U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 01-15-2012, 05:45 PM
 
646 posts, read 299,541 times
Reputation: 42

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Quote:
Your last post to me deserved no reply, but this:
"Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination driven by prejudices and preconceptions. They reflect our modern ideas about the purposes of adaptive structures and about the progressive trend we think we see in the history of life up to humankind."
Has to be corrected. While you can be forgiven for misinterpreting what Gee was saying about the prejudices and preconceptions we may tend to bring to the very clear evidence that amphibians did come out onto dry land, that birds (surely he meant dinosaurs?) developed feathers and arms which became wings
(1), that the dinosaurs clearly did go extinct (as did all animals that are not around today, obviously and that human evolved...from apes? (Again this all seems wide of the evidential mark) It has been explained to you many times that the evidence that all these things happened is clear and compelling. Gee is not saying that it is anything else.
I made no comment on any of that! You have yet to show me how/when I misquoted or misrepresented Henry Gee's writings.
Quote:
This has been explained and you are simply refusing to listen, preferring to trumpet an old book myth as preferrable to hard evidence. Even having the sauce to throw chunks of Bible text at us as though that proved anything.
"Explained" to me? Are you joking? You "explain" how a myth was formulated and you "explain" how to propagate that myth. Because of yout total lack of hard evidence, I "explain" to you why I won't buy that junk and you pretend not to listen. I know what the book says and it is all speculation:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_44
Quote:
"Here is one scenario that exemplifies how speciation can happen:
"The scene: a population of wild fruit flies minding its own business on several bunches of rotting bananas, cheerfully laying their eggs in the mushy fruit...
Disaster strikes: A hurricane washes the bananas and the immature fruit flies they contain out to sea. The banana bunch eventually washes up on an island off the coast of the mainland. The fruit flies mature and emerge from their slimy nursery onto the lonely island. The two portions of the population, mainland and island, are now too far apart for gene flow to unite them. At this point, speciation has not occurred — any fruit flies that got back to the mainland could mate and produce healthy offspring with the mainland flies."
So, that's how it CAN happen. But is that what really happened? How can you tell? Who observed and recorded it? By what stretch of the imagination can you call that a fact? None of this constitutes any "explanation!" ALL of it is guesswork and the product of a stimulated imagination.
Quote:
(1) this is so missing the actual evidence that I have to wonder whether gee really said it. Surely he knew better?
Then you should correct HIM! Why should that concern me?
Quote:
The posts so lose their links that it is hard to be able to check.
Show me the distortion on my part. That’s all I ask.
Quote:
I am so puzzled by the inaccuracy of this that I would like a link, if you have it.
http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200003/0019.html
Quote:
In your post 931 you wrote
"According to Bowler, Gee believes that:"...all the old paraphernalia of evolutionary explanations must be dismissed as unscientific speculation. All we can do is assess degrees of relationship. We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about.""
But, if you read the reeview of Bowler's review of Gee, if anything he feels that Gee is too dismissive of the hypothetical explanations. Gee doesn't reject the evidence for evolution or even the conclusions, but just someof the theoretical explations. Bower seems to be defending them. You should really read and comprehend your material rather than lift sections which you think fit your faith - based anti - evolutionist views.
I made no claim that he rejects anything - did I? What the man wrote is here:
http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200003/0019.html
I came to my own conclusions and you can do the same.
Quote:
And another thing. I note that you have dared to put words into my mouth.
First you altered post 870
Nope! That's another foolish statement. It is not possible for me to alter anyone else's post. Post 870 is just as you wrote it and anyone can see that. Check it and see for yourself.
Quote:
How about giving reason a try?
To
How about giving reason (falsehood) a try?
and then
How about giving reason (your brand of falsehood) a try?
This is not just dishonest, it is very bad manners.
I did not alter YOUR post! That is another false accusation.
My response is MY response and there's nothing dishonest about it.
Besides - how many times have you misquoted and misrepresented the Bible?
.
Look - we humans are equipped with attributes that are lacking in animals, i.e. wisdom, justice, power and love. All of these qualities should be used in such a way that they bring benefit to the world around us. Only then can we claim to have lived successful lives. Evolution does not equip us to do any of that, so it is useless in benefiting mankind and the earth.
.
Do you know what wisdom is? Do you think that is a necessary ingredient to a peaceful, productive and purposeful life?
You are not in a position to know if a certain course of action is wise until AFTER you see the results.
I see not even a trace of wisdom in following the evolutionary lifestyle. Maybe you can show me the WISDOM in evolution - how it has benefited mankind.
.
Yep! You're losing it, man.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 
Old 01-15-2012, 07:34 PM
 
646 posts, read 299,541 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
I have always wondered why, if Christianity = Truth (capital T for added effect), there are some many Christians telling lies to prop it up??
True Christians do not tell lies.
“. . .Yet if by reason of my lie, the truth of God has been made more prominent to his glory, why am I also yet being judged as a sinner? (Romans 3:7)



