree that evolution and creation is compatible. What I mean by this is that I think evolution can be explained entirely on its own without the need for creation but that one can however slot in creation wherever "convenient". I certainly cannot debate more detailed studies on the matter as I am no biologist, but my take is that even when trying to explain the key "driver" or "force" behind the direction of natural selection or fitness I don't see why one cannot accept that it is simply efficiency that dictates it. There is once again no need for any sort of preconceived direction. So slot in teleology all you want, and perhaps you are right, but I feel there is no need for that either and could also quite possibly be interfering with a clearer and truer pattern of thought. What if the entire process just owes itself to a history of efficiency and nothing more? What if I am right?

What do you understand of the concept of teleology? It may be different to others' understanding, I am just interested . Whether biological evolution has a certain direction or not, or whether "the entire process just owes itself to a history of efficiency and nothing more" appears to be irrelevant to whether teleology is real or not.

 

[Spizz]

You still have not answered my question and continue along with the same misrepresentations. I'm done with you. Please continue living in your self delusions, don't mind the real world.

Lol, whatever floats your boat guy. I understand that interacting with real people is not as easy to pull off as arguing with yourself. Real people talk back but your brain obviously just gives up to accommodate your delusions.

I'm not aware of any questions I've avoided. Can you point it out, or is that little rant your resignation letter to your integrity?

 

[JonnStar]

What do you understand of the concept of teleology? It may be different to others' understanding, I am just interested . Whether biological evolution has a certain direction or not, or whether "the entire process just owes itself to a history of efficiency and nothing more" appears to be irrelevant to whether teleology is real or not.

To me it just means purpose, that something is done with intention or with a result in mind. Which then implies intelligent design. The human mind has adapted to find patterns in chaos as is evident from countless sources such as research on data manipulation, market research, optical illusions, scientific studies and my observing the mention of it in random documentaries every now and then. When we look at data this "trap" is all too easy to fall into.

I am not trying to say there is absolutely no cause or reason to believe creation exists, I am only suggesting that I personally feel it isn't necessary. Furthermore I wonder if it doesn't inhibit our understanding with respect to many things, not only evolution. That is the overall point I am trying to make

 

[Swa]

When you claim that your work was peer-reviewed more stringently than scientific journals, and you completely misrepresent the nature of that peer-review, namely that 3 of them disagree profoundly with what you're actually saying in the book, and 1 which got a 10-minute phone call, then it's dishonest and disgusting behaviour. The book was rejected from a different publisher because of the reaction of the 2 of the reviewers. Twisting and misrepresenting the work of one of those reviewers to fit your agenda is even more appalling.

Passing peer-review does not mean that something is correct. I wish you'd get that into your head. Your only problem with it is that some think the conclusions are false which does not change the fact it was peer-reviewed. In contrast one of your Darwin supporters testified under oath how to discern science from non-science by misrepresenting it as universal agreed upon criteria when that is far from the case. Something that everyone with sense for the rule of law find most appalling.

Sure, deflect the issue. It seems that's all that's left.

You're the one unsuccessfully trying to deflect the issue. Satire is an acceptable social construct protected by law. Incidentally the same judge was also criticised by people on "your side."

Nonsense. In that instance you accused me specifically of not giving creationist arguments their due, and praising your own efforts to read up on evolution. Memory going off a bit?

No need to try and refresh my memory.

Seems you're applying some of that ignorance yourself. If you think that's what the last 150 years in biology can be summed up as, then you're hopelessly deluded.

You're the one ignorant of the weakness of your argument. 150 years in biology? No, 150 years of trying to prove evolution but failing to do so and finding plenty of evidence to the contrary.

So two philosophers disagree with him regarding a philosophical issue, and to you this translates as lying under oath?

It is if you present something as an agreed upon criteria but omit that there are not just 2 but countless philosophers that would disagree with it.

Incidentally, it seems the Intelligent Design community has repeatedly misrepresented Laudan's views, too. Who'd have thunk?

More unsubstantiated accusations.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Passing peer-review does not mean that something is correct. I wish you'd get that into your head. Your only problem with it is that some think the conclusions are false which does not change the fact it was peer-reviewed. In contrast one of your Darwin supporters testified under oath how to discern science from non-science by misrepresenting it as universal agreed upon criteria when that is far from the case. Something that everyone with sense for the rule of law find most appalling.

Behe claimed his book received more rigorous and thorough peer-review than scientific journals do. If peer-review rejects your work in science journals, then it usually doesn't get published. Book reviews are not analogous to journal peer-reviews. They're not nearly as strict or rigorous. A 10 minute phone call is not a review in any sense of the word, either.

