Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: "Intelligent" Design and other Anti-Science Ra

  1. #1 "Intelligent" Design and other Anti-Science Ra 
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    1) It doesn't fit the data. On many fronts, including for example evolutionary biology, predictions derived from the god-hypothesis have been disproven.
    Bull do do! The ID movment has been swept under the science rug, but not disproven. Like a zombie it will rise, and this time we will not make the same mistakes as before, yes that was a taunt. Sorry, it was a nice taunt?


    Brother, it is science that has been disproved throughout its history! Main stream goverment aproved anti religious tenured science is a pathatic tale of fraud, lies, deception, minus sex and video tape. String
    theory the darling of science cannot make ONE predictive outcome? Oh, must we take this crap on faith?

    Yes, lets be science priests and worship Darwin and his dead wrong theory , with all its window dressings, including, but not limited to the "evolution of life from dead chemicals, the evolution of the universe from nothing on to vomitia?

    Evo of the speicies by nat selec. STILL a theory? If it is fact then after 150 years why is it still a THEORY , why is all of evo. a theory?

    Wake up or should I say arise from the dead and see the universe for what it is. Not the secular humanists doctrine of stupitidy! Well I can see why we are producing the robots of today. Its called programming secular humanism by indoctrination, and by the force of law

    I humbly, and respectfully disagree with your thread entirely

    : } >


    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Still a theory? 150 years and still theory! 
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Evo of the speicies by nat selec. STILL a theory? If it is fact then after 150 years why is it still a THEORY , why is all of evo. a theory?
    From the book Decoding the Universe by Charles Seife:

    When physicists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries found a fundamental rule that the universe seemed to obey, they dubbed it a law. Modern physicists tend not to use the word law, as it implies an infallibility that isn't truly there when you examine the laws closely. That's why quantum mechanics and general relativity tend to be referred to as theories rather than laws, though the two terms can be used (more or less) interchangeably.
    And here you thought you had a point :wink:.




    J0N


    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    And here you thought you had a point
    Yes well , I do have a point! A law is fallible as well! Hmmmmm', maybe to be fair I should say all laws including arithmetical ones are incomplete.

    What your post illustrates clearly is that the difference between a law and a theory is that there are a lots of wiggle room now.



    ; } >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    Nah, I disagree. See, God can exist, it's just that uptight science-hating Christians will change the definiton of God every time you come up with some logic regarding the God already defined.
    Tell me in your wisdom , how has the Christian god changed? I see science changing as a matter of principle having being wrong throughout its history. In other words if you believe a science fact today tomorrow it will be untrue. Religions don't change like that.

    The hypocrisies in your words fairly glow with a neon intensity!

    ; } >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Rev.. I want to react to your posts, but I just can't find anything sensible enough to reply to. I don't mean this as an insult, but have you even bothered to read the other posts?

    All you come up with are taunts (as you admitted yourself) and a very ignorant remark about evolution.. Yes evolution is a theory, as any scientific piece of knowledge! It's a hypothesis which has withstood 150 years of falsification attempts besides collecting an impressive body of evidence for itself, and can therefore be granted the honorary title of Theory. As Jon allready said, there are no scientific laws! Nobody "believes" in evolution, but sensible people just accept it as a very strong theory.

    Anyway this thread was not opened for discussing the evolution theory, we're discussing the rejection (or defence) of the god hypothesis. Please explain to me why the hypothesis that there is a god is sensible and worth discussing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    Rev.. I want to react to your posts, but I just can't find anything sensible enough to reply to. I don't mean this as an insult, but have you even bothered to read the other posts?

    Have I read your posts? No, I don’t read fiction...heh....well, well another thinly veiled personal attack, this comical tactic will not work with me, and it is a common one when a Secular Humanist is debating someone with an Idea that rocks their small world.

    I will not entertain your tired attempts at dodging the question, so read on brother Pendragon….

    Do you deny that these all science laws are incomplete including mathematical laws? I may agree that the second law of thermodynamics is complete, or will not change in our lifetime. What you have a problem with is a weak or nonexistent argument, or perhaps its ignorance of the subject?

