|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/14/2008 6:30:33 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4497
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Does this prove your point that the horseshoe crab provides a problem for evolution because it did not evolve?
It appears to be strong evidence that the horshoe crab didn't undergo any evolution within the last 500 million years.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 8:11:28 AM
|
|
|
Mountaineer
Posts: 11
Joined: 2/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
It appears to be strong evidence that the horshoe crab didn't undergo any evolution within the last 500 million years.
Wrong. It appears to be strong evidence that the horseshoe crab did not undergo any phenotypical evolution within the last 500 million years. Your assertion that there is any evidence to suggest that evolution ceased in the horseshoe crab is gloriously incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 8:19:46 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4632
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
So without any discernable change in phenotype over an alleged 500 million years, how would you postulate that the horseshoe crab has evolved into a gloriously new lifeform, Mountaineer?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 10:17:56 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4497
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
So without any discernable change in phenotype over an alleged 500 million years, how would you postulate that the horseshoe crab has evolved into a gloriously new lifeform, Mountaineer?
Exactly - absence of evidence isn't evidence. There is no evidence that the horseshoe crab evolved in any way, so the assertion that it has is just an assumption.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 10:29:42 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1157
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
This just further demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of unsupported naturalistic philosophies like UCD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 12:59:50 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 65
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Okay...let me ask again... how does the horseshoe crab point to an intelligent designer?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 3:10:59 PM
|
|
|
futuredocter37
Posts: 22
Joined: 11/9/2006
From: www.truthwar.net
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Okay...let me ask again... how does the horseshoe crab point to an intelligent designer?
The same way a book you read, points to the fact it had an author, or the same way a painting points to the fact it had a painter. Creation points to the fact it had a creator. I guess might also say it takes intelligence to study organisms like the horshoe crab, if it wasn't intelligently designed, if nothing was intelligently designed it wouldn't require intelligence to study it.
_____________________________
KEN
Have you perfectly obeyed the ten commandments?? If God gave you justice will you go to heaven or hell???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 3:29:40 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4497
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Okay...let me ask again... how does the horseshoe crab point to an intelligent designer?
That's actually not the focus of this discussion - even if it did nothing to point to an Intelligent Designer, it (and I have to point out again, a number of other diverse organisms) would still exist contrary to evolution - if you have a third option, then I'm all ears. Or eyes, as the case may be.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 3:46:30 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 65
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Okay...let me ask again... how does the horseshoe crab point to an intelligent designer?
That's actually not the focus of this discussion - even if it did nothing to point to an Intelligent Designer, it (and I have to point out again, a number of other diverse organisms) would still exist contrary to evolution - if you have a third option, then I'm all ears. Or eyes, as the case may be.
Jhud, you can't tell me in one breath that your bringing up the subject of horseshoe crabs is a contradiction to evolution.
Then tell me that the relationship between a horseshoe crab and an intelligent designer is not the subject.
Then tell me according to your opinion we only have two options anyway.
I must have missed something along the way.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 4:02:28 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4497
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Jhud, you can't tell me in one breath that your bringing up the subject of horseshoe crabs is a contradiction to evolution.
Then tell me that the relationship between a horseshoe crab and an intelligent designer is not the subject.
Then tell me according to your opinion we only have two options anyway.
I must have missed something along the way.
First off, I think you want to go back and read the OP; no mention of ID was made. One doesn't have to prove how life came about to understand the shortcomings of current explanations..
I of course think there are a number of good arguments for ID, which I discuss regularly around here, but I don't think stasis in and of itself is necessarily a good one for ID, though certainly not contrary to it.
Lengthy stasis however does fly in the face of evolutionary expectations and claims, particularly those that insist on gradualism - which most do of course, because the alternatives are so unlikely.
And it is also important to note that ID does not argue “If not evolution, then ID”.
