BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:42 PM

I would be honored if you did use it sir! :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:39 PM

The most biblical description of science I have ever heard!
Can I please use that?
Never mind... I am going to!
Thanks Sir Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 07:55 PM

You betcha.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 07:48 PM

"...to find the log in your own eye rather than pointing to the spec of sawdust in someone else's?"\


I never met a phor I didn't like ;<)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:41 PM

So in essence, real science is trying to find the log in your own eye rather than pointing to the spec of sawdust in someone else's?

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:37 PM

ergo they are surely not doing science.

Ah, but then they don't "believe" in science.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:30 PM

Yes, again DMcG nails it again. I would further point out that Popper is saying that science must be done by *disproving* hypotheses - particularly your own.
I see no evidence that pete or Ham are attempting to disprove YEC, ergo they are surely not doing science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:30 PM

I watched the video.

Lawrence O'Donnell, is smart and logical. The arguments are good, but, I think they are too complicated for anyone likely to pay to attend CPAC.

Coulter, Palin a D'Sousa keep it simpler.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:50 PM

Thanks DMcG ,
That is exactly what I was looking for. I wanted you to explain the black swan principle before pete had a chance to turn it around.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:34 PM

Sorry about some oddities above - working by phone and the post went before I was ready. But the gist is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:31 PM

sn't that what Ham and pete believe they are doing?

That's a perfectly fair question, so it deserves a straight answer. In my view, that may be what they believe they are doing, but if so, their belief is based on a misunderstanding since they are not carrying out experiments aimed at disproving evolution or anything else connected with young earth ideas (such as the stick-in-a-bucket experiment proposed above). What they do instead is search the literature for things scientists declare they can't currently explain and leap up and down shouting "Look, look, science can't explain this". But they ignore *why* it can't be explained: maybe the project was exploring something like an igneous outcrop and an observation about a nearby sedimentary bed was observed but there was no funding or time to investigate (I'm not a geologist so apologies if my example is nonsense, but you get the idea I hope.). Or maybe it was a measurememeasurement of something but there's not enough measurements for statistically significant results. Or maybe the PhD student just ran out of time to investigate.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:01 PM

Ah, but then Jack, we're returning to the mists o "belief", delusion and fairytale as opposed to the realm of scientific and/or objective fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:53 PM

to echo another post...

(BTW... did anyone watch the Lawrence O'Donnell video? )

<>"...the evolutionist that a priori believes in Darwinism and then looks to fit the evidence is not acting as a scientist either!"

But.. I just said very clearly... that is NOT what scientists do! They do NOT believe anything a priori. Even the scientific method itself is a concept derived from various ways of looking at evidence. Then, it is tested by USING it and seeing if predicted results agree with actual results.
People who claim the name of 'scientist', but who readily admit that they evaluate everything in terms of agreement with scripture (one scripture among many) are acting as apologists or as rhetorical theologians who are committed to one theory, no matter what other evidence is discovered.

It won't wash, Pete

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:47 PM

I stand by the question as asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:29 PM

Isn't that what Ham and pete believe they are doing?

"Believe" they are doing, or are ACTUALLY doing?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:45 PM

>>"It is not possible to prove all swans are white by counting white swans, but it is possible to disprove all swans are white by counting one black swan."
-Karl Popper"<<

Isn't that what Ham and pete believe they are doing?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:22 PM

DMcG nails it.
"It is not possible to prove all swans are white by counting white swans, but it is possible to disprove all swans are white by counting one black swan."
-Karl Popper

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:45 PM

"I have not said that the evidence proves genesis,"

You and Ham are arguing that your version of Genesis account is a competing scientific theory on a par with what you patronizingly call "Darwinism" and "evolutionism." You have presented zero evidence to support that claim. I believe that is because there is no such evidence. The best you seem to be able to come up with is "Creation Scientists" can claim.