    In any case, you could better yourself to admit defeat instead of feigning ignorance. Oh, this is not an insult it is an observation.

    Again let me attempt to clarify this for you. Do you deny that all laws of science and math are incomplete? Theories remain theories because they are incomplete or are pending (a nice word meaning that they are not fact).

    Let’s attempt to be civil and stay on the subject, so as not to waste my time on pathetic attempts at character assassination.

    : } >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    It's a hypothesis which has withstood 150 years of falsification attempts
    ATTEMPTS? Read your history, Piltdown man was a science FACT for about 40 years; I would say that is a success not an attempt.
    This is one of many. Think LUCY in the sky.....do you want me to expose more fraud in science?

    As Jon allready said, there are no scientific laws! Nobody "believes" in evolution, but sensible people just accept it as a very strong theory.

    Ahhhh, this is getting wearily redundant and sad, the key word here minus the adjective embellishment is theory, and this might be a wake up call so brace yourself, you do believe IN a THEORY. How hard is that to understand?

    Really attempting to explain this a obvious fact to you is more difficult that convincing an addict that he has a problem while in full blown denial. Again not an insult, but empirical observed fact (not a theory).

    Please explain to me why the hypothesis that there is a god is sensible and worth discussing.
    Ok try this , again?, nothing begins to exist without a cause, the universe began to exist. The cause was god. ok? If you feel that god was not cause then please elaborate on what you think the cause was for the universe to begin to exist?

    peace?

    : } >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Still a theory? 150 years and still theory! 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Bull do do! The ID movment has been swept under the science rug, but not disproven.
    The 'intelligent' design 'movement' has been dismissed by science because it isn't science. It was never in the domain of science and, therefore, not within the ability of science to 'sweep it under' any rugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Like a zombie it will rise, and this time we will not make the same mistakes as before, yes that was a taunt. Sorry, it was a nice taunt?
    Taunt or not, the mistakes of 'intelligent' design included that it attempted to call itself scientific. There was nothing scientific about it. It failed to be scientific on three main points:

    1) it tried to impose the supernatural and paranormal on the domain of science. Since the supernatural and paranormal cannot be falsified, science disallows supernatural and paranormal explanations.

    2) one of the main positions of ID included the so-called "irreducible complexity" which not only presented a logical fallacy known as false dichotomy, it was shown to be bunk.

    3) ID's poppycock claims have been thoroughly refuted by science and, even if they hadn't, they don't present any positive arguments for ID. ID has not provided a single, testable hypothesis.

    So, if this "zombie" can rise from the dead and correct those mistakes, it'll be worth listening to.

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Brother, it is science that has been disproved throughout its history! Main stream goverment aproved anti religious tenured science is a pathatic tale of fraud, lies, deception, minus sex and video tape.
    This line of poppycock has previously been addressed and you were then unable to successfully support these assertions. Are you still making wild accusations that you cannot support with evidence or cited sources? The sources you attempted to cite were duly and carefully refuted by myself, or have you forgotten.

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Evo of the speicies by nat selec. STILL a theory? If it is fact then after 150 years why is it still a THEORY , why is all of evo. a theory?
    Again, I've explained this to you and others that read if memory serves. I find it hard to believe that so many people in the world seem to go out of their way to avoid educations. Something can be both "theory" and "fact" in science. This is something that even novices in science understand. It is something, however, that ignorant or ambivalent creationist nutbars refuse to acknowledge. If you want to debate, criticize, or even deride science, it might behoove you to at least educate yourself in the basics first.

    The word theory (as I'm almost positive I or another has said in this forum on more than one occasion) in science is not the same as the word "theory" in colloquial speech. A scientific theory is comprised of one or more tested and re-testable hypotheses and may even include laws (Boyle's Law, law of Conservation of Energy, Ideal Gas Law, Planck's Law, Relativity, etc., etc.). A "theory" is an overarching explanation that includes laws and hypotheses.

    It isn't a wild-ass speculation like "god did it."

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Not the secular humanists doctrine of stupitidy!
    I challenge you to qualify that statement about secular humanism. What in the "doctrine" of secular humanism is "stupid" that can be quantifiably criticized?

