This was a comment I put on the MachinesLikeUs.com website in response to a video by Richard Dawkins about his book, "The Greatest Show on Earth." I'll post the link at the end. Enjoy!
The Greatest Atheist on Earth!
On October 5th, 2009 photojack says:
That title may be an overstatement, but this is a much needed topic in our 21st century world and there is no more valid spokesperson than Richard Dawkins to take it to the next level. I carried on a protracted e-mail exchange with Mark Looy, the "communications officer" of the answersingenesis.org website and co-founder of the Creation "Museum" that was very revealing. I wrote in part: "Can you direct your attention to the science your "hallowed" institution is mangling beyond all recognition and the replies of some of the top scientists in the world to the fallacious views of its displays and signage? As a scientist myself and an editor and indexer of a peer-reviewed scientific journal, I can state that your institution disseminates pure hogwash. It is a disgrace to humanity and our quest for knowledge. I would suggest that you LEARN some science before condoning the evil type of propagandizing, misleading and ignorant dogma that you, Ken Ham and your brainwashed followers are foisting on the public!"
Mark Looy responded: "Greetings. If I kept your full identity hidden, may we use your emails and then comment on them for our website? I would think that because you are so confirmed in your beliefs, you would not mind. We would simply say that your first name is Jack, you are a scientist, and that you are an editor of a science journal. I would use one or more of your emails in their entirety – no truncating. I’m still having difficulty grasping how a mechanistic process like evolution can lead to absolute truth (e.g., that murder could be wrong in the context of survival of the fittest). Do we get morals and absolute truth through mutations, for example?"
I replied in part: "We did get morals and ethics through inheritable traits from the genes of our animal forbears. Animal ethologists have known and studied that for over 100 years. How can it take so long for these concepts to be understood? Now you lumped "absolute truths" in your original question and I see through the deceptive "logic" of that easily. Too many people can be duped by such disingenuous tactics. Absolute truths through mutations? Surely you see the deception attempted with that statement! Answersingenesis is a joke in the academic world. We all see through the shoddy debate techniques, the lack of reasoning and the repetitive use of already falsified arguments all used to bring doubt to the science that so thoroughly refutes your views. Creationism was dealt a death blow in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. You didn't answer or comment directly on ANY of the valid points I brought up in my message. Why do you think there are 5,000+ living religions in the world today? Why do you think your chosen one is superior or any more valid than all the others? Why were there over 400 different creation stories just within the boundaries of what later became California? Which of those stories is true? ANSWER: None of them! They are all figments of the imagination of man. Nothing divine, nothing sacred... all myths! There is no substance, only deception in the views of young earth creationism. I have written rebuttals to answersingenesis in the past and they were never published on your website. If you want to be honest and above board here, you should publish our entire verbal interchange from the beginning that is still contained within this e-mail AND allow me to comment, like a true blog, on any and all of your counterarguments. I am convinced that I would win away many "converts" to the scientific path, the one of reasoning, logic and clear evidence from all the academic pursuits man has brought to bear on the topic of evolution versus religion throughout history. Will you publish this entire dialog on your site?"
To which Mark responded, "You wish to treat me as ignorant and of a second-rate intellect, so maybe it's best to end our exchange right here. You refuse to seriously consider our main arguments – meanwhile, I have been considering your beliefs for a few decades now."
My response was, "I do not refuse to consider your main arguments, I have blown holes in every one of them! And nearly all scientists publishing today in the respected peer-reviewed journals can and would do the same. I HAVE CONSIDERED YOUR VIEWS FOR DECADES ALSO. Your disinformation is damaging toward the advancement of knowledge and real learning. You are losing this debate or you would have taken me up on your challenge to publish this entire dialog on answersingenesis.com and allow me full access to respond to your website's viewers. N.C.S.E. has properly categorized you with the discredited fringe elements and has countered EVERY CLAIM you've ever made to denounce the truths of evolution. Bebe, Dembski and the rest have all been put in their place once and for all. Please look at http://www.edge.org again to see more thoroughly where you have gone wrong. I'm also amazed that you have not eliminated my subject heading about discrediting your "museum!" Is that a Freudian slip? You are using your not so great gifts to obscure the truth! How can you sleep at night knowing how many people you are purposely confusing with your indoctrinating propaganda? The U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the world in science literacy because of buffoons like you who disseminate pure hogwash! That is why I stated in my first communication with you that I believe your "institution" should be shut down."
I later wrote: "Greetings Mark, THAT is exactly what I expected. You cannot defend your views or justify your mass misleading of the public through your widely and thoroughly discredited "museum!" Your "experts" never materialized to try to tear my viewpoints and testimony down and I'm wondering if you ever read and analyzed the articles I have sent you. You offered to post my e-mails directly on answersingenesis.org... until you realized I CAN defend my views quite capably! Cutting off communication is not a viable option, as it shows how indefensible your position is. I have already sent some of my e-mails with your replies to other scientists, organizations and well informed friends as an ongoing exercise in how "those religious folks" fail miserably to justify their bogus claims. You conducted yourself even worse than I might have expected, considering your "official" title. I have a complete archive of our communications and will use it at my discretion in discussions and blogs on scientific sites and with other concerned citizens. Thank you for stating your views and clarifying your stance on these vital topics. It will create an ongoing learning experience of inestimable value for a very wide audience!"
