Jump to content

slowpoke55

Nonbeliever
  • Posts

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

487 profile views
  1. AlexanderJ "Suggests" is the keyword in my post. I'm not drawing a conclusion but trying to provoke clarity on what de-evolving culture means. Hence the question about critical trends.
  2. That's too general of a statement can you be more specific? Cycles can be tied to the limitations of economic and political systems. For example: an economic system that allows the hording of wealth and resources will eventually exhaust its resources and attempt to conquer foreign resources. That can happen peacefully or violently. A much better example is an atomic bomb. My point is equality is a positive evolution of culture. Would you agree with this? A Gallup poll suggests that being less religious is actually better for the economy of a country. http://www.gallup.co...st-nations.aspx What are the critical trends that a society is de-evolving?
  3. What culture are you talking about? There are many aspects of culture that have evolved and continue to evolve in a positive direction. The pursuit of scientific knowledge has provided many great benefits that we experience every day. Here in the US racism and homophobia (although very much alive) are seen as negative traits. Women are enjoying greater job opportunities. Our communities are becoming more diverse. At a human level we are becoming more accepting of others, regardless of appearance, sexual preference or religion. This is actually a good thing for humanity. Or would you argue that a community with enforced divisions and separate classes builds a more harmonious society? Your question really seems to be “why is Christianity and its set of morals failing?”
  4. Nothing dodged - the rest of your post was irrelevant. Disingenuous posts are irrelevant in discussions? Now why would anyone want to continue participating in a discussion when honesty is not a given? Please note these are rhetorical questions.
  5. My request of Waldoz to critique the work stemmed from his dismissing the post without providing any clue as to why he rejected it, as it turns out he didn't even read it. His dismissal was a deceitful. Here's a link I referenced about common descent. A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry Douglas L. Theobald http://theobald.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Theobald_2010_Nature_all.pdf I don't think a surface level treatment of a subject is a waste of time because false and invalid claims are worth addressing.
  6. You are still missing the boat – Darwinism is philosophy dressed up like science and I reject mythology presented as science. I am not sure you could convince a Darwinist that the ToE is fact. I like how you dodged the rest of my post. {{{{removed personal attack please review ToS}}}}
  7. As noted - we can settle the matter right here on this thread. Present the required evidence that demonstrates man and chimp have a common ancestor. Listen...the sound of silence... Can you be more disingenuous and irrational? I've presented research and as you admitted in a post above you didn’t even read it. So audience here’s what we have…. Waldoz says provide evidence I post scientific research providing evidence. Waldoz refuses to read it Waldoz then claims I haven’t presented evidence That is Waldoz's level of discourse. Waldoz, your objection to evolution is really philosophical, that's why you keep posting other people's opinions ad nauseum, but the trouble for you is that you fail to provide your case because your objections are fallacious. You can’t even present a valid philosophical objection to evolution, your appeals to authority, circular reasoning, appeals to popularity, etc… will never add up to a VALID argument, DON’T YOU GET THAT? Now Waldoz, do I think I can convince you that Theory of Evolution is a fact? No, you’re deeply blinded with fallacious reasoning and incapable of objectivity. Those are facts that anyone reading these threads can verify. Why should your objections be taken seriously?
  8. No, there's simply no valid content to your posts about evolution. As I've repeatedly shown your objections are fallacious, shallow and unscientific.
  9. Again, you miss the irony here - the judge allows the corrupt Darwinian mythology that is passed off as science in the classroom and many Christians try (unsuccessfully) to blend the Judeo-Christian tradition of a Creator-God with the leading atheistic creation myth but it can't be done. There are no surprises there - what else do you have since you have failed to support your myth on this thread or is that about it? What a hilarious and absurd interpretation! Yes, you're smirk is a devastating blow to evolution.
  10. As already noted – Dover was all about politics, political correctness and the hijacking of a small and insignificant part of science by scientists of the atheist type. No, it was about a school board letting IDers introduce a corrupt, unscientific concept into the science classroom. YOU REALIZE THE LEAD WITNESS WAS A CHRISTIAN, RIGHT?
  11. LOL - you belittle a philosopher of science in matters of science but you hang your hat on a judge's ruling in Dover. You gotta love the irony. We can settle the matter right here on this thread. I have challenged you before to present the required evidence that demonstrates man and chimp have a common ancestor. All you could do was hang your head down and run away with your pockets empty. So one more time--give us what you have but please don't embarrass yourself again by demonstrating you are in way over your head. You're up, amigo. I belittle your continued appeals to authority - this is a fallacy, get that through your head. When you get an understanding of what fallacies are go back and read your posts and you will find them littered with fallacies. You asked for facts about the Discovery Institute's deceit and I presented them clearly. This is not an appeal to authority, that was an actual trail in which the Discovery Institute (DI) attempted to pass off ID as science and THEY UTTERLY FAILED. The judge saw it for what it was, an attempt to insert religion into the science curriculum. DI FAILED to support their claim. They are not interested in science, they are interested in religion that is why they seek public appeal. You can put your fingers in your ears all you want about this but all you have to do is read their history and their association with the Wedge document to understand what they are. I presented two studies that answered your common ancestry question - I did this twice; that you ignore them or hand wave them away is your problem. Search my posts and find them. Are you an IDer? Are you a supporter of the Discovery Institute?