And if 2 of the people who review your book says it's nonsense, and a 3rd says he disagrees completely with your conclusions, then pointing to the "rigorous peer-review" process as a testament to the strength of your work is dishonest, at the very least.

You're the one unsuccessfully trying to deflect the issue. Satire is an acceptable social construct protected by law. Incidentally the same judge was also criticised by people on "your side."

Nonsense, again. You moan that I didn't show you their poor conduct, so I do, and then you ignore it and complain about something else. How am I the one deflecting?

No need to try and refresh my memory.

Then stop deflecting. Admit that you brought the issue up in the first place, made baseless claims, and tried to skirt the issue.

You're the one ignorant of the weakness of your argument. 150 years in biology? No, 150 years of trying to prove evolution but failing to do so and finding plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Could have just admitted that you're hopelessly deluded and uninformed. So what about all the evidence that support the theory? You also haven't actually pointed out evidence to the contrary.

It is if you present something as an agreed upon criteria but omit that there are not just 2 but countless philosophers that would disagree with it.

So what do you want? Should Ruse have recounted every opinion of every philosopher regarding the issue? Should he have pointed out that Laudan's view is also criticised? The criteria he gave is broadly accepted in the scientific community.

More unsubstantiated accusations.

Uhm, no. ID proponents cite his views as if in defense of ID when it doesn't support it.

 

[Swa]

Behe claimed his book received more rigorous and thorough peer-review than scientific journals do. If peer-review rejects your work in science journals, then it usually doesn't get published. Book reviews are not analogous to journal peer-reviews. They're not nearly as strict or rigorous. A 10 minute phone call is not a review in any sense of the word, either.

And if 2 of the people who review your book says it's nonsense, and a 3rd says he disagrees completely with your conclusions, then pointing to the "rigorous peer-review" process as a testament to the strength of your work is dishonest, at the very least.

You are misrepresenting peer-review. I can point to journals where if something is accepted for review it can't be rejected. "Passing" peer-review is therefor never taken as a testament to strength and reviewers are regularly biased. I've seen reviewers shoot down a piece of work from someone in the profession while they themselves don't have a qualification to judge it. Your hoopla over it is entirely unfounded and you still seem to be missing the point to all this.

Nonsense, again. You moan that I didn't show you their poor conduct, so I do, and then you ignore it and complain about something else. How am I the one deflecting?

Satire is not considered poor conduct therefor you're trying to deflect the issue, unsuccessfully.

Then stop deflecting. Admit that you brought the issue up in the first place, made baseless claims, and tried to skirt the issue.

Going back I can see why it may be confusing. You implied that I am ignorant on the subject. I said that I am in fact not and do more reading on evolution than on creation but that you probably can't say the same about reading more on creation than on evolution. You turned to asking for arguments for creation presumably here which as should have been evident from my reply I didn't even read because of your ad-hominems and attacks on people. I'm actually one of the worse people to ask for "creation arguments" as admittedly I do not read much about it. You keep missing that the creationist arguments I'm referring to is not the arguments for creation but the arguments against your contention that evolution is "so well supported."

Could have just admitted that you're hopelessly deluded and uninformed. So what about all the evidence that support the theory? You also haven't actually pointed out evidence to the contrary.

Seems you're the one deluded and uninformed. It's been told to you over and over that the evidence supporting it is weak. Point out evidence to the contrary... no how about you stop shifting the burden of proof and point out evidence that proves it.

So what do you want? Should Ruse have recounted every opinion of every philosopher regarding the issue? Should he have pointed out that Laudan's view is also criticised? The criteria he gave is broadly accepted in the scientific community.

Scientific community and science philosophers are two different things. No need to recount every opinion when it's easy to say that opinion is divided instead of lying by omission and presenting it as an agreed upon definition among philosophers of science. Funnily this criteria you claim is "broadly accepted" in the scientific community was criticised by scientists who felt his criteria excludes their own fields from science.

Uhm, no. ID proponents cite his views as if in defense of ID when it doesn't support it.

Irrelevant to the issue but a few claims are not representative of the whole. Actually it's mostly used to support it being scientific and falsifiable when it's claimed not to be. That is indeed his view.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

You are misrepresenting peer-review. I can point to journals where if something is accepted for review it can't be rejected. "Passing" peer-review is therefor never taken as a testament to strength and reviewers are regularly biased. I've seen reviewers shoot down a piece of work from someone in the profession while they themselves don't have a qualification to judge it. Your hoopla over it is entirely unfounded and you still seem to be missing the point to all this.

