Questions For Darwinists

ChemEngineer

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
1,525
Reaction score
717
Points
200
http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?
 
Last edited:

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,593
Reaction score
31,215
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?


Quite a thoughtful post!

I doubt, though, you can expect cogent responses. The indoctrination of government school grads armors them with one simple response for any who don't toe the line: vituperation.
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
1,525
Reaction score
717
Points
200
How rarely that word is used, "vituperation," but how applicable it is to the Left, today, you racist fascist! Marx LOVED Darwin's book and highly recommended it to Adolph Hitler who used its tenets to eradicate the "inferior" Jews and homosexuals and gypsies by the millions.

God bless you and expand your territory, Chic. Have you finished the assignment I gave you?
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,593
Reaction score
31,215
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
How rarely that word is used, "vituperation," but how applicable it is to the Left, today, you racist fascist! Marx LOVED Darwin's book and highly recommended it to Adolph Hitler who used its tenets to eradicate the "inferior" Jews and homosexuals and gypsies by the millions.

God bless you and expand your territory, Chic. Have you finished the assignment I gave you?

I have moved my schedule two two tomes on Darwin, one on reparations for black Americans, and a le Carre novel....and every James Lee Burke novel I can find.

The Holmes book was dismissed as too muddled.

But, as Prufrock noted.... there will be time yet for a hundred indecisions,. And for a hundred visions and revisions, ... For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,244
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,115
http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?
1. Why don’t religionists post their documented and peer reviewed
General Theory of Supernatural Creation” and we can move on from those atheist evilutionists with their science and biology nonsense.
 

esalla

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
4,068
Reaction score
2,293
Points
893
Location
Area-51 sub level 28
How rarely that word is used, "vituperation," but how applicable it is to the Left, today, you racist fascist! Marx LOVED Darwin's book and highly recommended it to Adolph Hitler who used its tenets to eradicate the "inferior" Jews and homosexuals and gypsies by the millions.

God bless you and expand your territory, Chic. Have you finished the assignment I gave you?

I have moved my schedule two two tomes on Darwin, one on reparations for black Americans, and a le Carre novel....and every James Lee Burke novel I can find.

The Holmes book was dismissed as too muddled.

But, as Prufrock noted.... there will be time yet for a hundred indecisions,. And for a hundred visions and revisions, ... For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
What exactly is it that you seek to prove or disprove on this message board that 99.99999 percent of the Earth will never see?

Or in easier terms what is your delusion
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,736
Reaction score
1,078
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?
I try to address reasonable questions and treat the poser with respect but I don't see myself as a policeman of other posters. Unfortunately evolutionists don't have a monopoly on insults. I've been called plenty of names for what I believe.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,736
Reaction score
1,078
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Questions for Darwinists:

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?
I have seen numerous examples of anti-evolution posters that obviously don't understand the subject matter. That is fine, however, when they are informed as to the underlying science they steadfastly refuse to even attempt to understand.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,736
Reaction score
1,078
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Questions for Darwinists:

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?
Not all faculty, only those who teach science. ID is not a science, it is the antithesis of it, and should not be confused with science.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,736
Reaction score
1,078
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Questions for Darwinists:

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?
Historically, evolution has taken existing structures and repurposed them. We use hemoglobin to carry oxygen but there are organisms that use hemoglobin for other purposes, in other words, we likely repurposed an existing molecule to perform a new function.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: cnm

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,736
Reaction score
1,078
Points
245
Location
Virginia
http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?


Quite a thoughtful post!

I doubt, though, you can expect cogent responses. The indoctrination of government school grads armors them with one simple response for any who don't toe the line: vituperation.
Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals "government school grads"?
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,593
Reaction score
31,215
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?


Quite a thoughtful post!

I doubt, though, you can expect cogent responses. The indoctrination of government school grads armors them with one simple response for any who don't toe the line: vituperation.
Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals "government school grads"?
"well-educated individuals" and "government school grads" are mutually exclusive categories.


Should you ever decide to move from the latter to the former, I will provide a reading syllabus.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,244
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,115
http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?


Quite a thoughtful post!

I doubt, though, you can expect cogent responses. The indoctrination of government school grads armors them with one simple response for any who don't toe the line: vituperation.
Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals "government school grads"?
"well-educated individuals" and "government school grads" are mutually exclusive categories.


Should you ever decide to move from the latter to the former, I will provide a reading syllabus.
Lamenting the fact that you're uneducated and a government school drop-out. That would account for your maladjusted personality.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,736
Reaction score
1,078
Points
245
Location
Virginia
http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?


Quite a thoughtful post!

I doubt, though, you can expect cogent responses. The indoctrination of government school grads armors them with one simple response for any who don't toe the line: vituperation.
Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals "government school grads"?
"well-educated individuals" and "government school grads" are mutually exclusive categories.


Should you ever decide to move from the latter to the former, I will provide a reading syllabus.
Thank you for showing ChemEngineer I was not imaging being insulted by anti-evolutionists.

As for not being an ivy league graduate, I've met enough of them to not be impressed. I do have to admit though, some of the best pot I ever got was from ivy league students.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,593
Reaction score
31,215
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?


Quite a thoughtful post!

I doubt, though, you can expect cogent responses. The indoctrination of government school grads armors them with one simple response for any who don't toe the line: vituperation.
Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals "government school grads"?
"well-educated individuals" and "government school grads" are mutually exclusive categories.


Should you ever decide to move from the latter to the former, I will provide a reading syllabus.
Thank you for showing ChemEngineer I was not imaging being insulted by anti-evolutionists.

As for not being an ivy league graduate, I've met enough of them to not be impressed. I do have to admit though, some of the best pot I ever got was from ivy league students.

I speak of books, you of pot.

That's all anyone ever has to know to judge each of us.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
59,990
Reaction score
9,342
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?
What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,736
Reaction score
1,078
Points
245
Location
Virginia
http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?


Quite a thoughtful post!

I doubt, though, you can expect cogent responses. The indoctrination of government school grads armors them with one simple response for any who don't toe the line: vituperation.
Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals "government school grads"?
"well-educated individuals" and "government school grads" are mutually exclusive categories.


Should you ever decide to move from the latter to the former, I will provide a reading syllabus.
Thank you for showing ChemEngineer I was not imaging being insulted by anti-evolutionists.

As for not being an ivy league graduate, I've met enough of them to not be impressed. I do have to admit though, some of the best pot I ever got was from ivy league students.

I speak of books, you of pot.

That's all anyone ever has to know to judge each of us.
Well you didn't mention books in this post you wrote about 'education'. Education, at least in my case, is not confined to books, there is also the real world waiting out there to teach you. You should step outside and join us someday.
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
1,525
Reaction score
717
Points
200
"well-educated individuals" and "government school grads" are mutually exclusive categories.

Should you ever decide to move from the latter to the former, I will provide a reading syllabus.
My Dear Chic, you are almost perfect. Years ago, I graduated from a California State University, which would seem to qualify me as a "government school grad." I am well-educated, I dare say, and you have considerable evidence of that fact through our personal communications as well as messaging on these foul boards.

MOST government school grads are not well-educated, but not all.
Love ya, Babe!
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,593
Reaction score
31,215
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?
What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?


“Nor are all biologists. They know better, too. The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts, or to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: unpersuasive. “Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
The God of the Gaps
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top