If Creation scientists are scientists are scientists they can experiment and test their assumption. Rather than assuming that it is possible that the "flood event" could have caused carbon dated items to look 70,000 years old and dry, the could immerse similar items today and see if they get similar results.

Rather than speculate that a year of flooding could some how could have laid down millions of layers of fossils each layer from the bottom containing more and more complex animals they could break a dam of a lake that has existed for a year and see if that has happened.

Obviously all of your speculations and Mr. Ham's are based on the assumption that God is Omnipotent and can do what he wants. That is fine. Few will argue with that. The problem comes when you and Mr. Ham pretend to have a special knowledge, that others do not, because you claim to have special scientific knowledge gleaned from the first few hundred words of the Bible. This is especially dishonest in Mr. Ham's case since he has dismissed the credibility of other books in the Bible out of hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:34 PM

by the same token, the evolutionist that a priori believes in Darwinism and then looks to fit the evidence is not acting as a scientist either

I agree. But that is not what happens, so it is a meaningless point. A scientist does not look for information to prove a hypothesis, s/he looks for evidence to disprove the hypothesis. That's not playing with words, it is a most fundamental distinction.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:19 PM

Pete, your "clarification" isn't parsing the evidence, it is grasping at straws.

Now please tell us something useful, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Peteseser from seven stars link
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 02:06 PM

Seems I need to clarify my position once more.   I have not said that the evidence proves genesis, but is ,I believe consistent with it. Best I heard, experimental science ,for example ,expects soft tissue to disappear way sooner than millions of years past.. Claiming gaps of knowledge is simply begging the question. The refusal to trust the findings of experimental science to protect evolutionism strikes me as being philosophically committed to naturalism, not because the evidence demands it.                   Well ,actual, I suppose if there actually were the gradulated fossil evidence that Darwin expected I would certainly have a lot less confidence.    And what does it prove if a trilobite and a horse is not found together ?. I would say it might be possible but it would not be in the expected order of burial as the flood prevailed.
Bill...by the same token,the evolutionist that a priori believes in Darwinism and then looks to fit the evidence is not acting as a scientist either!      And to refer to Gould again.....the idea of the totally impartial scientist is self serving myth.                               Stu.....I seem to remember that blounts paper was arguing the toss as to what mechanism provided citrate absorption in E. coli. Lemkis experiments hardly demonstrate microbes to man evolution....just adaption. After all those generations ,we find that E. coli has turned into...e coli!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:10 PM

Now, what would [pete] need to see to make you abandon your belief in YEC?

Obviously, an act of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 12:45 PM

Not sure how my parenthetical remark ended so strangely...I meant to say it is an amazing example of ignorance of history, but also the impulse to herd everyone into one pen where ONLY one message is permitted. Sadly, we have dozens of current members of the US Congress who are at least as far out on the religious limb as the infamous Tony Perkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 12:32 PM

If you want to see an example of conservative religion in the USA, listen to this 5 minute report by Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/cpac-boots-atheist-group-170746435929

(It is about atheists, Thomas Jefferson, and the conservative, religious mindset.... and it is an amazing)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 12:13 PM

"They certainly do, Jack. But then they leap even further - in an utterly illogical direction - and claim that God must have done it and the biblical account of creation must be true. "

I was thinking in terms of the science only.

I don't think it is possible to prove that there is or isn't a God.

I don't think it is possible to prove whether or not God created the Universe, whereas you can prove, even assuming that he does exist (a huge if from your point of view, I am sure) that he didn't do it in six literal days as we know them. That proof is in the first few hundred words of Genesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:54 AM

"Then they make the logical leap to saying that less than perfect evidence is the same as no evidence."

They certainly do, Jack. But then they leap even further - in an utterly illogical direction - and claim that God must have done it and the biblical account of creation must be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:44 AM

It goes a little deeper than that Actual, pete has yet to show a single piece of physical evidence that the Universe is as young as it is, no doubt because no such evidence exists.