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    I humbly, and respectfully disagree with your thread entirely
    The anti-science nutbars would probably agree with you. They, however, will have no compulsion against filling their SUVs up with petroleum, using their computers to post their anti-science rants, cook in their microwave ovens, watch Mission Impossible 3 on their home theaters, etc -all creature comforts developed by the same scientific method that demonstrates the fact of evolution.

    To Pendragon, my apologies for hijacking your thread, but I couldn't let the comments above go un-refuted. Perhaps a split at the point where REV posted might be in order. I'll leave that to your call.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    The 'intelligent' design 'movement' has been dismissed by science because it isn't science. It was never in the domain of science and, therefore, not within the ability of science to 'sweep it under' any rugs.
    Hmmm’you miss the point entirely. Some science is not science, or at the very best is bad science. Science is ID phobic. A more accurate statement would science is idea phobic. The ID movement will prevail if for no other reason other than that the aging of the population and its values becoming more conservative and right wing as the baby boomers face death, and god. With that said, history will see the era of 1930-2025 (at the latest) as the dark age of science, much like the inquisitional age of the medieval era when the church was the limiting factor for the quest of knowledge. Tenured institutional government mandated science is acting as a hindrance to knowledge today.

    This line of poppycock has previously been addressed
    This poppycock, brother skinwalker is true poppycock, and you are in denial, however that is understandable when ones paradigm is failing.


    It failed to be scientific on three main points:
    Read Kansas school system, next the world, that’s why I call it a zombie, and this is just the first zombie in a league of thousands, in the legion of the undead...hmmm I like that...Thank you god for federal government nose thumbing states. The students will be exposed to more than one (decrepit and false) idea about the reality of the universe. (Gasp! Two ideas, heresy , burn those ID phreaks !)

    I challenge you to qualify that statement about secular humanism. What in the "doctrine" of secular humanism is "stupid" that can be quantifiably criticized?
    Sorry, stupid is inaccurate, to say that it thrives on ignorance and apathy would be an exponentially more correct! I consider the ramifications of SH threat to national security when given the government protections it enjoys today.

    anti-science nutbars


    This Mr. Goodbar (nutbar) isn’t anti science. I am against the exclusivity and government mandated doctrine being force fed by law to my children, among other things. The pathology of denial of truth that SC and its proponents reek of is evident to anyone who is not addicted to its lies.

    ; { >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    peace?
    looks like its gonna be peace thru' close combat, thats ok , Im a vet.

    ; { >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    There is only one reality, and all of this reality is in principle knowable and observable (however complicated that may be in practise). Things that cannot exist in the knowable and observable reality (in other words, things that don't exist in the realm of science) simply do not exist.

    You ,Pendragon , are a series of contradictions, and have lost the ability for abstract thought as well as critical reasoning. Perhaps it is best if you don't attempt to answer my posts because it’s obvious that your only goal is harm, and deceit.

    I would hug you and pat you on the back, because these juvenile malicious agendas originate from fear. In this case it is fear of the truth.
    However you may speak when you have a constructive Idea, rather than whistling in the dark. I do understand that to ask you to understand religious concept would be cruel, as this task is beyond your mental abilities. Stick to middle school science and your world will be secure.

    Yours in science and religious faith…… : { >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Ahhhh, this is getting wearily redundant and sad, the key word here minus the adjective embellishment is theory, and this might be a wake up call so brace yourself, you do believe IN a THEORY. How hard is that to understand?
    So? a theory in science isnt like a theory in public, theory ahve diffirent meanings there.

    The ID movement will prevail if for no other reason other than that the aging of the population and its values becoming more conservative and right wing as the baby boomers face death, and god
    ID movement wont prevail for the simple reason they have no proof, nothing taht supports their ideas, and is just religion.