I hope the readers here will challenge answersingenesis and other religious sites and engage in dialog like I did. It was surely "negatively enlightening!
Here's the link: http://machineslikeus.com/news/richard-daw...th#comment-1344
QUOTE (Mark Looy+)
Greetings. If I kept your full identity hidden, may we use your emails and then comment on them for our website? I would think that because you are so confirmed in your beliefs, you would not mind. We would simply say that your first name is Jack, you are a scientist, and that you are an editor of a science journal. I would use one or more of your emails in their entirety – no truncating. I’m still having difficulty grasping how a mechanistic process like evolution can lead to absolute truth (e.g., that murder could be wrong in the context of survival of the fittest). Do we get morals and absolute truth through mutations, for example?
I think this is his main point.
But just because a he does not understand how "mechanistic process" can lead to absolute truth, does not mean that it can't. And even if it can't that does not mean that another way can. And he has not shown that murder is wrong, from a first principals or tabla rosa standpoint.
I think this is his main point.
But just because a he does not understand how "mechanistic process" can lead to absolute truth, does not mean that it can't. And even if it can't that does not mean that another way can. And he has not shown that murder is wrong, from a first principals or tabla rosa standpoint.
photojack
Thank you for a most enjoyable morning, I spent quite a while enjoying intelligent conversation about evolution at that site.
Grumpy
Thank you for a most enjoyable morning, I spent quite a while enjoying intelligent conversation about evolution at that site.
Grumpy
Greetings buttershug, Mark Looy failed so miserably in these and so many other ways to defend his "museum" and the views from the answersingenesis website, or to counter or even address the points I was bringing up that I was astonished! He used the same old, already thoroughly discounted and misleading "logic" of the young earth Creationist stance. His rescission of his offer for open debates and posts, his "experts" never materializing to counter the solid science I offered and his false claims that I didn't consider his main arguments when I had answered each one of his directly and he had never addressed mine at all, showed very poor judgment and lack of communications skills effacing his title as "communications officer."
These were just excerpts from a much lengthier correspondence. I'd love to forward them all to a journalist to get the much fuller exposure and impact they could get in a large circulation newspaper or magazine!
These were just excerpts from a much lengthier correspondence. I'd love to forward them all to a journalist to get the much fuller exposure and impact they could get in a large circulation newspaper or magazine!
QUOTE (photojack+Oct 7 2009, 09:27 AM)
Greetings buttershug, Mark Looy failed so miserably in these and so many other ways to defend his "museum" and the views from the answersingenesis website, or to counter or even address the points I was bringing up that I was astonished! He used the same old, already thoroughly discounted and misleading "logic" of the young earth Creationist stance. His rescission of his offer for open debates and posts, his "experts" never materializing to counter the solid science I offered and his false claims that I didn't consider his main arguments when I had answered each one of his directly and he had never addressed mine at all, showed very poor judgment and lack of communications skills effacing his title as "communications officer."
These were just excerpts from a much lengthier correspondence. I'd love to forward them all to a journalist to get the much fuller exposure and impact they could get in a large circulation newspaper or magazine!
There is nothing more pitiful than an argument based on evidence-by-anecdote.
Regardless of who dreamed all those 'arguments' up, most people are just repeating what they heard from someone else. Unfortunately, most paths lead back to the likes of Ken Ham and Ray Comfort.
These were just excerpts from a much lengthier correspondence. I'd love to forward them all to a journalist to get the much fuller exposure and impact they could get in a large circulation newspaper or magazine!
There is nothing more pitiful than an argument based on evidence-by-anecdote.
Regardless of who dreamed all those 'arguments' up, most people are just repeating what they heard from someone else. Unfortunately, most paths lead back to the likes of Ken Ham and Ray Comfort.
Hi Grumpy , You're most welcome! Was it the http://machineslikeus.com/ site or the http://www.edge.org one? They both add new material on a daily basis and have tons of archived articles and videos by most of the best writers and scientists out there! Check out Mano Singham's superb articles on atheism's growing influence at the "machines" site. The edge.org site has writings and videos by Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Steven Pinker, Craig Venter, E.O. Wilson and others of that caliber.
"What Edge has achieved collecting these great thinkers around is absolutely spectacular. Whenever I find an allusion to great writers or thinkers, I find out that they all are at Edge." Frank Schirrmacher Co-Publisher & Feuilleton Editor, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
For more nearly unlimited, pleasurable and informative writings see:
http://www.edge.org/questioncenter.html
"Big, deep and ambitious questions .... breathtaking in scope. Keep watching The World Question Center." — New Scientist
"...Thoughtful and often surprising answers ....a fascinating survey of intellectual and creative wonders of the world ..... Reading them reminds me of how wondrous our world is." — Bill Gates
Enjoy!
