Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
ParkBoyz

ParkBoyz

Sicc OG
#22
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#22
ThaG said:
@ParkBoyz - you never said what type of system the Earth is and this is a problem. You didn't answer my question about whether you have ever had any good education in physics or not. It is very relevant to the discussion for you're not qualified to make claims about thermodynamics if you don't understand it to begin with
Click to expand...
Me said:
Irrelevant to the content of the discussion. This is how this works G.. If you can and are able to refute an assertion that I actually make, please feel free to offer a rebuttal but my personal life is immaterial to this discussion.
Click to expand...
Stop talking shit about critical thinking, both you and HERESY clearly lack it if you are ready to support creationism.
Click to expand...
I can say the same thing about you, this argument is childish..

Where is your critical thinking when it comes to creationism? Every little gap of understanding, small hole in a scientific theory, or incompleteness of knowledge are sufficient for you to make a huge issue out of it. Don't you see the holes in creationism? These are huuuuge holes to say the least. I want to see your critical thinking working on them...
Click to expand...
I see no huge holes in creationism actually, this is an overstatement on your part used to enhance your argument. "Huge issues" are made out of the holes exposed in evolution theory because propagandists like you desperately want sound minds to ignore them.


All the evidence points toward evolution, not creation. Yet people like you who claim to be able to think critically are ready to take on faith a fairy tale about creation that does not agree with the evidence at all (no matter which particular fairy tale it is), and then go and tell the people who use this magic thing "critical thinking" every day in their work to reveal the secrets of nature that they lack critical thinking.
Click to expand...
Actually the only supposed "holes" in creationism are actually only components of the theory of evolution. Critically I take the issues beyond the earth sciences in oder to draw some type of conclusion from a multi-disciplinary approach, which is something you obviously do not do given your 1 dimension approach and appeals to cellular biology. Your thought process is limited so there is actually no comparison to be made, you lack critical thought, plain and simple. You are a drone..

I am telling you that 20% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth and this means most Americans are dumb, You tell me 20% isn't most. Don't you realize that this such a gross ignorance that 20% is a horrifying number? The other 80% might know it, but they sure don't know many other basic things. This is not critical thinking, this is not thinking at all.
Click to expand...
Actually 20% again is not most and it just dawned on me that these are not cited claims and are coming from an untrustworthy liar, I need a source!



Yes, the IQ test isn't 100% objective, yes, the scale is not 100% linear. The point remains though and if you ever get to the level of the person with the high IQ (mine is above or right at the boundary of what the first IQ test can measure (145-150, I haven't taken any higher level test), if that is of any interest for you), you will understand why I say the highly intelligent person is as smarter than the dumb one as the dumb one is smarter than a chimp. For a chimp brain isn't fundamentally different than a human one and there are plenty of retarded humans out there who are not definitely not smarter than a chimp
Click to expand...
^You're an idiot..:rolleyes:
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#24
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#24
ParkBoyz said:
I see no huge holes in creationism actually, this is an overstatement on your part used to enhance your argument. "Huge issues" are made out of the holes exposed in evolution theory because propagandists like you desperately want sound minds to ignore them.
Click to expand...
LMAO!!!!!!!!!

In contrast to the vague idea and well-protected by the impossibility to test it idea of a "supreme God", creationism makes some very specific claims

One of them is that the Earth is 6000 years old. In fact it is 4.56 billion years old. Isn't this a hole.....


Actually the only supposed "holes" in creationism are actually only components of the theory of evolution. Critically I take the issues beyond the earth sciences in oder to draw some type of conclusion from a multi-disciplinary approach, which is something you obviously do not do given your 1 dimension approach and appeals to cellular biology. Your thought process is limited so there is actually no comparison to be made, you lack critical thought, plain and simple. You are a drone..
Click to expand...
Really? Evolution only? What about EAPS (Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences), Physics, Chemistry and the whole Biology (=Evolution)?

Multidisciplinary approach...

LMFAO.......


Actually 20% again is not most and it just dawned on me that these are not cited claims and are coming from an untrustworthy liar, I need a source!
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070

CHICAGO - When Jon D. Miller looks out across America, which he can almost do from his 18th-floor office at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, he sees a landscape of haves and have-nots - in terms not of money, but of knowledge.

Dr. Miller, 63, a political scientist who directs the Center for Biomedical Communications at the medical school, studies how much Americans know about science and what they think about it. His findings are not encouraging.

While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," he said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.

Over the last three decades, Dr. Miller has regularly surveyed his fellow citizens for clients as diverse as the National Science Foundation, European government agencies and the Lance Armstrong Foundation. People who track Americans' attitudes toward science routinely cite his deep knowledge and long track record.

"I think we should pay attention to him," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, who cites Dr. Miller's work in her efforts to advance the cause of evolution in the classroom. "We ignore public understanding of science at our peril."

Rolf F. Lehming, who directs the science foundation's surveys on understanding of science, calls him "absolutely authoritative."

Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

At one time, this kind of ignorance may not have meant much for the nation's public life. Dr. Miller, who has delved into 18th-century records of New England town meetings, said that back then, it was enough "if you knew where the bridge should be built, if you knew where the fence should be built."

"Even if you could not read and write, and most New England residents could not read or write," he went on, "you could still be a pretty effective citizen."

No more. "Acid rain, nuclear power, infectious diseases - the world is a little different," he said.

It was the nuclear power issue that first got him interested in public knowledge of science, when he was a graduate student in the 1960's. "The issue then was nuclear power," he said. "I used to play tennis with some engineers who were very pro-nuclear, and I was dating a person who was very anti-nuclear. I started doing some reading and discovered that if you don't know a little science it was hard to follow these debates. A lot of journalism would not make sense to you."