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson
 
Old 01-15-2012, 11:05 PM
 
646 posts, read 299,541 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Wilson:
NO EVIDENCE AT ALL
"In an effort to explain how living things evolved, modern-day sociobiologists rely on Neo-Darwinism, which is a later version of Charles Darwin’s theory of slow, adaptive evolution. But a newer, rival theory—called “punctuated equilibrium” by Stephen Gould and others—holds that the production of new animal species occurred in comparatively sudden jumps, or “jerks.”
.
Punctuationists maintain that fossil evidence is in their favor. Why? Because intermediate animal forms are “not detectable in the fossil record,” observes Dr. John Turner in an issue of New Scientist. But the main difference between these two camps is that punctuationists claim that
(1) the “jerks” were generated, not by some form of Neo-Darwinian adaption, but by some process possibly still unknown and
(2) the “jerks,” according to Turner, “always accompany the branching of the evolutionary tree.”

“There is no good evidence for [these ideas],” concludes Dr. Turner. “I am tempted to say no evidence at all. Of the essential jerk theory, one can say as Gould did of sociobiology, that it brings no new insights, and can cite on its behalf not a single unambiguous fact.”

But since punctuated equilibrium is so popular among rival evolutionists, this also amounts to an unintended admission of how little, if any, evidence there is for the traditional evolutionary belief. Since neither theory can explain the gaps in the fossil record, both lack credibility."


Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I should like to know where you got that since it it accepts the evidence (about which you ask 'what evidence?') and tries to make a case by pointing up valid discussion about the causes of the gaps in that evidence.


“Accepts the evidence” for what? Where, in this quote, do you see any acceptance?
You may not have noticed, but the focus of Dr. John Turner's comments was concerning the lack of evidence for PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM and not mainly about what causes gaps!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson




 
Old 01-15-2012, 11:30 PM
 
646 posts, read 299,541 times
Reputation: 42
[quote=AREQUIPA;22496979]
Originally Posted by wilsoncole
And who is it that hangs on doggedly to this "common and false idea?"

