|
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, ChrstphFr),
875
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Blattsalat]
#78201
08/01/06 07:27
08/01/06 07:27
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
Quote:
Really, you guys are pretty good at distracting the argument from the point. If it wasn't obvious already, then its quite apparent now that most evolutionists have to rely on distraction, confusion, and insults as opposed to real ideas.
With this kind of arguing you distract even more than we do.
And by the way. Please do not generalize in that way. Not every PhD is a weak PhD and not every evolutionist is like you describe them. There are good and bad scientists but the advantage in the "real" science over creationism is that they are free. They are not bound to assumptions like the world is only 6000 years old. Real science implements just this theory that provides more evidences and follows the mainstream framework of well educated scientists.
In real science it is interesting when a single PhD has another opinion but it does not instantly change the framework of thinking.
And that is the way. Do not talk here in this forum. Show evidences and convince the majority of scientists and then you might have a chance. All the other attempts are rather embarrassing at my mind.
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Machinery_Frank]
#78202
08/01/06 11:06
08/01/06 11:06
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Excuse me, the one with the geophysics Ph.D is Baumgardner and he got it from UCLA. Correct me if I'm wrong, but UCLA wasn't a degree-mill last time I heard.
I think you are making this up, or at least they lied about getting a degree from there...I have my doubts these poeple are intelligent enough to get doctorates in any field, let alone geophysics. I suppose some poeple can fall through the cracks though.
Even if the degrees are legitimate, it of course doesnt prove anything..the ideas are still bad.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78203
08/02/06 22:15
08/02/06 22:15
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
With this kind of arguing you distract even more than we do.
You guys question the Ph.Ds, then I point out that its irrelevant, and I'm distracting....from what? Your distraction?
Quote:
And by the way. Please do not generalize in that way. Not every PhD is a weak PhD and not every evolutionist is like you describe them.
Apparently every amateur evolutionist is. And I know Ph.Ds aren't weak. You actually have to work hard to obtain a ligitimate Ph.D.
Quote:
There are good and bad scientists but the advantage in the "real" science over creationism is that they are free. They are not bound to assumptions like the world is only 6000 years old.
No evolutionists bound to the millions-of-years assumption, as well as the 'story of evolution'. So when they find a human footprint in 2 million year old ash, its not a human. When they find C14 in millions of years old artifacts, then they make the unfalsifiable claim that its contaminated. When they find soft tissue on dinosaure bones, they assume soft tissue can last for millions of years with no evidence to back that up.
Quote:
Real science implements just this theory that provides more evidences and follows the mainstream framework of well educated scientists.
Then modern science is built on false science because up until Darwin's 'revolution' pretty much everyone was a creationist.
Quote:
In real science it is interesting when a single PhD has another opinion but it does not instantly change the framework of thinking.
No, that's what evidence is for.
Quote:
And that is the way. Do not talk here in this forum. Show evidences and convince the majority of scientists and then you might have a chance. All the other attempts are rather embarrassing at my mind.
This is the bandwagon fallacy.
Quote:
I think you are making this up, or at least they lied about getting a degree from there...I have my doubts these poeple are intelligent enough to get doctorates in any field, let alone geophysics. I suppose some poeple can fall through the cracks though.
Any of them have more intelligence in their pinky than you have in your head. 
All seriousness aside. I'm going to ask one last time. Why wouldn't Henke point out the illigitemacy of any of the creationist's Ph.Ds? You won't answer that because you can't without proving me right.
You and I both know he would jump on the opportunity if he could. End of story.
Quote:
Even if the degrees are legitimate, it of course doesnt prove anything..the ideas are still bad.
Which I'm sure you'll provide reasoning for.
Its your gullibility and your religious devotion to evolutionary dogma that make illigitimate essays like Henke's work. He doesn't actually have to say anything worthwhile because he knows people like just need ANY explanation at all so you can dismiss what creationists have to say.
Try coming up with some substance for once.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
#78204
08/03/06 16:55
08/03/06 16:55
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
Your statement with the "bandwagon fallacy" shows me among all the others that you turn in circles and still cannot provide evidences as always and your main statement is that evolutionists evidences are weak. But I prefer weak evidences over no evidences. And here I could repeat your statement "End of story" 
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78206
08/04/06 07:29
08/04/06 07:29
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
Haha, I mentioned the evidence problem maybe a dozen times and you always ignored it. I don't care any bandwagon. I care logically to follow evidences like all the others do (and like the majority does). That does not have to do with any fallacy.
I understand the problem. When we assume the majority to be silly then this "bandwagon fallacy" could make sense but that does not count for the majority of scientists at my mind. And we talk about active scientists that write articles and do researching. This kind of people are not that dumb that you could simply de-qualify them with a few of your thoughts. That would almost be like me saying: "Your god is not prudent and not open-minded since he made such a mess in this world".
I hope you see this problem. You seem to not understand all facts in this case as I might not understand your god (in the hypothetical case that he might exist).
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78207
08/04/06 14:38
08/04/06 14:38
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Sure: the fact that 99% of scientists agree on something does not necessarily mean that it's true. For instance, only 200 years ago 99% of scientists agreed on creationism, and 600 years ago they agreed on geocentrism.
However, if scientists have competing theories to choose from, normally the majority choice turns out to be correct. At least I don't know of any counter example. The heliocentric model, relativity theory, quantum theory, or the Big Bang model were new competing theories that became accepted by the scientific community even before most observations were made that confirmed them. Therefore, the bandwagon is not always a fallacy.
Just claiming that a follower has a Ph.D won't suffice for defending an otherwise failing theory. The only way to defend "accelerated decay" would be to fix its contradictions and logical faults. But there are so many specific problems like the heat problem and the miracle requirement, and general problems like the incompatibility with all astronomical, physical and geological age observations, that seriously defending "accelerated decay" seems impossible to me. If you want to try, just go ahead.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution
[Re: jcl]
#78209
08/04/06 19:41
08/04/06 19:41
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,959
US
Grimber
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,959
US
|
What Evolution can't explain? Why so many unbelievable crimes against humanity through out history, are committed by the church, follows of the church and the so called 'faithful'. ( just a single example of one not too long ago) http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news13.htmlIf you look at all the most terrible crimes against humanity, the vast majority of them were done in the name of some religion ( or one of the many namees of god). Time and again and yet these crimes go unpunished, the 'church' is not called to step foward and answer for its crimes. And these are the same organizations and peoplethat are supposedly teaching everyone how to live good and proper lives? No the issue isn;t arguments for/against evolution. the argument should be 'can we truly justify the right for organized religion to continue to influance society with it's 2000 ish year track record'. Religion is a detrimental to humanity. Man doesn't need to evolve physicaly, we need to evolve socialy to throw off what is distructive to advancement of human society and civilization, the religious cults ( yes christianity is nothing but another cult).
|
|
|
|