    With that said, history will see the era of 1930-2025 (at the latest) as the dark age of science, much like the inquisitional age of the medieval era when the church was the limiting factor for the quest of knowledge. Tenured institutional government mandated science is acting as a hindrance to knowledge today.
    Oh, so in english dark age have all of a sudden gotten the meaning of golden age? facinating. Its absolutly facinating how 2 concepts trade meanigns in a few days, jsut facinating

    but if we shall do as the bible says, lets kill homos, sell our doughters MOHAHAHA, you can then make a fortune on selling your doughters, make your wife a doughter factory
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    Zelos!

    Be a good SH scientist and say after me...a theory is a theory is a theory...is a theory that means it’s not a FACT.... not a fact! Is a fact is a fact, in fact and only the facts. Some theory must be taken on faith....why? Because they are theory not fact...read string theory...A law is a law is a law. Is a LAW. However according to some delusional members here laws do not exist in science!
    Excuse me, what is the 2nd law of thermodynamics? I will tell you that it’s not its not the and 2nd theory of thermodynamics....as I said redundant....
    Is this too problematical for the SH and other anti religious folk to understand?

    ID movement won’t prevail for the simple reason they have no proof, nothing that supports their ideas, and is just religion.

    I will be nice and suggest that you read more about ID; it can be religion based or have no religious background. ID supporters range from PhD's with multiple doctorates, to holy rollers to Physicists to astronomers to. The Jesus Christ.…

    but if we shall do as the bible says, lets kill homos, sell our doughters MOHAHAHA, you can then make a fortune on selling your doughters, make your wife a doughter factory
    Again your lack of basic knowledge of theory is fairly blinding. And would be funny if it were a aberration, however amongst SH this ignorance is common. Jesus did not condemn ones sexual orientation anywhere in the NT. You have MUCH reading to do before inserting foot in mouth again. Your age has tempered my response....to nearly niceness....heh


    : { >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    To all those that find their way to this thread through Google and other search engines:

    Please note the obvious ignorance of anti-science posters like Rev Roswell in this and other forums.

    They seem to think that the definition of "theory" in science somehow equates with speculation or, perhaps, even hypothesis.

    A scientific theory is an overarching explanation of a phenomenon or set of phenomena that includes one or more tested hypotheses, laws and others assertions about the phenomena such as predictions and inferences.

    The under-educated among us, particularly those who have an anti-science belief system engage in many logical fallacies with regard to the term "theory," and attempt to use the colloquial term -which isn't in use with science- to muddy the waters and seed doubt.

    In the end, anti-science nutters nearly always fail to make any positive assertions or arguments for their given belief in supernatural, paranormal, or pseudoscience. Instead, they rely on fallacies like false dichotomies, arguments from ignorance, non sequiturs and straw man arguments.

    The anti-science crowd, of which Rev Roswell is clearly a member, want to seed doubt because science rejects their given beliefs. In Rev's case it is his fundamentalist beliefs of the Christian Bible. Millions of Christians have no problem reconciling their religious and spiritual beliefs with science, but a few -probably the most under-educated among us- seem threatened by the fact that science refuses to acknowledge the supernatural as a valid explanation for what is observed.

    Rev Roswell's weak assertions have been thoroughly debunked and refuted elsewhere in this forum. Rev failed to respond to these refutations with any logical or reasoned arguments.

    My apologies if it appears that I'm raking a member over the coals, but it is Rev's arguments and assertions that I'm criticizing. I'm sure he's a good person and I respect his willingness to stand up for what he believes. His beliefs, however, are not grounded in reason and logic, but are based on "faith" -that willingness to believe without the benefit of evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    You ,Pendragon , are a series of contradictions, and have lost the ability for abstract thought as well as critical reasoning. Perhaps it is best if you don't attempt to answer my posts because it’s obvious that your only goal is harm, and deceit.

    I would hug you and pat you on the back, because these juvenile malicious agendas originate from fear. In this case it is fear of the truth.
    However you may speak when you have a constructive Idea, rather than whistling in the dark. I do understand that to ask you to understand religious concept would be cruel, as this task is beyond your mental abilities. Stick to middle school science and your world will be secure.