Quote:
The public through a lack of education and Creationists through wilful misrepresentation. Though truth to tell, Gee does hint that even some biologists are prone to think in such terms, but that is not the fault of the theory.
What about dishonest scientists who sometimes get rewarded in spite of their exposed dishonesty?
Consider:
Shenanigans in the Halls of Science
IT ISN’T supposed to happen. Not in the hallowed halls of science. Not where dispassionate, objective pursuers of truth labor tirelessly in their laboratories. Not where dedicated researchers, committed to finding truth regardless of where the search may lead, seek to unravel the secrets of nature. It is not supposed to happen in a united body of men and women fighting shoulder to shoulder to turn back the ravages of disease for the blessing of mankind.
.
Who would suspect that dedicated scientists such as these would manipulate their data to back their contentions? Or select what supports their theory and discard what doesn’t? Or record experiments they have never performed and falsify data to buttress conclusions they could not prove? Or report studies they had never made and claim authorship of articles they had never worked on or even seen? Who would ever suspect such shenanigans in the halls of science?
.
It isn’t supposed to happen, but it does. Last year a science magazine reported: “Kickbacks, fraud and misconduct are rife among American medical researchers, according to a scathing critique published by a US Congressional committee this week. The report says that the National Institutes of Health has ‘endangered public health’ by failing to police the scientists it supports.”—New Scientist, September 15, 1990.
.
Most of the cases consist of shenanigans called misconduct, but others are outright fraud. So it was labeled in the case of Dr. Thereza Imanishi-Kari and her five coauthors of a paper that “described the indirect insertion of a foreign gene into the immune cells of mice. The authors claimed that the mouse’s natural gene then began to mimic the inserted gene, producing a special antibody.” (Science News, May 11, 1991) This would have been an important step in immune research, except for the fact that it apparently never happened.
.
The report was published in April 1986 in Cell, a scientific journal. Shortly afterward, Dr. Margot O’Toole, a junior researcher in molecular biology in Imanishi-Kari’s lab, said that the paper made claims that the data did not support. She went to Dr. David A. Baltimore, a Nobel laureate who was a coauthor of the research paper, with 17 pages of data from Imanishi-Kari’s notebooks. These pages showed that the experiment did not work, while the published paper said that it did. Dr. Baltimore, however, found no reason to doubt the data and dismissed O’Toole as a “disgruntled postdoctoral fellow.”—The New York Times, March 22, 1991.
.
That same year two universities reviewed the Cell article. One was M.I.T. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), where the work was done; the other was Tufts University, where Imanishi-Kari was being considered for an important position. Their reviews found some problems but nothing serious. There the case rested for two years.
.
Then Representative John D. Dingell, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, took up the case. The government supports scientific research and, through NIH (National Institutes of Health), grants $8,000,000,000 a year to individual scientists and their institutions for research projects. Dingell’s subcommittee is interested in how effectively the people’s money is spent, and it investigates abuses.
.
Dr. Baltimore was very unhappy. He charged that the subcommittee, by taking up this case, “wishes to do away with the standard criteria and substitute a whole new standard for judging science. They have chosen a prosecutorial style. The message is that you do your science with an eye towards facing prosecution. If the hearing here today represents the Congressional view of how science should be done, then American science as we have known it is in trouble.”
.
Dr. Baltimore obtained support from sympathetic colleagues by sending a letter to 400 scientists warning that Congressional intervention could “cripple American science.” He called the inquiry a harbinger of threats to scientific communication and scientific freedom. Many from the scientific community rallied behind Baltimore, one of its brightest stars, calling the hearings a “witch hunt” and Dingell a “new McCarthy.”
.
“Supporters of Dr. Baltimore and his defense of the article responded with attacks on Congress,” The New York Times, March 26, 1991, reported. “They criticized Mr. Dingell for prying into the notebooks of science, describing his panel with phrases like the ‘science police.’ Virtually every letter and article said there was no question of fraud, only of interpretation. ‘We were buried in letters from scientists expressing great concern with what we were doing,’ said one staff member of the Dingell subcommittee. ‘But in a large number of them, maybe half or more, there was a disclaimer saying they didn’t know what the facts of the case were. That is a little bizarre.’”
.
When emotions run high, facts may become irrelevant and fade into the background. The flood of letters in support of Dr. Baltimore and Dr. Imanishi-Kari criticized Congress in strong, emotional language. Dr. Stephen J. Gould of Harvard wrote: “In the light of recent developments in Washington, I’m not so sure that Galileo might not be in more trouble today.” Dr. Phillip A. Sharp of M.I.T. urged scientists to write their representatives in Congress protesting the action of this subcommittee. He asserted that it had “repeatedly rejected the judgment of qualified scientists” that no fraud was involved. Further, he claimed that it had embarked on “a vendetta against honest scientists” that would “cost our society dearly.” As it turned out, if a vendetta was involved, it was not against the honest scientists but against Dr. Margot O’Toole, whose honesty cost her dearly.
.
“As long as science proceeds relatively smoothly, it appears to be driven purely by reason and the answers given by nature in experiments. But when things go wrong, the human actors shed their masks of professional impassivity, and the emotional undercurrents of the scientific enterprise may suddenly emerge.” (The New York Times, March 26, 1991) And when they do, forces outside science must also emerge to curtail the shenanigans and rectify the wrongs done to the whistle-blowers.
.
That is what was necessary in this case. Many in the scientific community, who never even bothered to examine the evidence, automatically sided with Dr. Baltimore and Dr. Imanishi-Kari and against Dr. O’Toole. Moreover, they vilified the government agency that had to step in to right the wrongs. It is reminiscent of the Bible proverb that says: “When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears it, that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation.”—Proverbs 18:13.
.
It was only after lengthy investigations by the Dingell subcommittee, the Secret Service, and the Office of Scientific Integrity at NIH that O’Toole’s charges were finally substantiated. New Scientist, March 30, 1991, reported: “Investigators at the National Institutes of Health have concluded that a co-author of Nobel laureate David Baltimore fabricated entire sets of data from 1986 to 1988 to support a paper published in the journal Cell in 1986. Baltimore, who earlier attacked a Congressional investigation into the affair as a threat to scientific freedom, has now asked Cell to retract the paper.” He apologized to Dr. O’Toole for his failure to investigate her doubts more fully.
.
The investigations revealed that data were concocted by Dr. Imanishi-Kari and an experiment reported by her was never done, and as the noose tightened, she attempted a cover-up. “Once O’Toole and outside investigators began to ask questions about the paper,” New Scientist said, Imanishi-Kari “began systematically fabricating data to support it, according to the NIH report. Some of these falsified data were published in Cell in 1988 as corrections to the original paper.” On April 6, 1991, New Scientist commented: “Scientists also need to recognise that self-regulation only works if it is based on public trust. Dismissing whistle-blowers as troublemakers does little to help that.” Weeks after all this evidence was in, however, Dr. Imanishi-Kari was still calling it all a “witch hunt.”
.
An editorial in The New York Times, March 26, 1991, questioned it under the title “A Scientific Watergate?” It said: “The most damning indictment should be lodged against the scientific community’s weak-kneed mechanisms for investigating fraud. Faced with stonewalling by Dr. Baltimore, one of the nation’s most prominent scientists, several investigative panels seemed more intent on smothering bad publicity than digging out the truth.” Yet, it is this same scientific community that says it should investigate itself rather than be investigated by outsiders.
.
The editorial continued: “The initial investigations of Dr. O’Toole’s complaints smacked of an old-boy network drawing up the wagons to protect scientific reputations. Investigations at Tufts University and M.I.T. found no fraud or even major error. The National Institutes of Health appointed an investigating panel with close ties to Dr. Baltimore. Even after the panel was reconstituted to mollify critics, it produced a shuffle-footing report, finding no evidence of misconduct despite the fact that an experiment had been reported that was never actually performed.
.
Only after Congress became involved did the N.I.H. begin to display some backbone. Its new Office of Scientific [Integrity] produced the gritty and damning report that finally calls a fabrication a fabrication. Dr. Baltimore has, from the start, seemed more intent on squelching inquiry than getting to the bottom of the charges. Although he has not himself been accused of fraud, he signed two documents—the original paper and a follow-up correction—containing data now deemed to have been fabricated by Dr. Imanishi-Kari.”
.
Scientists are unhappy if anyone outside the scientific community passes judgment on their activities. They are adamant that they, not outsiders and certainly not government agencies, are the ones who should judge their own cases where misconduct or fraud is charged. But anyone within the scientific community who dares to raise questions against prominent members may fare badly, as did Margot O’Toole.
.
The fortunes of the principals involved in this case prove the point. Dr. Baltimore became president of Rockefeller University. Dr. Imanishi-Kari got the prestigious position she sought at Tufts University. Dr. O’Toole lost her job in the laboratory at Tufts, lost her house, could get no other employment in science for years, and had to take work answering telephones at her brother’s moving company.
.
Dr. Baltimore reportedly told subcommittee chairman Dingell that disputes such as the Imanishi-Kari matter were part of “a process of self-purification that goes on continuously” in science. In this case the “purification” consisted of the elimination of honest scientist Dr. Margot O’Toole from even working in the field of science. Fortunately, however, this “purification” in her case was not permanent. Four years later, in 1990, after her vindication, she did get a job in science when she was hired by Genetics Institute, a company founded by one of her few supporters, Mark Ptashne of Harvard.
.
Most people agree that such shenanigans should not happen in the halls of science, yet it was a science magazine itself that carried the report that such shenanigans “are rife among American medical researchers.”
(AW 91 11/22 pp. 12-15)
Note:
Why the outrage and public outcry?
What do you call those tactics?
Why didn't the peer-review system work in this case?
How often has it failed to work?
No longer the case? How can you tell?