No, you seem to be missing the point. The point is Behe misrepresented the nature of the peer-review his book went through. He lied completely about one person, who didn't review it at all, and claimed it went through more rigorous peer-review than scientific journals, which is a blatant lie.

"Passing" peer-review is therefor never taken as a testament to strength

What nonsense is this? Of course it is. If your work is validated by your peers making sure you did you work properly, how is it not a testament to the strength of your work?

Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

Do you understand what that means? The peer-review Behe's book went through showed the poor standards of his work, shot his credibility to tatters, and if it was an academic paper, it would have been flagged as unsuitable for publishing. It was in fact rejected by a different publisher because of the reviews given by two of the experts.

Satire is not considered poor conduct therefor you're trying to deflect the issue, unsuccessfully.

His attempt at satire, poor as it was, is not the only reason I consider his conduct poor. Look at the way he handled himself at Baylor University.

Going back I can see why it may be confusing. You implied that I am ignorant on the subject. I said that I am in fact not and do more reading on evolution than on creation but that you probably can't say the same about reading more on creation than on evolution. You turned to asking for arguments for creation presumably here which as should have been evident from my reply I didn't even read because of your ad-hominems and attacks on people. I'm actually one of the worse people to ask for "creation arguments" as admittedly I do not read much about it. You keep missing that the creationist arguments I'm referring to is not the arguments for creation but the arguments against your contention that evolution is "so well supported."

It is well supported, and the vast majority of scientists working in the field agrees. What arguments against my contention? Irreducible complexity? Specified complexity? Like I said, people like Behe, Dembski, Meyer etc. have been trying for a very long time to falsify the theory of evolution, yet have failed miserably. Why is that, do you think?

Seems you're the one deluded and uninformed. It's been told to you over and over that the evidence supporting it is weak. Point out evidence to the contrary... no how about you stop shifting the burden of proof and point out evidence that proves it.

It isn't weak, and you saying so doesn't make it so, I'm afraid. The vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions agree with me, and not with you. I guess you know better than they do.

Scientific community and science philosophers are two different things. No need to recount every opinion when it's easy to say that opinion is divided instead of lying by omission and presenting it as an agreed upon definition among philosophers of science. Funnily this criteria you claim is "broadly accepted" in the scientific community was criticised by scientists who felt his criteria excludes their own fields from science.

Indeed. Some scientific philosophers disagree with him, others agree with him. It's a philosophical issue, and he was asked what his view on it is, as an expert witness, being a philosopher of science himself. The scientific community generally works in the parameters he provided.

 

[Swa]

No, you seem to be missing the point. The point is Behe misrepresented the nature of the peer-review his book went through. He lied completely about one person, who didn't review it at all, and claimed it went through more rigorous peer-review than scientific journals, which is a blatant lie.

You are completely missing the point. You make accusations against somebody which incidentally you have not shown yet. If this is the case as I have shown I can point to plenty of misconduct, misrepresentation, falsification and even fraud on your side. I guess the reason you can't see these double standards is because they're so indoctrinated by now that they're completely invisible to you.

What nonsense is this? Of course it is. If your work is validated by your peers making sure you did you work properly, how is it not a testament to the strength of your work?

Read what your own scientists are saying. "Peers" shoot down work they aren't even qualified to evaluate just because they don't like conclusions and want to maintain a status quo or just because they had a bad day. Journals like "Nature" and "Science" have rejected work that later won the Nobel Prize. It regularly gets criticised by secondary rounds of review or open review for rejecting scientifically valid papers or accepting clearly flawed ones. Some scientists are willing to testify to the fact that it's actually more of a hinderance to scientific progress. Here's more if you want it http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/content/99/4/178.full
So no real evidence that it works and plenty of evidence of its flaws. How odd that you would again rely on something based simply on your faith in it.

His attempt at satire, poor as it was, is not the only reason I consider his conduct poor. Look at the way he handled himself at Baylor University.

Funnily you bring up the satire first. Poor or not, not really something I can judge kinda like art.

It is well supported, and the vast majority of scientists working in the field agrees. What arguments against my contention? Irreducible complexity? Specified complexity? Like I said, people like Behe, Dembski, Meyer etc. have been trying for a very long time to falsify the theory of evolution, yet have failed miserably. Why is that, do you think?

Read the threads. Again you're harping on duality instead of considering the strength (or rather lack of it) of your argument.

It isn't weak, and you saying so doesn't make it so, I'm afraid. The vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions agree with me, and not with you. I guess you know better than they do.