    Yours in science and religious faith
    This is a lot of useless rhetoric and ad hominem remarks without a single bit of valid criticism. If this is the best you can offer, your immature behavior and unsupported rhetoric will show you to be hot air and nothing more. Nothing personal, but I'm hoping to encourage you to actually support your obvious discontent and critical perspective with actual dialog and not simply the immature [i]"naah, your wronger" approach.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    I will not post again in this thread. The atmosphere is not conductive to debate and is morphing into personal BS.

    : } >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    I will not post again in this thread. The atmosphere is not conductive to debate and is morphing into personal BS.

    : } >
    _________________
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    It was in another thread where you also left once your assertions were debunked.

    A lesson to be learned: don't posit arguments that aren't based in reason or fact, which you cannot support.

    This post was originally posted in this thread and has been re-posted here for continuity

    Originally Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:55 am

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Is this the same skinwalker mod that locked my post? Oh brother skinwalker , I will indulge your leading question
    The question was honest and to the point. The answer, however, is deceptive and misleading. I am, indeed, the moderator that closed the thread, which degenerated from discussion to petty bickering and invited participants to start new threads on topics they seemed passionate about.


    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Scientific Frauds in the last one hundred years in addition to the 40 year FRAUD of piltdown man.
    It would seem that piltdown is one of the only two actual "frauds" you mention here and the only one that come close to being originated by a scientist. If you could refer to Charles Dawson as a legitimate scientist and not simply an antiquarian. Antiquarianism, you see, was a significant problem for archaeology in the post-Victorian era. But you conveniently omit that it was science and scientists that corrected the hoax we know as "Piltdown."

    Indeed, it was science that filtered, corrected, and otherwise revised each of the cases you mention, which look as though they are lifted from some religious nutbar's creationist website. Leaving me to conclude that Ophiolite characterization of your understanding of science as "infantile" to be correct, though I'm sure you'll take that as an ad hominem comment rather than an observational criticism that happens to be accurate. "Infantile" in the sense that your understanding of how science works is immature and could be improved upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Java Man FRAUD
    "Fraud" refers to the intention to deceive. I fail to see where science or scientists have done so with regard to Java man. The data are clear on the find: a braincase of about 815 cc; size and morphology consistent with Homo erectus. It would see that your understanding of primate evolution, adaptation and morphology is as infantile as your understanding of the usage of the term "fraud." If not, then it was a simple regurgitation of some creationist nutbar's website or book without bothering to look at the data which are actually present.

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Nebraska man FRAUD A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922
    Again, I'm not sure what the "fraud" part is. There was no intention to deceive. Anyone who has actually read the data that Osborn wrote in his paper (1922) would see that this was the hypothesis of a single investigator employing the means at his disposal. Moreover, Osborn was careful not to make undo claims of human ancestory or to refer to the find as evidence of an ape-man. It was the popular media, not the scientific establishment that made this leap. Osborne merely described the tooth as primate.

    Osborn was wrong and very much a minority in his assessment (the wonders of peer review). In fact, George MacGurdy, a figure well-respected in anthropology even today, completely dismissed the claim by Osborn, citing a the poor sample. And, just a few short years after Osborn's claim was published, science officially corrected itself by correctly identifying the tooth (Gregory 1927).

    It would seem that, in this case there is no "fraud" and, secondly, science corrected itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Orce man:FRAUD Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982.
    Again, you say "fraud" as if there is some intent to deceive, yet you don't say what the "fraud" is, exactly with regard to Orce Man. But, if we are to continue in our assumption that you are copy/pasting from some creationist nutbar's website, we can proceed with the usual creationist nutbar claim: that Orce Man is presented by science as evidence of hominid species when it is actually equine.

    This is actually a debate that has not been settled, and may not until new data is arrived at. Initially, a couple of researchers used fractal analysis to determine that the skull fragment that was recovered is most likely human. Later, one of these two researchers discovered that the methodology used at arriving at this assessment may have been faulty and that the skull may be equine in origin.

    What's relevant here is that science is saying it doesn't know! There is no grand claim bent on defrauding the world as creationist nutbars would have us believe. Indeed, to suggest that there is, is fraud in and of itself. The fraud here is attempting to deceive the lay-person that science is making a false claim. If this were the case, would we truly expect to see one of the researchers attempt to correct his own conclusion?