Lesson: We should not put faith in humans.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Last edited by wilsoncole; 01-15-2012 at 11:53 PM..
 
Old 01-16-2012, 12:27 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
25,007 posts, read 18,656,201 times
Reputation: 9903
Sorry to burst your bubble, but most of the stuff you just posted is just nonsense, as is the propaganda on the site you lifted it from.. Index - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site
 
Old 01-16-2012, 12:36 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
7,884 posts, read 4,791,156 times
Reputation: 1527
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
True Christians do not tell lies.
“. . .Yet if by reason of my lie, the truth of God has been made more prominent to his glory, why am I also yet being judged as a sinner? (Romans 3:7)


So 'Lying for Jesus' is acceptable?
 
Old 01-16-2012, 12:41 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,439 posts, read 3,727,798 times
Reputation: 1691
Or
corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-3-societys-view-of-science.html

Ask Questions - Get Answers [ Public Answers' Archive - Answers ]

Nothing original
 
Old 01-16-2012, 12:44 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
25,007 posts, read 18,656,201 times
Reputation: 9903
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA View Post
Or
corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-3-societys-view-of-science.html

Ask Questions - Get Answers [ Public Answers' Archive - Answers ]

Nothing original
Hard to know when the guy doesn't post a link...I've got my wrists slapped for that.
 
Old 01-16-2012, 12:52 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
7,884 posts, read 4,791,156 times
Reputation: 1527
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
It isn’t supposed to happen, but it does. Last year a science magazine reported: “Kickbacks, fraud and misconduct are rife among American medical researchers, according to a scathing critique published by a US Congressional committee this week. The report says that the National Institutes of Health has ‘endangered public health’ by failing to police the scientists it supports.”—New Scientist, September 15, 1990.
Here is the contents of New Scientist for that date. Please tell us which article says what you claim......or is this more quote mining from yet another apologist site....namely the JW's??

15 September 1990 Issue Contents - New Scientist
 
Old 01-16-2012, 01:17 AM
 
3,486 posts, read 1,343,569 times
Reputation: 2907
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
True Christians do not tell lies.
“. . .Yet if by reason of my lie, the truth of God has been made more prominent to his glory, why am I also yet being judged as a sinner? (Romans 3:7)



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson
I've yet to see you post anything close to the truth regarding the theory of evolution. So are you telling us that you are not a "true Christian"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:30 AM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top