All he and Ham have ever done is try to point out that the evidence that does exist is less than perfect. Then they make the logical leap to saying that less than perfect evidence is the same as no evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:35 AM

Steve Shaw,
I suspect that we disagree on just about nothing, except perhaps a quibbling difference on the meaning and use of the word "belief".
Epistemologically speaking (and rather butchering Plato), belief is synonymous with knowledge if the belief is "true" in the sense that the "believer" has reasonable and plausible evidence to support such belief. In that sense, pete's belief is not knowledge, but I am comfortable saying that I believe in evolution. I have seen plenty of evidence.

pete-
Here is the test of whether our beliefs are equivalent.
If you show me a trilobite and a mammal in the same rock formation, I will abandon my current "belief" in evolution, and adjust my beliefs to fit this new evidence.
Now, what would you need to see to make you abandon your belief in YEC?
Without a simple direct answer to this question, it is really pointless (for anyone) to have this discussion with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:48 AM

Stu
A theory has to be falsifiable

I was saying the same thing myself just the other day.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 07:50 AM

From: Bill D - PM
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 06:46 PM

Thanks for this Bill, very interesting indeed.

"perhaps actual scientist can cite experiments [observable, repeatable] that validate evolutionism....and stop insulting scientists that question Darwin dogma! "

Here's one actual scientist who has posted links to papers that do exactly this, and indeed the Blount paper quoted in the Nye/Ham debate is pertinent to this subject. It's up to YOU to disprove the theory to the satisfaction of other scientists, not for them to convince you; this is what all of us engaged in actual research have to do. A theory has to be falsifiable, so get to it. For the hundredth time - find a horse in Cambrian sediments.


"I too will remain with what I see as logical, and squares with my worldview"

This is as perfect a demonstration of confirmation bias as you could ever hope to hear from a creationist. Thunderous applause!


"these are things that an atheist must believe because of an a priori commitment to naturalistic causes, whatever the evidence."

Are you sure about that? Methinks you might be getting confused here.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:50 AM

Like I said before. Trying to explain anything to Pete like talking to a three year old. It is difficult but eventually it may sink in. Or we may have to wait until he grows up.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:15 AM

" ... you say you will stay with evolutionism till experiments prove it wrong.
guess what....they already have ! biogenesis , organisms only observed to reproduce according to, and within the limits of their kind ,failure of attempts to produce life from non life."

So our knowledge of how living things evolved is incomplete. But, then, our knowledge of every other scientific field is incomplete. If we knew everything there would be no need for science! That's why there is no such thing as a 'creationist scientist'. No real scientist would claim to be in possession of absolute truth and then expend energy attempting to discredit the work of every other scientist. And yet again, I must remind you, pete, that if the Theory of Evolution is wrong that doesn't mean that the biblical account of creation is automatically right by default.

Oh yes, are all scientists deluded or are they engaged in a gigantic conspiracy? STILL no answers to these questions, pete!

Donuel, I'm shocked and appalled to learn of your experience in the US education system!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 08:08 PM

closing your eyes except when you are reading scripture only gets you a narrow view of reality.

Or, more likely, no view of reality whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:58 PM

*I* have seen Benny Hill.. not recently, but it's good point, Jack. Seeing how a brit-joke was meant does not mean I find it funny, just as I don't appreciate the game of trading semi-serious insults as a 'good sport'.

-----------------

Pete..." both beliefs seek to claim science as validation."

Claims are easy... I can 'claim' to be a fine singer, but it might be that a survey of trained musicians would show a different outcome.
As I have said WAY too many times already, when creationists use scripture as their basic, fundamental premise, then look for and twist evidence to fit, they are not acting AS scientists!" It is kinda relevant that 99+% of trained scientists do NOT see faith-based 'science' as the way to decide important questions! Many of that 99% are, in fact, religious... but they see the physics and astronomy and DNA and radiometric dating as HOW God's creation proceeded.