, You're most welcome! Was it the http://machineslikeus.com/ site or the http://www.edge.org one? They both add new material on a daily basis and have tons of archived articles and videos by most of the best writers and scientists out there! Check out Mano Singham's superb articles on atheism's growing influence at the "machines" site. The edge.org site has writings and videos by Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Steven Pinker, Craig Venter, E.O. Wilson and others of that caliber."What Edge has achieved collecting these great thinkers around is absolutely spectacular. Whenever I find an allusion to great writers or thinkers, I find out that they all are at Edge." Frank Schirrmacher Co-Publisher & Feuilleton Editor, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
For more nearly unlimited, pleasurable and informative writings see:
http://www.edge.org/questioncenter.html
"Big, deep and ambitious questions .... breathtaking in scope. Keep watching The World Question Center." — New Scientist
"...Thoughtful and often surprising answers ....a fascinating survey of intellectual and creative wonders of the world ..... Reading them reminds me of how wondrous our world is." — Bill Gates
Enjoy!
Greetings flyingbuttressman, You must mean "logic" like this! 
"Ray Comfort routinely cites a version of evolutionary theory which few evolutionary theorists would recognize to provide support for his beliefs. For example, he often gives the example of the evolution of the eye as a stumbling block for evolutionary theory by characterizing evolution as suggesting that the eye appeared "overnight". Darwin's Origin of Species does not suggest that it did. Similarly, Comfort uses unrelated ""common sense" analogies to prove his case; for example saying that since a truck without a maker is impossible then so is evolution." wikipedia.
I would add that not only did Darwin know that the eye or anything else "appeared overnight", but that subsequent knowledge has eliminated any stumbling blocks about "irreducible complexity" issues. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Eye
Obviously Comfort is uncomfortable with Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" book! While the truck maker might be Chevy, Ford or Peterbuilt, evolution's "maker" is natural selection. Mark Looy, Ray Comfort and their ilk can all be easily disproved and should be routinely, to reinforce the standing of science and evolution to the broadest possible audience.
P.S. I've always liked the support of flying buttresses and their strengthening and aesthetic role in architecture.
Is there an intended analogy there?
"Ray Comfort routinely cites a version of evolutionary theory which few evolutionary theorists would recognize to provide support for his beliefs. For example, he often gives the example of the evolution of the eye as a stumbling block for evolutionary theory by characterizing evolution as suggesting that the eye appeared "overnight". Darwin's Origin of Species does not suggest that it did. Similarly, Comfort uses unrelated ""common sense" analogies to prove his case; for example saying that since a truck without a maker is impossible then so is evolution." wikipedia.
I would add that not only did Darwin know that the eye or anything else "appeared overnight", but that subsequent knowledge has eliminated any stumbling blocks about "irreducible complexity" issues. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Eye
Obviously Comfort is uncomfortable with Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" book! While the truck maker might be Chevy, Ford or Peterbuilt, evolution's "maker" is natural selection. Mark Looy, Ray Comfort and their ilk can all be easily disproved and should be routinely, to reinforce the standing of science and evolution to the broadest possible audience.
P.S. I've always liked the support of flying buttresses and their strengthening and aesthetic role in architecture.
Is there an intended analogy there?
Interesting article. Thanks.
QUOTE (photojack+Oct 6 2009, 03:11 PM)
That title may be an overstatement, but this is a much needed topic in our 21st century world and there is no more valid spokesperson than Richard Dawkins to take it to the next level.
Of course you would say that about his latest unscientific political attacks on religion, you brown-noser you.
Of course you would say that about his latest unscientific political attacks on religion, you brown-noser you.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 10 2009, 12:23 AM)
Of course you would say that about his latest unscientific political attacks on religion, you brown-noser you.
How is he unscientific?
any specific examples?
How is he unscientific?
any specific examples?
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 10 2009, 12:37 AM)
How is he unscientific?
any specific examples?
From another conversation:
Notice how they put "alternative theory" at the center of an unrelated political issue that has absolutely noting at all to do with science.
The issue does not even pertain to evolution "deniers" it pertains to the ability of their "evolutionary theory" to fully account for "macroevolution".
Once again Richard Dawkins is at the political center of attention for being quite unscientific. And the way the logic of this one connects in the brain it can instead make it seem like they are being scientific. It's a mind-game to promote their "ism" that works by "messing with our head" in a way that a person can soon enough imagine vast brain circuits to handle all of the exaggerated faults of the human eye design.
The only way to scientifically put an end to this muddle is give them the "alternative theory" they asked for. But on the opposite polarized side the Discovery Institute that claims to represent the intelligence theory are still writing books about how maybe someday having one. This gives Richard Dawkins exactly what he needs to make it seem that their philosophy is science. Which in turn makes this another major setback for the ID movement too. We all lose from forever arguing over nothing because it sells books.
any specific examples?
From another conversation:
QUOTE
Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to 'teach the controversy', and to give 'equal time' to the 'alternative theory' that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.
Notice how they put "alternative theory" at the center of an unrelated political issue that has absolutely noting at all to do with science.
The issue does not even pertain to evolution "deniers" it pertains to the ability of their "evolutionary theory" to fully account for "macroevolution".