It does, by way of the explanatory filter, proffer that there are only three known causes of any given event, process, or structure in the universe, those being chance, natural law, and intelligence. In the case of the organisms detailed here, it would appear that they are once they came into existence, the causes that are thought to have brought them into existence simply ceased their work.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 5:19:13 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 242
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: futuredocter37
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Okay...let me ask again... how does the horseshoe crab point to an intelligent designer?
The same way a book you read, points to the fact it had an author
The name on the spine?
I don't see anything on my back in the mirror, but I'm too chicken to check the actual vertebrae.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 5:42:13 PM
|
|
|
Mountaineer
Posts: 11
Joined: 2/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Exactly - absence of evidence isn't evidence.
It sounds like you're trying to back off your original point. This thread seemed to suggest that the stasis of the horseshoe crab provided a problem for evolution. As I've shown, it can't be said that it didn't evolve. In the same vain, it can't be shown that it didn't evolve. That conclusively makes this thread - and your original point - bunk.
quote:
There is no evidence that the horseshoe crab evolved in any way, so the assertion that it has is just an assumption.
The assertion that it hasn't is just as much an assumption, with the exception to what can and has fossilized. Knowing this, why are you still insisting this is an issue for evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 5:43:46 PM
|
|
|
Mountaineer
Posts: 11
Joined: 2/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
So without any discernable change in phenotype over an alleged 500 million years, how would you postulate that the horseshoe crab has evolved into a gloriously new lifeform, Mountaineer?
I never said anything to that effect.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 5:48:40 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1157
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mountaineer
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Exactly - absence of evidence isn't evidence.
It sounds like you're trying to back off your original point. This thread seemed to suggest that the stasis of the horseshoe crab provided a problem for evolution.
If there is no evidence for UCD (which there is none) that's a problem for UCD. The lack of evidence is a criticism of UCD. No one is backing off of the original point.
quote:
As I've shown, it can't be said that it didn't evolve. In the same vain, it can't be shown that it didn't evolve. That conclusively makes this thread - and your original point - bunk.
I think you meant to say, "As I've shown, it can't be said that it didn't evolve. In the same vain, it can't be shown that it did evolve." [Emphases Added]
Yes, but if you would like to claim that it did evolve, the burden of proof is on you. The fact there there is no evidence that it did evolve is a criticism to the notion that it did and that's a problem for UCD (because there is no fossil evidence to suggest that this organism shares a common ancestor with other organisms. The lack of fossil evidence itself is a criticism of UCD. If what you contend has no evidence, that's a problem for your contention. Darwin predicted that there should be a smooth transition throughout the fossil record if UCD is true. This makes sense (which is exactly why Darwin predicted it at the time) and his prediction was false. If UCD is true we would expect the fossil record to reflect its truth. It doesn't. That's a problem for UCD).
quote:
The assertion that it hasn't is just as much an assumption, with the exception to what can and has fossilized. Knowing this, why are you still insisting this is an issue for evolution?
The assertion that undetectable fairy dust doesn't cause the earth to rotate is just as much as an assertion. The fact that there is no evidence suggesting that undetectable fairy dust causes the earth to rotate is a problem for the notion that undetectable fairy dust causes the earth to rotate. Likewise, the lack of fossil evidence is a problem/criticism of UCD.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 2/15/2008 6:17:54 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 6:26:54 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4632
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Right on, Betta! evolution is - BUNK!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 6:39:08 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 242
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Darwin predicted that there should be a smooth transition throughout the fossil record if UCD is true. This makes sense (which is exactly why Darwin predicted it at the time) and his prediction was false. If UCD is true we would expect the fossil record to reflect its truth. It doesn't. That's a problem for UCD).
Where does Darwin predict this?
Certainly, Darwin recognized that "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
But he goes on to discuss reasons why this might be the case. In the discussion, he concludes at one point of the relevant geological processes that: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
He did not predict "a smooth transition throughout the fossil record."