Again the argument from authority. Opinions are not more valid in numbers. For some strange reason all these vast numbers of scientists are unable to back up their contention with actual facts. That is very telling.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

You are completely missing the point. You make accusations against somebody which incidentally you have not shown yet. If this is the case as I have shown I can point to plenty of misconduct, misrepresentation, falsification and even fraud on your side. I guess the reason you can't see these double standards is because they're so indoctrinated by now that they're completely invisible to you.

Haven't shown it yet!? He admitted it in court, ffs. I'm sure there are many others who have behaved themselves reprehensibly. This is about Behe specifically, though. You claimed I dismissed him because his views didn't coincide with my own. I said that wasn't the reason and pointed out why. Since then you've twisted and turned at every turn to shift the conversation away. Why do you fight so hard on behalf of Behe and Dembski?

Read what your own scientists are saying. "Peers" shoot down work they aren't even qualified to evaluate just because they don't like conclusions and want to maintain a status quo or just because they had a bad day. Journals like "Nature" and "Science" have rejected work that later won the Nobel Prize. It regularly gets criticised by secondary rounds of review or open review for rejecting scientifically valid papers or accepting clearly flawed ones. Some scientists are willing to testify to the fact that it's actually more of a hinderance to scientific progress. Here's more if you want it http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/content/99/4/178.full
So no real evidence that it works and plenty of evidence of its flaws. How odd that you would again rely on something based simply on your faith in it.

It's a human process, so of course it's imperfect. Guess what generally solves problems of bias or bad science in peer-review? Yup, more peer-review.

What do you suggest? We discard it?

Read the threads. Again you're harping on duality instead of considering the strength (or rather lack of it) of your argument.

The strength has been built up over 150 years of inquiry and research in the field, which you apparently dismiss completely. Point out the evidence that falsifies the theory, please. You seem to consider it bunk, so show us why. For someone who harps on so much about how weak it is, you really don't back it up.

Again the argument from authority. Opinions are not more valid in numbers. For some strange reason all these vast numbers of scientists are unable to back up their contention with actual facts. That is very telling.

Neither of us are experts in every field, so we'll have to defer to experts when our own knowledge or expertise falls short. You just seem bitter that the vast majority of the actual experts disagree with you.

There's actually a certain level of arrogance here. You're effectively saying to the scientists actually working in the field: "No, you're wrong. I know your whole life has been dedicated to this, and you've actually examined the evidence, but that doesn't matter. I know better than you." It's not limited to the scientists, either. You're saying universities like Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, <insert virtually any reputable tertiary institution here> etc. are all fools and wrong, and they don't understand the science, but you do. You know better than all of them.

Now, obviously you're going to accuse me of appealing to authority again. However, many of the people arguing against evolution have had access to these institutions and to the evidence, for decades. They all have the opportunity to falsify the theory that you and they consider so blatantly false. Howcome they haven't been able to convince any reputable institution, or the vast majority of scientists? Why is the best they can come up with always either straight out lies, laughably incompetent work, or complete misrepresentations of others' work?

Should I get my tinfoil hat ready for the global conspiracy claims?

 

[Swa]

Haven't shown it yet!? He admitted it in court, ffs. I'm sure there are many others who have behaved themselves reprehensibly. This is about Behe specifically, though. You claimed I dismissed him because his views didn't coincide with my own. I said that wasn't the reason and pointed out why. Since then you've twisted and turned at every turn to shift the conversation away. Why do you fight so hard on behalf of Behe and Dembski?

I fight for what is right. You will look to find something to dismiss everybody with a different belief than you. Your original contention were that they are 'nuts'. Now you try to show some supposed misconduct. I showed you that if that was the case there are plenty on your side who behave the same or worse. You can't seem to grasp this.

It's a human process, so of course it's imperfect. Guess what generally solves problems of bias or bad science in peer-review? Yup, more peer-review.

What do you suggest? We discard it?

Do you have a problem reading what it says? It's not just imperfect it's fatally flawed. There's plenty of evidence of it's flaws but no real evidence of its claimed merits. Funny you should suggest that because it's exactly what some have suggested. The quantum physicist Michael Nielsen said it is an ideal system for sharing knowledge only "if you're stuck with 17th-century technology."

The strength has been built up over 150 years of inquiry and research in the field, which you apparently dismiss completely. Point out the evidence that falsifies the theory, please. You seem to consider it bunk, so show us why. For someone who harps on so much about how weak it is, you really don't back it up.

It hasn't. It's just gotten weaker as we get to know more. With every other science the gaps are slowly getting filled but in biology they just get wider and more questions arise. Again you're shifting the burden of proof and harping on its mythical strengths but never back them up yourself. Flippin' amazing.