Once again Richard Dawkins is at the political center of attention for being quite unscientific. And the way the logic of this one connects in the brain it can instead make it seem like they are being scientific. It's a mind-game to promote their "ism" that works by "messing with our head" in a way that a person can soon enough imagine vast brain circuits to handle all of the exaggerated faults of the human eye design.
The only way to scientifically put an end to this muddle is give them the "alternative theory" they asked for. But on the opposite polarized side the Discovery Institute that claims to represent the intelligence theory are still writing books about how maybe someday having one. This gives Richard Dawkins exactly what he needs to make it seem that their philosophy is science. Which in turn makes this another major setback for the ID movement too. We all lose from forever arguing over nothing because it sells books.
Creationism is a apolitical movement because politics is based on rational dialogue.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 10 2009, 01:00 AM)
The issue does not even pertain to evolution "deniers" it pertains to the ability of their "evolutionary theory" to fully account for "macroevolution".
Considering it isn't separate from "microevolution", there is nothing to account for.
Considering it isn't separate from "microevolution", there is nothing to account for.
The Discovery Institute's "philosophy" says the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I think there's enough philosophy masquerading as science on all sides... Including whichever one you're one.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 9 2009, 08:00 PM)
Notice how they put "alternative theory" at the center of an unrelated political issue that has absolutely noting at all to do with science.
Evolution is unrelated to history? Wow.
Oh, and the systematic recording of events in their proper order isn't scientific? Wow again.
Yes actually, it does. There is such a thing as an "analogy", dumbass.
Yes actually, it does. There is such a thing as an "analogy", dumbass.
it pertains to the ability of their "evolutionary theory" to fully account for "macroevolution".
"Macroevolution" is a term invented by creationists, in order to create a false dilemma. It is therefore meaningless to assert that anyone must account for it.
Only in your demonstratively false argument.
Only in your demonstratively false argument.
And the way the logic of this one connects in the brain it can instead make it seem like they are being scientific. It's a mind-game to promote their "ism" that works by "messing with our head" in a way that a person can soon enough imagine vast brain circuits to handle all of the exaggerated faults of the human eye design.
The amount of weasel words in that bit serves the rather ironic purpose of demonstrating the invalidity of your argument, so I'll leave it at that.
Unfortunately for you, no such "alternative theory" stands up to scientific scrutiny.
Unfortunately for you, no such "alternative theory" stands up to scientific scrutiny.
But on the opposite polarized side the Discovery Institute that claims to represent the intelligence theory are still writing books about how maybe someday having one. This gives Richard Dawkins exactly what he needs to make it seem that their philosophy is science.
ROFLMAO You think Dawkins things that ID is science? How stupid can you be?
Evolution is unrelated to history? Wow.
Oh, and the systematic recording of events in their proper order isn't scientific? Wow again.
QUOTE
The issue does not even pertain to evolution "deniers"
Yes actually, it does. There is such a thing as an "analogy", dumbass.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The issue does not even pertain to evolution "deniers" |
Yes actually, it does. There is such a thing as an "analogy", dumbass.
it pertains to the ability of their "evolutionary theory" to fully account for "macroevolution".
"Macroevolution" is a term invented by creationists, in order to create a false dilemma. It is therefore meaningless to assert that anyone must account for it.
QUOTE
Once again Richard Dawkins is at the political center of attention for being quite unscientific.
Only in your demonstratively false argument.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once again Richard Dawkins is at the political center of attention for being quite unscientific. |
Only in your demonstratively false argument.
And the way the logic of this one connects in the brain it can instead make it seem like they are being scientific. It's a mind-game to promote their "ism" that works by "messing with our head" in a way that a person can soon enough imagine vast brain circuits to handle all of the exaggerated faults of the human eye design.
The amount of weasel words in that bit serves the rather ironic purpose of demonstrating the invalidity of your argument, so I'll leave it at that.
QUOTE
The only way to scientifically put an end to this muddle is give them the "alternative theory" they asked for.
Unfortunately for you, no such "alternative theory" stands up to scientific scrutiny.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The only way to scientifically put an end to this muddle is give them the "alternative theory" they asked for. |
Unfortunately for you, no such "alternative theory" stands up to scientific scrutiny.
But on the opposite polarized side the Discovery Institute that claims to represent the intelligence theory are still writing books about how maybe someday having one. This gives Richard Dawkins exactly what he needs to make it seem that their philosophy is science.
ROFLMAO You think Dawkins things that ID is science? How stupid can you be?
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 10 2009, 01:35 AM)
Creationism is a apolitical movement because politics is based on rational dialogue.
Atheism is also a political (religious) movement. The real scientific issues such as weaknesses of Dawkins version of evolutionary theory are not addressed, by instead making straw-man arguments like the earlier example where the finger-pointing argument concerns "Holocaust Deniers".
Atheism is also a political (religious) movement. The real scientific issues such as weaknesses of Dawkins version of evolutionary theory are not addressed, by instead making straw-man arguments like the earlier example where the finger-pointing argument concerns "Holocaust Deniers".