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 10:22:28 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1157
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Darwin predicted that there should be a smooth transition throughout the fossil record if UCD is true. This makes sense (which is exactly why Darwin predicted it at the time) and his prediction was false. If UCD is true we would expect the fossil record to reflect its truth. It doesn't. That's a problem for UCD).
Where does Darwin predict this?
Certainly, Darwin recognized that "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
But he goes on to discuss reasons why this might be the case. In the discussion, he concludes at one point of the relevant geological processes that: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
He did not predict "a smooth transition throughout the fossil record."
You are correct. My previous post should have been in reference to the degree of stasis and how that is incompatible with darwinism. Thanks for correcting me.
It should read,
quote:
Darwin predicted that gradualism should be the case throughout the fossil record if UCD is true. This makes sense (which is exactly why Darwin predicted it at the time) and his prediction was false. If UCD is true we would expect the fossil record to reflect its truth. It doesn't. That's a problem for UCD).
quote:
It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution
http://www.blavatsky.net/darwin/stasis_in_fossil_record.htm
BTW, does anyone have any quotes from Darwin himself indicating that a static fossil record is incompatible with his hypothesis (or theory, if you would like to call it that)?
I guess the problem here is that, in order to go from molecule to man there would have to have to been significant anatomical changes (since bacteria and men are anatomically very different) and those changes should be reflected throughout the fossil record. If they are not (which seems to be the case) that would seem to be a huge problem for UCD (because this is not what would be expected if UCD is true). One could speculate punctuated equilibrium, but this has never been observed to occur and further demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of UCD (if no stasis, gradualism. If stasis, punctuated equilibrium).
I also found this interesting
quote:
The common knowledge of a profession often goes unrecorded in technical literature for two reasons: one need not preach commonplaces to the initiated; and one should not attempt to inform the uninitiated in publications they do not read.
...
Thus, once gradualism emerged as the expected pattern for documenting evolution - with an evident implication that the fossil record's dominant signal of stasis and abrupt replacement can only be a sign of evidentiary poverty - paleontologist became cowed or puzzled, and even less likely to showcase their primary datum.
...
All paleontologists recognized the phenomenon, but few scientists write papers about failure to document a desired result.
...
In his defense, actually Gould refers to problems that result for science in general when this kind of selection against publishing occurs in any field of study. But in this case, the results for humanity are very serious indeed.
http://www.blavatsky.net/darwin/stasis_in_fossil_record.htm
So basically, it seems UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are anti - scientific. If anything contradicts their desired result (naturalism), the secular community and their promoted peer review journals would tend to dishonestly censor them. We should try to inhibit this level of dishonesty and until the secular community starts acting honestly and ethically (instead of dishonestly replacing science with naturalism) on the subject matter, I see no reason to believe anything they tell me on the subject matter of origins. We need an honest, complete set of evidence to work with, not one that is dishonestly censored and distorted to replace science with tax funded naturalism.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 2/15/2008 11:50:22 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 11:05:52 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 242
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
http://www.blavatsky.net/darwin/stasis_in_fossil_record.htm
A big fan of HP Blavatsky, are you? Anyway...
quote:
So basically, it seems UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are anti - scientific. If anything contradicts their desired result (naturalism), the secular community and their promoted peer review journals would tend to dishonestly censor them.
Where does Gould say that? He says that palaeontologists don't write papers about non-events, i.e. stasis. There is no discussion of external censorship.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/15/2008 11:07:30 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1157
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
So basically, it seems UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are anti - scientific. If anything contradicts their desired result (naturalism), the secular community and their promoted peer review journals would tend to dishonestly censor them.
Where does Gould say that? He says that palaeontologists don't write papers about non-events, i.e. stasis. There is no discussion of external censorship.