  12. I comprehend that your ‘logic’ has slipped a cog, partner and the truth remains true—hundreds of PhD scientists have examined Darwinism and decided to become ‘scientifically informed doubters of Darwinian theories of evolution’. They have gone where the evidence leads and determined that scientifically Darwinism is a failed concept – the “great white elephant of contemporary thought”… “Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought..it is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.” ~ David Berlinski, mathematician and philosopher of science Oh, look what a mathmetician/philosopher says about the Theory of Evolution! You really love fallacies don't you? {{{{ Removed video link: Please submit videos in the video forum for approval. Thank you. }}}} I find it interesting that you keep avoiding talking about the videos I posted. Especially since the person addressing ID and the TOE is a Christian, Look up the Dover Trial transcripts to read Behe's epic fail regarding the immune system. The Wedge document I linked and quoted shows that science matters very little. A video explaining this... Kenneth R. Miller again. ID is not science... From the ruling conclusion... Are you an ID proponent? Do you sleep in the same bed as the Discovery Institute?
  13. All scientists that I deal with accept biological evolution (100%) but many reject Darwinism because it cannot be supported via the scientific method. It appears you believe in some silly notion that science is a ‘majority rule’ disciple – it is not. Think Galileo Galilei – he was once in the very small minority of scientists who disagreed with the majority, but guess what – he was correct. Are you prepared to discredit each and every scientist who signed the “Dissent from Darwinism Statement”? You are not really capable of that – are you? You will just have to come to grips with reality – there are many scientists who correctly understand that Darwinism is a notion that cannot be supported with real science. Try to move forward. You really don't comprehend much do you? The purpose of the percentages was to debunk your deceitful inference that "many" or "hundreds" was a significant trend. Nice try in your attempted red-herring of majority rule. Ah, Galileo was right card and therefore you may be right? No grand logical leaps there. I particularly like how you don't even address the videos I linked which debunk ID - these are even presented by a scientist who is a Christian. My purpose in bringing up the Discovery Institute is to show they have a record for lying and that their ID is non-scientific.If you chose to lay with them, it shows your criteria for valid sources is really low. Or can you easily forgive their representatives lying in court, their theistic inspired Wedge Document (see link below), their misrepresentation of science. http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html And in case you think that the Wedge Document has nothing to do with the Discovery Institute or that the Discovery Institute is interested in science for the sake of science. Again, your posts are logically corrupt as are your sources.
  14. LOL – tell that to the hundreds of scientist who reject Neo-Darwinism because there is no science to support it. They sound pretty serious to me. You are just bewildered because you have bought into the atheistic creation myth that is passed off as science. Again, there are many repeatable scientists who reject Darwinism for the obvious reasons. You will just have to deal with it. "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Why is it necessary to have such a statement? In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some supporters of modern Darwinian theory to deny the existence of scientific critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open discussion of the scientific evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism. The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement exists to correct the public record by showing that there are scientists who support an open examination of the evidence relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether Neo-Darwinism can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the natural world. Where have you been hiding, Dee - haven't seen you around lately. You misunderstand, he's not saying the people aren't serious. It's the percentage of scientists who are in opposition to evolution is an insignificant amount - 99.9% support evolution. .01% at best don't support it - this is not a serious opposition, Discovery Institute, the organization behind the letter I referenced and whom who seem to hold in high esteem, are known for their deceitful representation of science - see Dover trial. Their effort to shove Intelligent Design down the throats of public schools is a well-documented epic failure. Here's a scientist who is a Christian shooting down ID Kenneth R. Miller. He was a lead witness at Dover. Youtube videos here... {{{{Removed video links: Please submit videos in the video forum for approval. Thank you.}}}}
×
×
  • Create New...