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 9 2009, 09:39 PM)
Atheism is also a political (religious) movement. The real scientific issues such as weaknesses of Dawkins version of evolutionary theory are not addressed, by instead making straw-man arguments like the earlier example where the finger-pointing argument concerns "Holocaust Deniers".
1. Apparently, you don't know the difference between "political" and "apolitical".
2. Dawkins is not the originator of any particular version of evolutionary theory.
3. The so-called "weaknesses" in the currently accepted version of evolutionary theory are non-existent, and an invention of creationists.
4. Apparently, you don't know what a "straw man argument" is, either.
All in all, you're really ignorant. Stupid too, because the internet could easily help cure your ignorance, if you had enough brain cells to figure out how to use it properly.
1. Apparently, you don't know the difference between "political" and "apolitical".
2. Dawkins is not the originator of any particular version of evolutionary theory.
3. The so-called "weaknesses" in the currently accepted version of evolutionary theory are non-existent, and an invention of creationists.
4. Apparently, you don't know what a "straw man argument" is, either.
All in all, you're really ignorant. Stupid too, because the internet could easily help cure your ignorance, if you had enough brain cells to figure out how to use it properly.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 10 2009, 02:23 AM)
The Discovery Institute's "philosophy" says the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I think there's enough philosophy masquerading as science on all sides... Including whichever one you're one.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 9 2009, 09:55 PM)
That is another false straw-man argument.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
Dude, seriously. Learn what a straw man is. You're just making yourself look stupid(er).
Here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
Dude, seriously. Learn what a straw man is. You're just making yourself look stupid(er).
Here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 10 2009, 02:27 AM)
"Macroevolution" is a term invented by creationists, in order to create a false dilemma. It is therefore meaningless to assert that anyone must account for it.
Like all else you said you are WRONG. It is a scientific word from at least 1927.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
Too bad Dawkins only makes careless analogies and picks on the most unscientific claims he can find, instead of online debating real science with someone like me...
Like all else you said you are WRONG. It is a scientific word from at least 1927.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
Too bad Dawkins only makes careless analogies and picks on the most unscientific claims he can find, instead of online debating real science with someone like me...
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 9 2009, 10:08 PM)
Like all else you said you are WRONG. It is a scientific word from at least 1927.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
From your own link...
Ever heard of "context"? In this context, it means "You're full of crap and you don't know what the hell you're talking about."
Ever heard of "context"? In this context, it means "You're full of crap and you don't know what the hell you're talking about."
Too bad Dawkins only makes careless analogies and picks on the most unscientific claims he can find, instead of online debating real science with someone like me...
This (falsely) assumes you know something about real science. Sadly, you don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
From your own link...
QUOTE
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[10] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale;
Ever heard of "context"? In this context, it means "You're full of crap and you don't know what the hell you're talking about."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[10] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale; |
Ever heard of "context"? In this context, it means "You're full of crap and you don't know what the hell you're talking about."
Too bad Dawkins only makes careless analogies and picks on the most unscientific claims he can find, instead of online debating real science with someone like me...
This (falsely) assumes you know something about real science. Sadly, you don't.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 10 2009, 03:06 AM)
Dude, seriously. Learn what a straw man is. You're just making yourself look stupid(er).
Here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The original position is Dawkins version of evolutionary theory not being able to coherently explain macroevolution. But instead of argue the scientific merit of his own theory he makes straw-man agruments from a few "deniers" he was able to claim exist. Therefore, from your own source:
Here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The original position is Dawkins version of evolutionary theory not being able to coherently explain macroevolution. But instead of argue the scientific merit of his own theory he makes straw-man agruments from a few "deniers" he was able to claim exist. Therefore, from your own source:
QUOTE
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2]
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 10 2009, 03:16 AM)
From your own link...
Ever heard of "context"? In this context, it means "You're full of crap and you don't know what the hell you're talking about."
This (falsely) assumes you know something about real science. Sadly, you don't.
As usual, the discrediting song and dance has a whole new story to hide your lack of scientific integrity begins the moment I prove that is undoubtedly the case. You don't even know how many different personalized versions of "evolutionary theory" there now are in books and on the internet. You "believe" there is only one, but that is NOT true because there are thousands of them.
Ever heard of "context"? In this context, it means "You're full of crap and you don't know what the hell you're talking about."
This (falsely) assumes you know something about real science. Sadly, you don't.
As usual, the discrediting song and dance has a whole new story to hide your lack of scientific integrity begins the moment I prove that is undoubtedly the case. You don't even know how many different personalized versions of "evolutionary theory" there now are in books and on the internet. You "believe" there is only one, but that is NOT true because there are thousands of them.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 9 2009, 10:18 PM)
The original position is Dawkins version of evolutionary theory not being able to coherently explain macroevolution. But instead of argue the scientific merit of his own theory he makes straw-man agruments from a few "deniers" he was able to claim exist. Therefore, from your own source:
First off... A straw man is an argument which involves a false claim. There was no argument in the post you quoted, therefore, it is not a straw man.