Neither of us are experts in every field, so we'll have to defer to experts when our own knowledge or expertise falls short. You just seem bitter that the vast majority of the actual experts disagree with you.

Nobody's talking about referring to the experts (which incidentally are divided). You however make an appeal to authority as though it can somehow prove something correct. I have no reason to be bitter as none of them are able to back up what they claim. You however seem bitter because despite this you want people to say you are right but you're unable to convince anybody.

There's no arrogance in pointing out that the scientists working in the field have been unable to show anything for their effort. It seems the arrogance is actually from you: "Look at all these scientist, they have the qualifications so their opinion is correct." You are making the assumption that we can't examine the evidence for ourselves.

Yes I will accuse you of appealing to authority when it's so blatantly obvious that you're doing it. You keep assuming that if evolution was untrue it would have been falsified and completely ignore what we've been telling you that it's actually because you can make it fit practically any realistic scenario. It's NOT falsifiable. So let's do one for the money. You keep harping on the myth of peer-review and falsifiability as the "gold-standard" of something's accuracy and correctness. What you ignore is that every scientist worth their salt strives for utility as opposed to just filling books with useless knowledge that may be true. It's the correctness of a theory that determines its utility and the gold standard for correctness is actually how accurate we can use it to make predictions. The more predictions can accurately be made the more certain we can be that a theory is correct and the more failed it's predictions are the more doubt there should be about it's truth. So let's compare the number of true and false predictions.

Evolution:

• Life changes. Well **** also happens but there's not much we can use it for so no utility here and we knew that life changes before evolution but we'll give it as a brownie point. +1
• Homogeneity of the fossil record. -1
• Similarity between species close together in the evolutionary tree BUT the tree is itself constructed based on similarity and the fossil record that it failed to predict is interpreted through the theory so it's circulatory. Biology also routinely shows significant contradictions. It "predicts" the pattern when it is found but not when it isn't found. +0
• A diverging evolutionary tree. The Cambrian explosion shows remarkably complex organisms arising at the bottom or as one scientist surprisingly noted "it's upside down tree." Several examples like the complexity in birds have continuously been moved down in the evolutionary tree. Again it can only predict it where it is found but not where it isn't found. +0
• Large amounts of DNA will be functionless or "junk" -1
• DNA will be more different among more distant species and more similar among closely related species. Instead long stretches of identical or near identical DNA is found in more distantly related species and even different variants of the same species have large numbers of unique genes. Distantly related species are found that are more similar than more closely related species. Again it's only "predicted" where found and not where it isn't. +0
• Fundamental molecular processes are highly conserved and so (again common ancestry is assumed) must have been inherited from a common ancestor. This commonality was found to be only superficial. In DNA replication for instance many of the key proteins are found to be too different to have common ancestry so must have evolved more than once. -1
• Evolution would occur gradually over vast time periods. The Cambrian explosion and constant adjustment of the evolutionary tree allows ever decreasing time windows for ever increasing changes to occur. -1
• Random mutation and natural selection will result in beneficial (but undefined) randomly arising traits being selected. While this is generally taken as true there is disagreement on the role of NS and mutations are generally deemed as beneficial when they are selected. Instead the same or similar adaptive mutations have been found to occur independently under the same conditions and required traits arise so quickly and so specific that it's been impossible to attribute them to RM+NS alone. -1

That's the best theory all your scientists and institutions have come up with while the alternatives from a small insignificant number of individuals as you claim that you a priori reject has correctly predicted:

• The complexity of the taxonomic strata to only hold generally true with major taxonomic classes, types and species seemingly appearing out of nowhere and contrary to the oft used straw man not exhibiting no change but having allowable change to changing environmental pressure within kinds but entering and leaving the fossil record in pretty much the same form.
• A function for most DNA classified as "junk."
• A hodgepodge where DNA is generally more similar according to function and hence the organism but with similar DNA sequences in some dissimilar organisms and unique DNA sequences in similar organisms.
• Molecular processes that are different in their operation but achieve the same or similar functions.
• Particularly with creation an adaptive genome using existing information to react optimally and rather quickly to a changing environment.
• Mutations that appear to be adaptive to what is required instead of a random happenstance.

If I were in your shoes I would either not claim to have the "vast multitudes" on my side or be embarrassed that they could be outdone by a few individuals.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

This evolution debate is really getting old. Evolution happens, get over it.

Until somebody comes up with a better way to explain things better than the theory of evolution does there is no point denying it.