And the same rule goes for asserting that scientists simple use "an a priori commitment to naturalistic causes," It is NOT a priori... it is derived from study and an inductive analysis of how science works. YOU are again trying to define terms in a way that only a tiny minority approve of. No one can prevent you indulging in this self-delusion, but you must realize you are swimming upstream in using words like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice. "Words mean exactly what I want them to... no less & no more"

Sorry Pete... but closing your eyes except when you are reading scripture only gets you a narrow view of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:47 PM

Ham Taught school in Australia.

woodmorappe teaches in Chicago. He has an MA in geology.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:43 PM

I was suspended from Jr. High school for writing an essay on evolution in Vestal NY. My parents had to come for a conference before I was allowed back.

The teacher really held my feet to the fire for having written "Mammals like man and other animals..."

I was supposed to accept that man is not an animal.
I still don't accept that concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:05 PM

Ken Ham & john woodmorappe are qualified as middle school science teachers.

QUALIFIED? I hardly think so.

And whoever "qualified" them, if so, should be shot.

No wonder U.S. education is in the toilet.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 04:52 PM

I think people on this side of the pond outgrow "bottom" jokes. Most of us anyway. But some of us have seen Benny Hill.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 04:07 PM

Do note... it is probable that Pete's "bottom life" was just a typing error. I assumed he meant 'bottom line' and answered him as such. It doesn't add much to the discussion to make a lot... humorously or not... of the typo.

Christ on a bloody bike, Bill. You have just epitomised all that is wrong with US humour. I won't explain that because you won't get it, and, frankly, the moment has passed anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 02:29 PM

>>perhaps actual scientist can cite experiments [observable, repeatable] that validate evolutionism....and stop insulting scientists that question Darwin dogma! <<

pete so far you have quoted or cited no scientists, Ken Ham & john woodmorappe are qualified as middle school science teachers.

Musket and Steve Shaw are at least their equals. If your issue is credentials why don't you just ask them?

But your issue is whether or not they share your oddly narrow interpretation of the first few hundred words of Genesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 02:02 PM

typo...slip...yes it should have been line.

gnome- I too will remain with what I see as logical, and squares with my worldview, [ just as you do ]until experimentation proves it wrong.
you say you will stay with evolutionism till experiments prove it wrong.
guess what....they already have ! biogenesis , organisms only observed to reproduce according to, and within the limits of their kind ,failure of attempts to produce life from non life.    the general observation that a sufficient cause is required for creation, despite bill dismissing it with a shrug. I am sure there are other things as well but that will do.
perhaps actual scientist can cite experiments [observable, repeatable] that validate evolutionism....and stop insulting scientists that question Darwin dogma!

bill- I will not let your assertion that evolutionism is science and creation isn't go unchallenged. both beliefs seek to claim science as validation. it is you who are unfairly twisting the use of words.
Darwin dogma encompasses abiogenesis, microbes to man, among other things, which are presented as fact but lacking evidence.
these are things that an atheist must believe because of an a priori commitment to naturalistic causes, whatever the evidence.
this is why I say it is a religious belief, ie a negative position respecting an intelligent first cause. these are positions held by faith, just as mine is ,in trusting the bible.

no shimrod, I cant give numbers, but there is a site listing Darwin doubters, or you could look up the altburg symposium [ think that's right], either way there is more dissent , I think, than you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 12:56 PM

ah- but was it a typo or a Freudian slip? THAT'S the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 12:09 PM

Do note... it is probable that Pete's "bottom life" was just a typing error. I assumed he meant 'bottom line' and answered him as such. It doesn't add much to the discussion to make a lot... humorously or not... of the typo.

----------------------

Read Dave's post above..
.From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:55 AM

...it says what needs to be said about as clearly as I have seen.