Second, you are setting up a straw man yourself. You are claiming that Dawkins has a version of evolutionary theory which doesn't explain "macroevolution", then concluding that his debating position is thus unscientific. That is a straw man in that:
1: Dawkins does not have a "version" of evolutionary theory. He subscribes to the mainstream, scientifically accepted 'version', the only 'version' of note, and thus the only theory which can be considered to be "Evolutionary Theory". There are no 'versions', only revisions.
2. This 'version' absolutely explains macroevolutionary changes (which, by the way, is the correct way of phrasing the term), despite any assertion you make to the contrary.
3. Even if modern evolutionary theory is incorrect, and does not actually explain macroevolutionary changes, this does not make Dawkins' debating position unscientific.
1. This is a non-sequiter, and thus a strawman. Whether or not I am correct about their being only one version of evolutionary theory is irrelevant to the point I made.
2. I never mentioned the number of evolutionary theories before you wrote this, although I have since.
3. There is only one evolutionary theory. Only one. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together and a decent knowledge of it would know this. There are many many theories which rely upon the axioms of ET being true, but these are not evolutionary theories in and of themselves.
First off... A straw man is an argument which involves a false claim. There was no argument in the post you quoted, therefore, it is not a straw man.
Second, you are setting up a straw man yourself. You are claiming that Dawkins has a version of evolutionary theory which doesn't explain "macroevolution", then concluding that his debating position is thus unscientific. That is a straw man in that:
1: Dawkins does not have a "version" of evolutionary theory. He subscribes to the mainstream, scientifically accepted 'version', the only 'version' of note, and thus the only theory which can be considered to be "Evolutionary Theory". There are no 'versions', only revisions.
2. This 'version' absolutely explains macroevolutionary changes (which, by the way, is the correct way of phrasing the term), despite any assertion you make to the contrary.
3. Even if modern evolutionary theory is incorrect, and does not actually explain macroevolutionary changes, this does not make Dawkins' debating position unscientific.
QUOTE
As usual, the discrediting song and dance has a whole new story to hide your lack of scientific integrity begins the moment I prove that is undoubtedly the case. You don't even know how many different personalized versions of "evolutionary theory" there now are in books and on the internet. You "believe" there is only one, but that is NOT true because there are thousands of them.
1. This is a non-sequiter, and thus a strawman. Whether or not I am correct about their being only one version of evolutionary theory is irrelevant to the point I made.
2. I never mentioned the number of evolutionary theories before you wrote this, although I have since.
3. There is only one evolutionary theory. Only one. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together and a decent knowledge of it would know this. There are many many theories which rely upon the axioms of ET being true, but these are not evolutionary theories in and of themselves.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 10 2009, 03:31 AM)
First off... A straw man is an argument which involves a false claim. There was no argument in the post you quoted, therefore, it is not a straw man.
Second, you are setting up a straw man yourself. You are claiming that Dawkins has a version of evolutionary theory which doesn't explain "macroevolution", then concluding that his debating position is thus unscientific. That is a straw man in that:
1: Dawkins does not have a "version" of evolutionary theory. He subscribes to the mainstream, scientifically accepted 'version', the only 'version' of note, and thus the only theory which can be considered to be "Evolutionary Theory". There are no 'versions', only revisions.
2. This 'version' absolutely explains macroevolutionary changes (which, by the way, is the correct way of phrasing the term), despite any assertion you make to the contrary.
3. Even if modern evolutionary theory is incorrect, and does not actually explain macroevolutionary changes, this does not make Dawkins' debating position unscientific.
1. This is a non-sequiter, and thus a strawman. Whether or not I am correct about their being only one version of evolutionary theory is irrelevant to the point I made.
2. I never mentioned the number of evolutionary theories before you wrote this, although I have since.
3. There is only one evolutionary theory. Only one. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together and a decent knowledge of it would know this. There are many many theories which rely upon the axioms of ET being true, but these are not evolutionary theories in and of themselves.
True to form, you are still arguing semantics and making excuses instead of addressing the serious scientific issues. I doubt you could even coherently explain the mechanism that produced human speciation, but go ahead where you think you can
Second, you are setting up a straw man yourself. You are claiming that Dawkins has a version of evolutionary theory which doesn't explain "macroevolution", then concluding that his debating position is thus unscientific. That is a straw man in that:
1: Dawkins does not have a "version" of evolutionary theory. He subscribes to the mainstream, scientifically accepted 'version', the only 'version' of note, and thus the only theory which can be considered to be "Evolutionary Theory". There are no 'versions', only revisions.
2. This 'version' absolutely explains macroevolutionary changes (which, by the way, is the correct way of phrasing the term), despite any assertion you make to the contrary.
3. Even if modern evolutionary theory is incorrect, and does not actually explain macroevolutionary changes, this does not make Dawkins' debating position unscientific.
1. This is a non-sequiter, and thus a strawman. Whether or not I am correct about their being only one version of evolutionary theory is irrelevant to the point I made.
2. I never mentioned the number of evolutionary theories before you wrote this, although I have since.
3. There is only one evolutionary theory. Only one. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together and a decent knowledge of it would know this. There are many many theories which rely upon the axioms of ET being true, but these are not evolutionary theories in and of themselves.