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Or consider a scientists who fancied himself an artist, Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings FRAUD...
    True (by the way, it's Haeckel). His drawings from the 19th century were wrong and he knew he was being inaccurate. But when this was discovered, authors began using other drawings and stopped using his. Moreover, many scientists over the years have thoroughly discussed the problems with Haeckel's drawings and his theory. Off the top of my head, I recall Gould's book Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977).

    The continued mention of Haeckel by creationist nutbars represents the logical fallacy of ad hoc reasoning (as do each of these cases), where it is assumed that because a single person of science has a wrong opinion or presents data of poor scholarship, then science itself is the problem. But it is science that has policed itself in each and every case.

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Brontosaurus FRAUD.... One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed as postulated. A collage of bones that.
    The dinosaur that was called brontosaurus did exist -and it's fossil remains still do. The researcher who examined it was unaware that it was of the same Genera as the Apatosaurus ajax, discovered in 1877. The "Brontosauraus" was initially thought to be a separate genera, and was discovered in 1879. Further examination and data led researchers to reclassify the genera to that of Apatosaurus 30 years later and the species was re-designated A. excelsus. The original name of "Brontosaurus" stuck with popular culture and is still incorrectly in use today.

    Only an infantile understanding of science could possibly see "fraud" in this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    Want something more recent? Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis:
    Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.
    Again, only an infantile understanding of science and the issue of this case would lead one to see scientific "fraud." The Archaeoraptor was, indeed, fraudulently passed off as legitimate. But it was the scholarship of science that refused to accept it. The article that the popular magazine National Geographic ran was based upon a paper that was presented and summarily rejected by two of the leading scientific journals: Science and Nature. The poo-poo is on popular media and the ignorance of the layperson willing to accept claims without provenience and validity.

    Quote Originally Posted by REV ROSWELL
    The New age Secular Scientists are [...] [t]he Storm troopers of our and the worlds science nazi party!
    This rhetoric would appear to have the effect of further classifying your understanding of science and scholarship as infantile. Not only have you failed to support this derision, you've effectively argued against it with your copy/paste of the creationist propaganda above, since each of these are evidence of how effective science is at policing and reviewing itself.

    But in the end, we're back to my question. I asked if you could support the claim of "most" or even "much" of "science facts change to lies or untruth so they are myth at best."

    Not only did you fail to do so. You failed miserably by showing only a few cases in which science has been successful in revising itself appropriately in light of new evidence. There is no qualification of the usage the terms "most," "much," or "fraud." What remains in an intellectually dishonest attempt at derision of science for reasons we are left to infer. My personal inference would be that the house of cards you call a worldview hinges on certain scientific facts being wrong, therefore the employment of logical fallacies like special pleading (a.k.a. ad hoc reasoning) are needed to devalue science as a whole.

    I'm satisfied that science, as a method, is safe from the infantile ramblings of its detractors.

    References:

    Gibert, J. & Palmqvist, P. (1995). Fractal analysis of the Orce skull sutures. Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 28, pp. 561-75.

    Gould, Stephen J. (1977). Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge: Belknap Press

    Gregory, WK (1927). Hesperopithecus apparently not an ape nor a man. Science, vol. 66, pp. 579-81

    MacCurdy, George (1924) Human Origins. A Manual of Prehistory (in 2 volumes). New York: D. Appleton and Company

    Osborn, HF (1922). Hesperopithecus, the anthropoid primate of western Nebraska. Nature, vol. 110, pp. 281-3

    Palmqvist, P (1997). A critical re-evaluation of the evidence for the presence of hominids in lower Pleistocene times at Venta Micena, southern Spain. Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 33, pp. 83-9.
    Rev Roswell followed up with this:

    Originally Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:43 pm

    So we must agree to disagree. I feel the intent to fraud was there, and that the secular science machine applies the academic peer type thumbscrews to keep their obedient (like you skinwalker)bot in line, which causes mistakes and fraud. A lie is a lie. There are many lies and fraud on the record for all to see, you use smoke and mirrors to attempt deception, to fool the layperson whom you seem to blame for all this humanists secular science BS. Its the leaders, just as Hitler was the leader of the SS, and lied to his people while he exterminated the Jewish scapegoats with apparent glee, and all were murdered using the rule of secular humanist state law!

    I do believe that the Secular Humanists paradigm is coming to a close, thank God.
    To which I responded:

    Originally Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:03 pm

    Quote Originally Posted by Rev Roswell
    I feel the intent to fraud was there,
    And yet there is no evidence. Furthermore, you've fallen drastically short of demonstrating "fraud" that qualifies as "most" or as "much" of science. What are current data which you find to be "fraudulent?" What is the evidence to support the assertion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rev Roswell
    and that the secular science machine applies the academic peer type thumbscrews to keep their obedient (like you skinwalker)bot in line, which causes mistakes and fraud. A lie is a lie. There are many lies and fraud on the record for all to see, you use smoke and mirrors to attempt deception, to fool the layperson whom you seem to blame for all this humanists secular science BS.
    What's fascinating here is your vernacular. I find it alarmingly similar to that of pseudoscience proponents and conspiracy theorists. They frequently deride skeptics and scientist who refuse to buy into their schtick as being part of some "establishment" that is out to suppress "true knowledge," yada, yada.

    And for all your weak attempts to criticize me et al for using "smoke and mirrors to attempt deception" and similar nonsense assertions, let me remind you that I was at least willing to provide sources of reference to back my words. I didn't copy/paste the rhetoric or propaganda from some website, but gave real, tangible sources that can be accessed by anyone with a decent library at their disposal. Moreover, the sources I provided were relevant and in context.

    I'm confident that the "layperson" who reads this thread will see who is being deceptive and vague among us; who is willing to muddy the waters and resort to logical fallacy after logical fallacy in the attempt to make their point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rev Roswell
    Its the leaders, just as Hitler was the leader of the SS, and lied to his people while he exterminated the Jewish scapegoats with apparent glee, and all were murdered using the rule of secular humanist state law!
    None of that paragraph has any sense in it. Playing the Hitler card in a discussion about science and religion is really a stretch, is it not? I'll not bother to mention that Hitler was trying live up to the genocidal and homicidal mythology of Moses and others of the Old Testament, hints of which is seen in Mein Kampf as Hitler confirms his Christian beliefs and up-bringing.

    Rhetoric like yours relies on too much logical fallacy to be taken seriously. One non sequitur after another as you attempt to deride those that dare to think critically and question the very nature of the superstitions you apparently bank your entire life upon. Those superstitions are your business. If they work for you; provide you with comfort and security -more power to you. I only respond here because you dare to assert them as supreme and necessary and dare to deride those that subscribe to other superstitions or none at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rev Roswell
    I do believe that the Secular Humanists paradigm is coming to a close, thank God.
    None of your other beliefs have been shown to have any evidence, why should this one be accepted?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rev Roswell
    ps while some answers may seem ummmm' what was the word you used, I think it was infantile, to you, these answers are intended to appeal to the general reader,
    What makes you think the "general reader" of a science forum is incapable of intellectual discourse? You go on and keep talking down to the "general reader." I'll go on thinking a bit more highly of them if you don't mind. I think we have among the more intelligent and capable membership of several other boards I've visited. They don't need infantile arguments and explanations. They want to apply their intellects and not have others "lower themselves to their level" in the presumptuous manner you suggest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    I think the story of the atom is applicable here...

    Even if theory had, in science, its meaning in the non-scientific community, that doesn't mean it is false...simply that it has some more distance to go. For example: the atom was first theorized around 500 BC, but it wasn't until a few millenia later that we actually had any proof...

    If it takes two millenia to convince everyone of evolution, does that make it any less correct right now?

    (NOTE: I will also PM this to REV as it seems he has decided to neglect this thread)...

    -Ajain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman Leukocyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    56
    I will not post again in this thread. The atmosphere is not conductive to debate and is morphing into personal BS.
    You hardly had any solid points to begin with. You've done this all before. Are you bored and just trying to stir people up?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •