Political Games - Where the fuck’s the reset button?

• Home
• “Who is this nutcase?”
• Disclaimer
• HighSpeedHalo Resources
• President 2008

11 Responses

1. Dissent Says:
   March 26th, 2006 at 11:32 pm

   Steve, perhaps you’re not aware that there are more than 500 scientists who have expresses their dissent

2. Dissent Says:
   March 26th, 2006 at 11:41 pm

   Steve, perhaps you’re not aware that there are more than 500 scientists who have expressed their dissent regarding the Darwinian Theory that atheists seem to have accepted as a scientific law rather than merely an unproven theory at the most.

   Please see - http://dissentfromdarwin.org

   Please see - http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

   The list includes a scientist from your school - Notre Dame - William Russell Belding, Ph. D.

   You seem to struggle with the fact that others can see what you cannot. ‘Tis a shame.

   A passerby…

3. Dissent Says:
   March 27th, 2006 at 2:35 am

   Steve, perhaps you’re not aware that there are more than 500 scientists who have expressed their dissent regarding the Darwinian Theory that atheists seem to have accepted as a scientific law rather than merely an unproven theory at the most.

   Please see - http://dissentfromdarwin.org

   Please see - http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

   The list includes a scientist from your school - Notre Dame - William Russell Belding, Ph. D.

   You seem to struggle with the fact that others can see what you cannot. ‘Tis a shame.

   A passerby…

4. Steve Says:
   March 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pm

   Hello, and welcome passerby.

   Your links mean I can’t really take you seriously as you don’t even discuss any valid arguments. 500 scientists reject ‘Darwinism’, eh? Awesome; good thing Darwinism isn’t a major scientific theory.

   The entire creationism/ID movement is based around one thing: Appeal to Authority. For anyone not familiar with it, it’s a logical fallacy whereby because someone is in a position of power, anything they say must be right. That’s, of course, crap. Even if this was a valid argument, ID would lose, soundly, as there are more than 500 “scientists” [mmm nice vague term…] at the University of Notre Dame, Purdue, and Indiana [main campus], let alone the United States, let alone the planet.

   The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Or in this case, the evidence. PZ Myers is a biologist who presented the evidence that has been gathered from decades of serious research. What do IDists offer besides vague philosophical meanderings on irreducible complexity, linguistic confusion over the meaning of ‘theory’, and unintelligible rantings against materialism/naturalism.

   Hm, no Dr. Belding in the Bio department. Or Chem. Or Math. Or Physics. Hm, that’s the whole science department. What the hell Department is this guy in?

   You’re fun to play with. I hope you come back. Awwww, a wingnut of my very own. Can I keep him Daddy? Can I?

5. Steve Says:
   March 27th, 2006 at 2:57 pm

   Haha I found him! He’s a graduate from Notre Dame, 1972. I can’t find anything else about him, but he is listed in the Mathematics Genealogy Project at North Dakota State University.

6. Dissent Says:
   March 27th, 2006 at 11:28 pm

   Steve, one of our greatest scientists Albert Einstein also saw the light as do the 500+ current scientists that you simply dismiss despite their advanced educations at leading colleges and universities. He distrusted authority like you yet he was able to remain critical with his thinking rather than falling prey to skepticism as discussed in the article below.

   (http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm)

   A passerby…

7. Steve Says:
   March 28th, 2006 at 1:37 pm

   Argument from Authority again.

   Einstein, of course, never argued against the ToE; he did, however, believe in the existence of a higher power. That of course is his right as human being. Nonetheless, I fail to see what this has to do with a theory that has centuries of research behind it to back it up.

   Perhaps you could tell me what scientific research IDists have done in the past couple decades in the pursuit of proving their… idea. What mechanisms do they propose? How should we detect intelligent design?

   And to repeat myself, it matters jack shit what a fraction of a percent of the relevant scientific community says; what matters is what the evidence says. And the evidence, as it stands today, clearly points in favor of evolution.

8. Dissent Says:
   March 28th, 2006 at 2:20 pm

   Steve, okay, I guess you’re going for the usual Argumentum ad Ignorantiam tactic here. This is the default fallacy. It is also called the “argument addressed to ignorance.” Since one position cannot be proven, it must be the other; since no other position has been proven, ours must be the right one.

   How can you say that there are “centuries of research” to back up ToE when it was only proposed in the mid 1800’s? Isn’t that less than two centuries to explore this unproven theory.

   Regarding evidence, what about all of the evidence against evolution or is that to be simply dismissed also?

   The Law of Thermodynamics is a good one indeed - “If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.” “Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder. ”

   Likewise, we have Laws of Probability which would also say “no” to evolution.

   “Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say ‘The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

   Just a passerby…

9. Steve Says:
   March 28th, 2006 at 3:59 pm

   Centuries of research: 19th + 20th + beginning of 21st. The theory’s been around for about 150 years, and thus has existed for more than one century. Stop playing semantics.

   Regarding the law of thermodynamics, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of its application. See here. And here. And here.

   Regarding probability, this is another commonly-used creationist claim. It’s false. See here. And here. And here. And here.

   Regarding the assertion that there is no evidence for evolution, that is just plain wrong, as I will demonstrate in a new post. We can continue the discussion regarding that in comments there. However, I will point out that you have not submitted one iota proving creation science, or even specifying how creation science works. You have merely provided misguided objections to evolution, which I have answered.

10. fundamentalChristiansLOVETheirEnemies Says:
    April 8th, 2006 at 10:32 am

    it just seems to me that with such a multitude of organisms, that one not controlled by some intelligence, would simply take over the world kinda thing. that there are so many counters to this or that, things that by evolutions standpoint should take a dozen or even a century or two to adjust… thinking of insects, or disease in particular. ants do well…. but why hasn’t there been something that simply has an exponential growth so much so that it annhilates everything else? - which would in turn restore us to a supposedly ‘prechambrian’ era.

    i really need to play with carbon dating/do research on various things… had a friend recently tried to explain to me that much of history is being rewritten. just caught my attention a little more the other day watching a documentary on ‘the bogman’ - the metal in his necklace wasn’t supposedly used for several centuries further

    noone should have blind faith - creationists or evolutionists ;P think.

11. Steve Says:
    April 9th, 2006 at 11:05 pm

    You mean like humans? I think I linked elsewhere to an article on Punctuated Equilibria. It’s worth a read.

    And trust me, I certainly have no blind faith… in anything.

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.