Of course Gould wouldn't explicitly say something like that (far be it for the secular community to be honest), I'm just inferring it from his words. A desired result was gradualism and gradualism is expected to be the case if naturalism is true (which is why a desired result was gradualism). Also, notice how Gould's attempted result (punctuated equilibrium) also does not contradict naturalism. The desired result is/was naturalism (not necessarily gradualism). It's a reasonable inference. The desired result is not science; it's naturalism, even at the expense of science. Furthermore, the secular community funds naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) in schools at taxpayer expense while dishonestly censoring criticisms and opposing views (like ID and creationism). The desired result is naturalism, not science.
"He says that palaeontologists don't write papers about non-events"
He also said, "All paleontologists recognized the phenomenon, but few scientists write papers about failure to document a desired result."
Why do you suppose gradualism was a desired result? It's what would be expected if naturalism is true and the desired result is naturalism. That's why Gould also got accepted as a possibility within the dishonest, tax funded secular community; because punctuated equilibrium meets the desired result, naturalism (not science) and it attempts to explain the shortcomings of darwinism (the expected result if UCD is true) within the framework of naturalism.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 2/15/2008 11:30:35 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 9:46:53 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4497
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
It sounds like you're trying to back off your original point. This thread seemed to suggest that the stasis of the horseshoe crab provided a problem for evolution. As I've shown, it can't be said that it didn't evolve. In the same vain, it can't be shown that it didn't evolve. That conclusively makes this thread - and your original point - bunk.
My original point, at least far as I can discern by reading the OP, is this:
So the pattern, rather than gradual changes through incremental and incidental modification of ongoing mutation, appears to be a rapid appearance of various groups followed by extreme stasis, presumably comprising in some cases hundreds of millions.
This would seem to directly contradict the fundamental notion of Neo-Darwinian evolution
And that observation seems to be holding up pretty well so far.
quote:
The assertion that it hasn't is just as much an assumption, with the exception to what can and has fossilized. Knowing this, why are you still insisting this is an issue for evolution?
Actually, I think the fact that there is no morphological evolution is very pertinent, as the primary concern we have when we consider evolution historically is morphological evolution. I mean if evolution is occurring all the time, and nothing is observably changing, then why would care about evolution anyway?
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 10:33:16 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 242
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
So basically, it seems UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are anti - scientific. If anything contradicts their desired result (naturalism), the secular community and their promoted peer review journals would tend to dishonestly censor them.
Where does Gould say that? He says that palaeontologists don't write papers about non-events, i.e. stasis. There is no discussion of external censorship.
Of course Gould wouldn't explicitly say something like that (far be it for the secular community to be honest)
My my my, Mr. pot. First you put words in Darwin's mouth that he never said (or believed), now you put words in Gould's mouth that he never said (or believed), and yet it's you who complain about dishonesty.
quote:
He also said, "All paleontologists recognized the phenomenon, but few scientists write papers about failure to document a desired result."
Exactly. Palaeontologists don't write papers about fossils they haven't found. How do you leap from that to "peer review journals would tend to dishonestly censor them"?
Your paranoia about 'the secular community' continues unabated. The secular community does not control science or scientific journals or public education or taxes.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 10:53:57 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4632
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The secular community does not control science or scientific journals or public education or taxes. Oh really, es. Refresh my memory, please. When did America become a theocracy with regards to education and taxation issues?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 11:17:02 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1157
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
My my my, Mr. pot. First you put words in Darwin's mouth that he never said (or believed), now you put words in Gould's mouth that he never said (or believed), and yet it's you who complain about dishonesty.
Where?
quote:
quote:
He also said, "All paleontologists recognized the phenomenon, but few scientists write papers about failure to document a desired result."
Exactly. Palaeontologists don't write papers about fossils they haven't found. How do you leap from that to "peer review journals would tend to dishonestly censor them"?