The point being... saying *I* have a theory and also that *you* have a theory does **NOT** mean they are essentially equal in stature or relevance. Misuse of the language to defend a a position may be the single most common cause of ignorance going!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:25 AM

The following is for your benefit Pete. I will ask yo to read it and try to understand that, if you cannot show how your pronouncements fulfil the points below, what you are saying owes nothing to science.


Sound Science Crib Sheet

1.       What institution conducted the research? Research should be conducted by institutions, not by individuals currently or formerly associated with them. Also, try and establish that the institutions are respected and credible, with a history of doing sound scientific research.

2.       For whom was the research conducted? Much of the time, reputable institutes are given research grants by government, environmental and industry groups. These groups are hoping that studies will either prove or disprove a particular perception or point of view.

3.       For example, the Tobacco Institute may fund a lung cancer study to be performed by Johns Hopkins University. There is nothing wrong with this situation, as long as the funder exercises no control over the study's design, execution, results or conclusions.
      
4.          When did the study occur? Make sure that results are recent. Otherwise, it's possible that the conclusions have been superceded by more recent studies.

5.       What are the credentials of the people conducting the research? Medical research should include PhDs in the specific discipline being studied. Watch out for studies with "experts" whose credentials seem to be in fields that are not directly related to the research in question.

6.       Were results published in a respected scientific or medical journal that routinely conducts peer reviews? Look for names like Nature, Science, The Journal of the American Medical Association or The Lancet.

7.       Is the sample size large enough to be projectable? Studies of small samples are of dubious value.

8.       Was the sample selected properly? Try to make sure that bias is reduced through the use of properly matched test and control groups. Check the reports for sections discussing methodology and any potential problems relating to it.

9.       Did the study contain other methods to eliminate bias and confounding variables? Good studies go to great lengths to minimize the potential for error. They also go to great lengths to explain both what bias or errors may still exist.

10.       Are results consistent with the generally accepted body of research on the subject? Don't draw conclusions from single studies or ones that contradict the preponderance of available evidence.

11.       Are there other possible reasons for the relationship being discussed? This is a far bigger possibility than you might think! It is also another reason to not rely solely on the results of a single study.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 07:07 AM

"evolutionists have their bottom life"

Benthic life, more like.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:55 AM

From this article which I recommend anyone who does not know what theory actually means reads.

Everything becomes clear if you assign their proper meanings to words like "theory", "law" etc. in a scientific context. In particular "theory" is not an insult (as in the silly saying "it's just a theory"). A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment.

By assigning these values, in a scientific context as they suggest, we can readily see that while gravity is indeed a theory, we can also rely on it to be true until disproved by experiment. Note, not by argument, opinion or any amount of philosophical discussion, but by experiment. By the same measure, evolution, while remaining a theory, can also be considered true.

I consider evolution to be the best theory available of how we got here. Until this theory is disproved by experiment I will also consider it to be true. Pretty much like gravity. Until someone proves it is not true and we all float off I will consider the theory of gravity to be true as well :-)

The final paragraph says If you were to insist at all times on "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in a scientific context, you'd never be able to make any meaningful statement (unless accompanied by the relevant "margin for error"). As a consistent body of knowledge, each theory allows you to make such statements freely, knowing simply that the validity of your discourse is only restricted by the general conditions of applicability of a particular theory.

In that context, we can safely say that evolution is true with a tiny margin for error while, in a scientific context, creationism is not even a theory, can never be disproved by experiment and can never have any margin for error.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:18 AM

Steve Shaw
I don't see evolution as an area requiring my "belief". I too am a scientist,

Previously (many times)
Evolution is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:12 AM

Thanks, Bill D, for the clarification. It's all very clear now!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 11:05 PM

Bad news for pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:13 PM

I was giving you credit for being able to ascertain which rules apply to you.

Here they are separated out out

Your kind and civil behavior is your best protection.

unkind and snooty.

I expect this was not meant kindly as well.

"You really can be such a pillock, can't you, Wackers! :-)"