Jump to content


Photo

Proving A Negative


  • Please log in to reply
188 replies to this topic

#181 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 355 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 March 2017 - 11:27 AM

Who's "we"? You're the only person in this thread who seems to hold the wildly irrational position that nothing said by someone who accepts evolution can be trusted.


Now how would you possibly know that? Is that the famous Atheist mind reading powers that Gilbo used to speak of?

Have you done a poll and asked everyone if Evolutionists who write articles in favor of evolution should just be believed and not questioned? With THEIR track record???

“And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: .

#182 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:55 PM

Now how would you possibly know that? Is that the famous Atheist mind reading powers that Gilbo used to speak of?

If you'll look closely, you might notice the word "seems" in there, which means the statement is about my perception. I don't know if other people share your irrational position, but anyone who does hasn't brought it up in this thread.

Have you done a poll and asked everyone if Evolutionists who write articles in favor of evolution should just be believed and not questioned? With THEIR track record???

Questioning the work is fine, but you didn't do that. You disqualified the work without actually reading it. Not because of any fault in the work on anatomy, but because you didn't like a different conclusion the authors came to.

Again I ask, what is the track record of the authors of the papers I linked with respect to anatomy?

#183 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 355 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:23 PM

If you'll look closely, you might notice the word "seems" in there, which means the statement is about my perception. I don't know if other people share your irrational position, but anyone who does hasn't brought it up in this thread.Questioning the work is fine, but you didn't do that. You disqualified the work without actually reading it. Not because of any fault in the work on anatomy, but because you didn't like a different conclusion the authors came to.Again I ask, what is the track record of the authors of the papers I linked with respect to anatomy?


"You disqualified the work without actually reading it."


NO, I said (Correctly) that it was written by an Evolutionist

THEREFORE


Due to the track record of Evolutionists over the last century, They CANNOT BE trusted...

Unless you think we should trust Evolutionists?

Remember, Evolutionists are the SAME people who allowed Haeckels Fraudulent Drawings of embryos in the school textbooks for 120 Years AFTER they knew they were false...

AND

Keep the lie of "Horse Evolution" in the textbooks TO THIS DAY when they KNOW FULL WELL that it was exposed as a fraud in 1952...

AND

still present "Vestigial Organs" as evidence for the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth when that has proven to be ANOTHER LIE..

AND

Falsely claim that there is Empirical Scientific Evidence for their Myth WITHOUT EVER PROVIDING ANY

AND

Put Falsified Museum Displays that support their Myth BACK UP AGAIN after it was proven to them to be FALSE..

I could give MANY MORE examples of The Dishonest Dirty Deeds of Evolutionists but I hope you get the idea...

IN CONCLUSION

Dont present papers written by Evolutionists And expect reasonable people to just believe them....


"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal",

#184 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:03 AM

NO, I said (Correctly) that it was written by an Evolutionist

Reading the name of the author doesn't qualify as having read the work. And so far that's all you've shown you did. And if you'll recall, you dismissed it in an earlier post before you'd even done that.
 

Due to the track record of Evolutionists over the last century, They CANNOT BE trusted...

What is the track record of Walter Bock over the last century when it comes to the anatomy of woodpeckers? Keep in mind when answering that he is only 83.
 

Unless you think we should trust Evolutionists?

I think it is possible for someone who accepts evolution to make a correct statement.
 

Remember, Evolutionists are the SAME people who allowed Haeckels Fraudulent Drawings of embryos in the school textbooks for 120 Years AFTER they knew they were false...

AND

Keep the lie of "Horse Evolution" in the textbooks TO THIS DAY when they KNOW FULL WELL that it was exposed as a fraud in 1952...

AND

still present "Vestigial Organs" as evidence for the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth when that has proven to be ANOTHER LIE..

AND

Falsely claim that there is Empirical Scientific Evidence for their Myth WITHOUT EVER PROVIDING ANY

AND

Put Falsified Museum Displays that support their Myth BACK UP AGAIN after it was proven to them to be FALSE..

What was Walter Bock's role in those incidents? What does that mean about how we should interpret statements he makes about other subjects, such as:

Most or all woodpeckers obtain their food with their
tongue which can be protruded out of the mouth a short
to a very long distance.

or

(The M. branchiomandibularis) originates on the medial surface of the lower
jaw about half way between the tip of the bill and the
quadrate articulation. The other end of the hyoid horns,
including the insertion of the M. brachiomandibularis,
are not attached to the brain case in any way; this muscle
inserts from the free tip of the hyoid horns (= distal
end of the ceratobranchial).

or

2+2=4

(that last one is not a direct quote)
 

Dont present papers written by Evolutionists And expect reasonable people to just believe them....

That does put us in the awkward position of trying to have discuss topics in biology without being able to consult the vast majority of biologists.

#185 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 355 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:16 PM

"That does put us in the awkward position of trying to have discuss topics in biology without being able to consult the vast majority of biologists."

 

Again, back to your Argumentum  Ad Populum...   When all else fails, Logical Fallacies must rule the day!!

 

 

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

  • eddified likes this

#186 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:55 AM

"That does put us in the awkward position of trying to have discuss topics in biology without being able to consult the vast majority of biologists."
 
Again, back to your Argumentum  Ad Populum...   When all else fails, Logical Fallacies must rule the day!!

Nowhere did I say they should be believed because they are in the majority. My point is that dismissing the work of the vast majority of biologists for reasons other than the quality of that work (i.e. poisoning the well) will make it difficult to discuss those topics. In the same way, if your irrational prejudice happened to be against scientists not named "Steve", we would find ourselves severely limited when trying to discuss most topics in science.

#187 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 355 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 March 2017 - 11:21 AM

"Nowhere did I say they should be believed because they are in the majority."

Of course you DID Imply that with what you said here...

"That does put us in the awkward position of trying to have discuss topics in biology without being able to consult the vast majority of biologists"

Why should we have to consult the "vast majority" of brainwashed and indoctrinated biologists?? Why shouldnt we consult ONE FROM EACH SIDE and look at the facts and Data for ourselves? Or ars you saying that we should make Science a Mob Rule? (Which it already is)

It is merely another version of what Bonedigger called you out for with your arrogant and blindly dogmatic comment..

"because that's an issue of creationists not being convinced by the same evidence that biologists are."

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal",

#188 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 355 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:23 PM

Reading the name of the author doesn't qualify as having read the work. And so far that's all you've shown you did. And if you'll recall, you dismissed it in an earlier post before you'd even done that.
 
What is the track record of Walter Bock over the last century when it comes to the anatomy of woodpeckers? Keep in mind when answering that he is only 83.
 
I think it is possible for someone who accepts evolution to make a correct statement.
 
What was Walter Bock's role in those incidents? What does that mean about how we should interpret statements he makes about other subjects, such as:
or
or
(that last one is not a direct quote)
 
That does put us in the awkward position of trying to have discuss topics in biology without being able to consult the vast majority of biologists.

 

"I think it is possible for someone who accepts evolution to make a correct statement."

 

Sure, I suppose if one were discussing the Weather, Sports, or Math there is certainly that possibly...

 

HOWEVER

 

When the subject turns to the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth (Evolution, or ANY related fields) you might as well be

talking to a Muslim about how evil Muhammad and the Koran really is while expecting a straight answer..... GOOD LUCK....

 

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism …

‘… It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.’”

j. Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist,



#189 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 355 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 23 March 2017 - 04:29 PM

Nowhere did I say they should be believed because they are in the majority. My point is that dismissing the work of the vast majority of biologists for reasons other than the quality of that work (i.e. poisoning the well) will make it difficult to discuss those topics. In the same way, if your irrational prejudice happened to be against scientists not named "Steve", we would find ourselves severely limited when trying to discuss most topics in science.



"In the same way, if your irrational prejudice happened to be against scientists not named "Steve", we would find ourselves severely limited when trying to discuss most topics in science."

I dont care what people's names are, I do care about the driving force behind them that controls their agenda though..

BTW , Is NOT Irrational to question people who write about things in order to support their Worldview / Philosophy... So instead of deciding whether something is true or not based on, loke you say, the "Vast Majority of Biologists" have an opinion it is true is NOT Science.... We should go by the evidence, And if EVERY Dinosaur Remnants that has EVER BEEN DATED shows measureble carbon 14 AND we see red blood cells,flexible blood vessels and collagen (2 EXAMPLES OF CORROBORATING HARD DATA) Dont you think we should draw the OBVIOUS conclusion that Dinosaurs are less than 50 thousand years old instead of trying to explain it away with idiotic ad hoc explanations like Hi-Iron content in Dino Blood allowing Dino Biotissue to have an indefinite shelf life?? I mean, talk about Stupidity...


Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post

“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” Will Provine, No Free Will. Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,)

“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews,




1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    what if