Is it just me?

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
funny, the other side could say the same thing about talkorgins.com..hey mack, your bias is showing might want to cover it up.

talkorigins is at least consistent about showing their work. Most importantly, they'll link to YECS sites.

When one side will link to the other, but not the other way around, 90% of the time, the truth is with the people unafraid of the other side.

 

[LouisBooth]

"When one side will link to the other, but not the other way around, 90% of the time, the truth is with the people unafraid of the other side."

So you're assuming they don't huh? *chuckles*

 

[RufusAtticus]

Hey, Nick could you remind us of your background. I know you work as some sort of Linux journalist right now.

Do you happen to have any working experience in any scientific field relating to evolution?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"When one side will link to the other, but not the other way around, 90% of the time, the truth is with the people unafraid of the other side."

So you're assuming they don't huh? *chuckles*

From my experience they don't. In fact, Nick's own board bans links to "evolutionist" sites like T.O. AiG doesn't allow links to T.O. either.

I couldn't find link pages for AiG or ICR, but compare the links on DrDino versus the links on Talk.Origins

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
*chuckles* I don't think you read the whole thing did you?The point is that the article clearly shows that it is in debate and not concrete at all.

You claimed that the point was that the article showed that evolution was in debate in scientific circles. Apart from biochemist Michael Behe (who did not publish any ID work in scientific circles), the closest they come to talking about controversy in scientific circles is Phillip Johnson - a lawyer.

Its pretty funny that a realistic evolutionist will say that the evidence leans neither way and that evoultion is just their best guess, though not concrete at all and still up for debate.

Which "realistic" evolutionist are you talking about? Is he still alive? What makes him so much more realistic than say, the biology department at the University of Georgia?

but, also the puffed up egos of the evolutionist camp will hold on to it even if proved wrong, which I do beleive will happen eventually

I, personally, believe that general relativity will be proved wrong in a few months or maybe years. But those puffed up astrophysicists are just keep hanging on to it, like it isn't a theory I think should be in crisis. They insist on teaching it in the class room, and won't allow equal time for the little gyroscopics that allow my perpetual motion machine to work! Shame on them!

funny, the other side could say the same thing about talkorgins.com..hey mack, your bias is showing might want to cover it up.

*sigh*

Just for the record, if the unanimity of opinion at talkorigins is not an indication that the theory of evolution is considered sound and beyon debate in scientific circles. In much the same way, dissent at ARN or the Discovery Institute is not an indication that the theory of evolution is debated in scientific circles and not "concrete". TalkOrigins is a great place to go to find good relevant information for the layperson with references to the scientific literature. It isn't a biology department though. Mac philo's point is still sound: your statement is not corroborated by your link.

 

[tycho]

What I admire most about you folks is that you aren't only brilliantly educated in biology, paleontology, etc., but you're also psychic and know the educational backgrounds of everyone who disagrees with you.

"The bible says brown dogs are evil. The bible says short people are unholy." - If I make statements like these, you'ld go ahead & say I don't know much about the bible. Does that make you a psychic?

Now, when someone says "Evolution says X, but that's not true because...", but I know X isn't predicted by the theory of evolution, I feel OK in claiming they don't understand the science of which they speak. What part of this is psychic?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by tycho
"The bible says brown dogs are evil. The bible says short people are unholy." - If I make statements like these, you'ld go ahead & say I don't know much about the bible. Does that make you a psychic?

Apples and oranges. It doesn't take a Bible expert to see if you're right or wrong. Any moron can check the Bible to see if it says anything like that.

The apples-to-apples comparison would be if you claimed that the Bible itself was wrong. Then we'd have something to talk about.

And I wouldn't just dismiss your opinion out of hand if you didn't have a degree from Philadelphia College of Bible.

 

[AtheistArchon]

Apples and oranges. It doesn't take a Bible expert to see if you're right or wrong. Any moron can check the Bible to see if it says anything like that.

- And likewise, any moron could also check evolutionary theory to see if it jibes with what we see in reality.

- Seebs has a point. The discussion has escalated into very fine and technical terms which, if you're not versed in the science of it, is particularly difficult to understand. Thus, most of the people who actually understand it are not surprisingly already convinced that evolution happens. This doesn't mean that he thinks evolution deniers are all uneducated, despite the fact that you took it that way.

- My own beef is that too often, evolutionists are faced with explaining SEVERAL types of science... physics, genetics, statistics, astronomy, cosmology, and so on, in order to answer creationists' attacks, whereas creationists merely have to rely upon one simple hypothesis, "God did it". Doesn't seem very fair to me.

 

[tycho]

And I wouldn't just dismiss your opinion out of hand if you didn't have a degree from Philadelphia College of Bible.

I won't dismiss your opinion due to your lack of credentials. If it is consistent with real world observations, I'll treat it the same as Stephen Hawking's opinion (provided his also is consistent). So, if you want to end the "is not - is so" arguments and get to a real discussion, please stop dismissing me & other posters who don't show the "credentials only" trait.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"That evolution has occured has not been in dispute in the biological community since the late 1800s. "

*sigh* yes, it has and always will be.

http://www.arn.org/docs/fline1297/fl_goodstein.htm

That article does not even dispute what I said.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

Apples and oranges. It doesn't take a Bible expert to see if you're right or wrong. Any moron can check the Bible to see if it says anything like that.

So, for instance, since any moron can see that the Bible prohibits interracial marriages, we should agree that it does?

It turns out that there's a *LOT* of study involved in understanding the Bible. You need context, you need to know about bad translations, you need all sorts of things.

If someone read the Bible and found that it quite unambiguously prohibits mixed marriages, and then concluded that interracial marriage was prohibited by Christian belief, and campaigned against Christianity on that basis... That'd be pretty close to the accuracy of the creationist attacks on evolution I've seen.

Only it'd at least be *sort of* honest, because some Christians *DID* oppose interracial marriages, even fairly recently.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

I couldn't find link pages for AiG or ICR, but compare the links on DrDino versus the links on Talk.Origins

We can make that point even more forcefully:

Recently AiG replied to an email that was sent in by a scientist. They reproduced the whole thing but censored out a link one of The Talk.Origins
Archive's pages. They say they don't "advertize" atheist sites in spite of the fact that many T.O. people are theists. T.O. has several lists of creationist links:

A short list
A long list
A list of creationist articles on human evolution

And of course many articles in T.O. link to creationist sites. The Must Read FAQs even links to two creatinist FAQs.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by ardipithecus
The Must Read FAQs even links to two creatinist FAQs.

Freudian slip?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs So, for instance, since any moron can see that the Bible prohibits interracial marriages, we should agree that it does?

That's not the kind of comparison I was responding to. IMO it doesn't take much study to answer that question, but for the sake of argument, let's say it does.

It's still apples-to-oranges.

Debating whether or not the Bible says something you think it says vs. whether or not an evolution book says something you think it says is apples-to-apples.

 

[tycho]

OK, npetreley, enough with the apples-to-oranges. We get the point that you don't care for analogies unless they're perfect matches. I can accept that. Still, I'd like you to address the issue that started this page-long analogy debate:

Now, when someone says "Evolution says X, but that's not true because...", but I know X isn't predicted by the theory of evolution, I feel OK in claiming they don't understand the science of which they speak. What part of this is psychic?

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?