True to form, you are still arguing semantics and making excuses instead of addressing the serious scientific issues. I doubt you could even coherently explain the mechanism that produced human speciation, but go ahead where you think you can
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 10 2009, 03:06 AM)
Dude, seriously. Learn what a straw man is. You're just making yourself look stupid(er).
Is that possible? - GG's definitely a candidate for "Mr unfeasibly stupid turdbox 2009" .... however, stupidity must have bounds and I feel this guy's right at the envelopes edge.
Is that possible? - GG's definitely a candidate for "Mr unfeasibly stupid turdbox 2009" .... however, stupidity must have bounds and I feel this guy's right at the envelopes edge.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 9 2009, 10:57 PM)
True to form, you are still arguing semantics
You start flinging around the phrase "Straw man" with no regard for what a straw man actually is, then accuse me of arguing semantics?
A straw man is an argument, dipshit. If it's not an argument, it can't possibly be a straw man, no matter how you phrase it. Accusing me of arguing semantics is itself, a straw man. Dumbass.
Why do you lie when the proof of your lies is right in front of both you, and anyone who might be fooled by your bullshit?
Why do you lie when the proof of your lies is right in front of both you, and anyone who might be fooled by your bullshit?
I doubt you could even coherently explain the mechanism that produced human speciation, but go ahead where you think you can
I damn well know I could. Even if I couldn't, I could look it up, unlike you. (This hearkens back to that whole "You're too stupid to know when to look something up before talking about it" thing, by the way.)
Gary Gaulin quote.
There goes appallin' Gaulin again, in all his glory!
I'd love for him, and challenge him directly, to show me one example of Dawkins making a careless analogy concerning evolutionary theory.
The unscientific claims Dawkins "picks on" are ones from unscientific buffoons like Gary Gaulin!
Oh, I could mention a few more like Mark Looy, William Dembski, Ken Ham, Michael Behe, Ben Stein and the %#*@ing bullsh!t from the Discovery Institute and answersingenesis sites.
The NCSE collected over 800 signatures from scientists in the three states closest to the Creation "museum" (Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio) on the following statement:
"We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis."
wikipedia quote.
Physicist Lawrence Krauss has called on media, educators, and government officials to shun the museum and says that its view is based on falsehoods. Krauss said that the facility is "as much a disservice to religion as it is to science." wikipedia quote.
Perhaps Gary Gaulin needs to review the differences noted below:
Theory vs. fact
The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution. The argument is related to a common misconception about the technical meaning of "theory" that is used by scientists. In common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven assumptions. However, in science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." wikipedia quote.
Exploring this issue, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
Evolution is a theory. [b]It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.[/b] wikipedia quote.
I think Gary Gaulin is out of his element when he talks about debating real science with someone like him! He knows nothing of science, the scientific method or the peer-review process!
You start flinging around the phrase "Straw man" with no regard for what a straw man actually is, then accuse me of arguing semantics?
A straw man is an argument, dipshit. If it's not an argument, it can't possibly be a straw man, no matter how you phrase it. Accusing me of arguing semantics is itself, a straw man. Dumbass.
QUOTE
and making excuses instead of addressing the serious scientific issues.
Why do you lie when the proof of your lies is right in front of both you, and anyone who might be fooled by your bullshit?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and making excuses instead of addressing the serious scientific issues. |
Why do you lie when the proof of your lies is right in front of both you, and anyone who might be fooled by your bullshit?
I doubt you could even coherently explain the mechanism that produced human speciation, but go ahead where you think you can
I damn well know I could. Even if I couldn't, I could look it up, unlike you. (This hearkens back to that whole "You're too stupid to know when to look something up before talking about it" thing, by the way.)
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 10 2009, 03:57 AM)
True to form, you are still arguing semantics and making excuses instead of addressing the serious scientific issues. I doubt you could even coherently explain the mechanism that produced human speciation, but go ahead where you think you can
What part of human speciation is not understood?
It's not like we are fundamentally different from other animals.
What about us could not have been evolved?
Every time we look for a fundamental difference no one can list a verifiable one.
What part of human speciation is not understood?
It's not like we are fundamentally different from other animals.
What about us could not have been evolved?
Every time we look for a fundamental difference no one can list a verifiable one.
I think he misread the previous post. Well that's the only explanation
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 10 2009, 02:39 AM)
Atheism is also a political (religious) movement. The real scientific issues such as weaknesses of Dawkins version of evolutionary theory are not addressed, by instead making straw-man arguments like the earlier example where the finger-pointing argument concerns "Holocaust Deniers".
Just checking, but you don't think that it's Evolutionists who are denying the Holocaust, do you?
Evolution theory being used for evil purposes is not any kind of indication of it's inaccuracy.
Just checking, but you don't think that it's Evolutionists who are denying the Holocaust, do you?
Evolution theory being used for evil purposes is not any kind of indication of it's inaccuracy.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 10 2009, 02:55 AM)
That is another false straw-man argument.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
Then why won't they pay you for your "theory" on how evolution is guided by "intelligence"? Could it be because it's a religious organzation?
Do you consider yourself a cdesign proponentsists?
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
Then why won't they pay you for your "theory" on how evolution is guided by "intelligence"? Could it be because it's a religious organzation?
Do you consider yourself a cdesign proponentsists?
Idiot warning - one about to post.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 10 2009, 03:56 PM)
Then why won't they pay you for your "theory" on how evolution is guided by "intelligence"? Could it be because it's a religious organzation?
Do you consider yourself a cdesign proponentsists?
Here's the email address of who to ask, Robert Crowther. My thinking is that like here in the PhysForum know-it-alls don't need to bother studying a theory before judging, they are perfectly capable of making fools out of themselves on their own. If you get a reply then please make it a new topic to be sure I'll find it.
rob@discovery.org
Since "cdesign proponentsists" is a fabricated phrase with no scientific relevance I do not consider myself that either.
Do you consider yourself a cdesign proponentsists?
Here's the email address of who to ask, Robert Crowther. My thinking is that like here in the PhysForum know-it-alls don't need to bother studying a theory before judging, they are perfectly capable of making fools out of themselves on their own. If you get a reply then please make it a new topic to be sure I'll find it.
rob@discovery.org
Since "cdesign proponentsists" is a fabricated phrase with no scientific relevance I do not consider myself that either.
Told you so.
QUOTE
Too bad Dawkins only makes careless analogies and picks on the most unscientific claims he can find, instead of online debating real science with someone like me...
Gary Gaulin quote.There goes appallin' Gaulin again, in all his glory!
I'd love for him, and challenge him directly, to show me one example of Dawkins making a careless analogy concerning evolutionary theory.The unscientific claims Dawkins "picks on" are ones from unscientific buffoons like Gary Gaulin!
Oh, I could mention a few more like Mark Looy, William Dembski, Ken Ham, Michael Behe, Ben Stein and the %#*@ing bullsh!t from the Discovery Institute and answersingenesis sites.The NCSE collected over 800 signatures from scientists in the three states closest to the Creation "museum" (Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio) on the following statement:
"We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis."
wikipedia quote.Physicist Lawrence Krauss has called on media, educators, and government officials to shun the museum and says that its view is based on falsehoods. Krauss said that the facility is "as much a disservice to religion as it is to science." wikipedia quote.
Perhaps Gary Gaulin needs to review the differences noted below:
Theory vs. fact
The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution. The argument is related to a common misconception about the technical meaning of "theory" that is used by scientists. In common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven assumptions. However, in science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." wikipedia quote.
Exploring this issue, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
Evolution is a theory. [b]It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.[/b] wikipedia quote.
I think Gary Gaulin is out of his element when he talks about debating real science with someone like him! He knows nothing of science, the scientific method or the peer-review process!
WHAT HAPPENED TO GARY GAULIN?
I guess he couldn't answer to some fierce logic! He'll undoubtedly let this blow over, then come back with a further revision of his wacko hypothesis as if nothing happened!
Only a blindly indoctrinated, gullible religious kook could maintain such unscientific, illogical and contorted views!
I guess he couldn't answer to some fierce logic!
He'll undoubtedly let this blow over, then come back with a further revision of his wacko hypothesis as if nothing happened! Only a blindly indoctrinated, gullible religious kook could maintain such unscientific, illogical and contorted views!
QUOTE
My thinking is that like here in the PhysForum know-it-alls don't need to bother studying a theory before judging,
The THEORY of Evolution is exactly that because some know-it-alls did bother testing a hypothesis in order to make it a theory which, by the way, your dumb-arses haven't done with ID (an oxymoron anyway).
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 7 2009, 05:28 AM)
The THEORY of Evolution is exactly that because some know-it-alls did bother testing a hypothesis in order to make it a theory which, by the way, your dumb-arses haven't done with ID (an oxymoron anyway).
GG believes he has tested his hypothesis.
But he doesn't understand that a test has to be able show either a pass or a fail depending on which is appropriate.
Evolution is a theory.
Creation is a story.
GG believes he has tested his hypothesis.
But he doesn't understand that a test has to be able show either a pass or a fail depending on which is appropriate.
Evolution is a theory.
Creation is a story.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 10 2009, 01:35 AM)
.... politics is based on rational dialogue.
Nice! (laughing)*****
Political correctness some say, is the belief that you can pick up a turd by the clean end.
"1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2 : political actions, practices, or policies
3 a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices" (Reference:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics)
Political correctness some say, is the belief that you can pick up a turd by the clean end.
"1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2 : political actions, practices, or policies
3 a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices" (Reference:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics)
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 7 2009, 05:28 AM)
The THEORY of Evolution is exactly that because some know-it-alls did bother testing a hypothesis in order to make it a theory which, by the way, your dumb-arses haven't done with ID (an oxymoron anyway).
What experiment?
What experiment?
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 7 2009, 12:28 PM)
Evolution is a theory.
Creation is a story.
Way further than that: evolution is fact, creation is utter nonsense.
Creation is a story.
Way further than that: evolution is fact, creation is utter nonsense.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.