Because it's true. Like I said, Gould didn't explicitly say it, but his statements support the truthfulness of the matter. Why would few scientists write papers about the failure to document the desired result (naturalism or that which is consistent with naturalism) if not to promote naturalism (and not science). This supports the overall dishonesty (and dishonest atmosphere) created by the secular community to censor anything that may oppose naturalistic philosophies.
quote:
In his defense, actually Gould refers to problems that result for science in general when this kind of selection against publishing occurs in any field of study.
http://www.blavatsky.net/darwin/stasis_in_fossil_record.htm
quote:
Your paranoia about 'the secular community' continues unabated.
It's completely justified. They brainwash students with naturalistic philosophies using tax dollars while censoring all opposing views and critiques. That's dishonest. Until they stop being dishonest, I see no reason to take them seriously.
quote:
The secular community does not control science or scientific journals or public education or taxes.
The secular community is the community that gets funded by tax dollars. Public schools are part of it because they get funded by tax dollars. Research funded by tax dollars (ie: the NSF or possibly NASA) is also under the control of the secular community. Of course they control it and they need to stop using tax dollars to dishonestly promote their naturalistic nonsense while censoring all criticisms and opposing views. They censor criticisms and opposing views in public classrooms and such (while brainwashing students with naturalistic nonsense), there is no reason to believe this level of dishonesty does not extend to tax funded research as well (ie: the NSF and such, which all affect what gets published in journals). Even the journal Science admits
quote:
In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.’
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp
Why do you suppose that science won't publish anything that may contradict naturalism? For one reason, the researchers that publish to science probably get a lot of their money via tax dollars (the NSF, maybe NASA) and the secular community (given their demonstrated dishonesty on the subject matter in that they do brainwash students with naturalistic nonsense while censoring critiques and opposing views in public schools at the expense of taxpayers) probably tries to only fund researchers that publish to journals that only publish that which is consistent with naturalism. This gives those journals an unfair advantage at the expense of taxpayers. To say the secular community does not influence these matters is short sighted (at best).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 2/16/2008 11:33:05 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 11:25:29 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 242
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
The secular community does not control science or scientific journals or public education or taxes. Oh really, es. Refresh my memory, please. When did America become a theocracy with regards to education and taxation issues?
I did not make that claim. Although America has a secular government, this does not mean that it is run by 'the secular community'.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/16/2008 11:48:31 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 242
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
My my my, Mr. pot. First you put words in Darwin's mouth that he never said (or believed), now you put words in Gould's mouth that he never said (or believed), and yet it's you who complain about dishonesty.
Where?
Where what?
Darwin did not predict "a smooth transition throughout the fossil record" as you said he did.
Gould did not 'explicitly say' the things you think he said.
You have used the word dishonest at least twice in your most recent post.
quote:
quote:
Exactly. Palaeontologists don't write papers about fossils they haven't found. How do you leap from that to "peer review journals would tend to dishonestly censor them"?
Because it's true.
No, it isn't. Not writing a paper is not the same as writing one and having it dishonestly censored by an editor.
quote:
Why would few scientists write papers about the failure to document the desired result (naturalism or that which is consistent with naturalism) if not to promote naturalism (and not science).
Paleontological journals are filled with papers that describe fossils. Fossils newly discovered and research examining fossils already collected. You can't write a paper describing something you don't have. Archeologists don't write papers about the nothing they found when they dug a hole.
quote:
This supports the overall dishonesty (and dishonest atmosphere) created by the secular community to censor anything that may oppose naturalistic philosophies.
Where is the censorship here?
quote:
The secular community is the community that gets funded by tax dollars.
Is this a definition?
quote:
Public schools are part of it because they get funded by tax dollars.
Because public schools receive tax dollars, they are part of the secular community?
quote:
To say the secular community does not influence these matters is short sighted.
In your view, who makes up the secular community? Are they the teachers in the public schools? 100% of them? The members of the boards of education? 100% of them? The scientists in their laboratories? 100% of them? The grant authorizers in the NSF? 100% of them? The Congress that provides the budgets for these things? 100% of them? The employees of the IRS? 100% of them? The bankers?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