Devising good tests to measure scientific knowledge is not simple. Questions about values and attitudes can be asked again and again over the years because they will be understood the same way by everyone who hears them; for example, Dr. Miller's surveys regularly ask people whether they agree that science and technology make life change too fast (for years, about half of Americans have answered yes) or whether Americans depend too much on science and not enough on faith (ditto).

But assessing actual knowledge, over time, "is something of an art," he said. He varies his questions, as topics come and go in the news, but devises the surveys so overall results can be compared from survey to survey, just as SAT scores can be compared even though questions on the test change.

For example, he said, in the era of nuclear tests he asked people whether they knew about strontium 90, a component of fallout. Today, he asks about topics like the workings of DNA in the cell because "if you don't know what a cell is, you can't make sense of stem cell research."
Click to expand...
The original data should be on NSF's site but I can't open the file:

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/append/c7/at07-10.pdf
 
2-0-Sixx

2-0-Sixx

Sicc OG
#25
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#25
Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.
Click to expand...
Damn, that's embarrassing!
 
ParkBoyz

ParkBoyz

Sicc OG
#26
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#26
ThaG said:
LMAO!!!!!!!!!

In contrast to the vague idea and well-protected by the impossibility to test it idea of a "supreme God", creationism makes some very specific claims

One of them is that the Earth is 6000 years old. In fact it is 4.56 billion years old. Isn't this a hole.....
Click to expand...
^No, because creationism does not equate to a literal interpretation of the Bible, this is what you fail to realize. It simply means that somewhere down the line there must have been a creator.


ThaG said:
Really? Evolution only? What about EAPS (Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences), Physics, Chemistry and the whole Biology (=Evolution)?

Multidisciplinary approach...

LMFAO.......
Click to expand...
You clearly didn't understand what I was trying to convey, you don't apply any of these sciences to your arguments. If anyone questions any aspects of evolution with questions that fall outside the realm of cellular biology/biochemistry, you fold. Chemistry and physics can be used to help support the theory in the form of dating techniques, etc, but they are still earth sciences that YOU can't seem to appeal to beyond that. These extra-biological sciences however, on their own do not contradict creationism unless they are forcefully applied to the theory of evolution!:rolleyes:



ThaG said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1125547200&en=631977063d726261&ei=5070



The original data should be on NSF's site but I can't open the file:

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/append/c7/at07-10.pdf
Click to expand...

^It's obviously Original Research for you to make a correlation between these studies and religion or creationism/Theism when no such conclusion was made. In other words, this is irrelevant..
 
Cmoke

Cmoke

Sicc OG
#27
May 10, 2002
3,391
4
38
40
#27
ParkBoyz said:
^No, because creationism does not equate to a literal interpretation of the Bible, this is what you fail to realize.
Click to expand...
Then what is the purpose of the bible?


ParkBoyz said:
It simply means that somewhere down the line there must have been a creator.
Click to expand...

If you believe in creationism, then yes you would believe that there was a creator. Sadly for your arguement there is no evidence to support a supernatural fallacy.
 
GTS

GTS

....
#28
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#28
Cmoke said:
Then what is the purpose of the bible?





If you believe in creationism, then yes you would believe that there was a creator. Sadly for your arguement there is no evidence to support a supernatural fallacy.
Click to expand...
^^
your correct, you won't find an answer you can physically prove to support creationsim. Faith in something you can see is not faith imo.
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#29
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#29
GTS said:
^^
your correct, you won't find an answer you can physically prove to support creationsim. Faith in something you can see is not faith imo.
Click to expand...
Where are the sane persons in this world?????????????????

You just said that we should believe what we not only can't prove but we can't collect absolutely no evidence supporting it...
 
GTS

GTS

....
#30
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#30
ThaG said:
Where are the sane persons in this world?????????????????

You just said that we should believe what we not only can't prove but we can't collect absolutely no evidence supporting it...
Click to expand...
Everything you see will have an END.
 
ParkBoyz

ParkBoyz

Sicc OG
#32
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#32
You cheerleaders add nothing at all to the thread.. A perfect way to overcome the stigma of faith is to use your own logic while you guys are all offering arguments by way of "weak induction"...

@ nhojsmith, I've come to the conclusion maybe about a month or two ago (ever since you were trying to convince me that Black people were a product of slave breeding) that you are actually one of the lesser "minds" on this forum, so your replies are additionally ironic.
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#33
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#33
ParkBoyz said:
You clearly didn't understand what I was trying to convey, you don't apply any of these sciences to your arguments. If anyone questions any aspects of evolution with questions that fall outside the realm of cellular biology/biochemistry, you fold. Chemistry and physics can be used to help support the theory in the form of dating techniques, etc, but they are still earth sciences that YOU can't seem to appeal to beyond that. These extra-biological sciences however, on their own do not contradict creationism unless they are forcefully applied to the theory of evolution!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
please, don't embarrass yourself further...
 
ParkBoyz

ParkBoyz

Sicc OG
#34
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#34
ThaG said:
please, don't embarrass yourself further...
Click to expand...
Actually, you've embarrassed yourself constantly with half thought out replies like this one because "theoretically", there is no mechanism in the extra-biological sciences that can guide evolution directly(environmental factors supposedly enhance them).. You're not very bright G and you're merely a fraud, so I take what you say with a grain of salt...:cool:
 
Cmoke

Cmoke

Sicc OG
#39
May 10, 2002
3,391
4
38
40
#39
@ parkboyz ....

So now if more then a couple people agree on something, they are cheerleaders?

I guess the same can be said about you and everyone that agrees that creationism is even remotely close to being a reaslistic possibility. All you simpley need to do is provide some real answers or reasons as to why i should even consider creationism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom