1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Interesting

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
21 February 2019 10:12
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15677
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
21 February 2019 10:29
 
TwoSeven1 - 21 February 2019 10:12 AM

https://dissentfromdarwin.org

Stupid ID site.

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
21 February 2019 10:56
 
burt - 21 February 2019 10:29 AM
TwoSeven1 - 21 February 2019 10:12 AM

https://dissentfromdarwin.org

Stupid ID site.

??

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
21 February 2019 10:58
 

Did this thread get moved to a different section?  I don’t see it listed where I posted it.  I only see it in the recent threads section…

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6267
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
21 February 2019 11:07
 

Posting a link is considered as a bulletin.

The Halls of Critical Thinking is for discussions. That can include a link but should include why you posted it, are you fer or agin, or some discernable position.

Saying that you’d like us to see it makes it a bulletin. Saying that others may discuss it will not fly as a discussion-starter. Should a tremendous discussion result, we can put it in the Halls. The point is to minimize the number of empty bulletin-like threads in the Halls.

Greetings, Mr. 1.

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
21 February 2019 11:19
 
Nhoj Morley - 21 February 2019 11:07 AM

Posting a link is considered as a bulletin.

The Halls of Critical Thinking is for discussions. That can include a link but should include why you posted it, are you fer or agin, or some discernable position.

Saying that you’d like us to see it makes it a bulletin. Saying that others may discuss it will not fly as a discussion-starter. Should a tremendous discussion result, we can put it in the Halls. The point is to minimize the number of empty bulletin-like threads in the Halls.

Greetings, Mr. 1.

I see.  Thank you for responding!

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6875
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
22 February 2019 08:54
 

Not interesting.
Just another Discovery Institute - Intelligent Design site.

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
22 February 2019 09:07
 
Jefe - 22 February 2019 08:54 AM

Not interesting.
Just another Discovery Institute - Intelligent Design site.

I’m not going to say you’re missing the point, but you are certainly brushing it off.

Over a thousand scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.  Makes me wonder how many scientists make up the “scientific community” that is referred to so frequently in the Evolution vs Creation debate.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17386
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
22 February 2019 09:18
 
TwoSeven1 - 22 February 2019 09:07 AM
Jefe - 22 February 2019 08:54 AM

Not interesting.
Just another Discovery Institute - Intelligent Design site.

I’m not going to say you’re missing the point, but you are certainly brushing it off.

Over a thousand scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.  Makes me wonder how many scientists make up the “scientific community” that is referred to so frequently in the Evolution vs Creation debate.

But no good ones, because good science isn’t based on ignorance, myth, magic and superstition.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17386
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
22 February 2019 09:20
 
 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
22 February 2019 09:21
 
GAD - 22 February 2019 09:18 AM
TwoSeven1 - 22 February 2019 09:07 AM
Jefe - 22 February 2019 08:54 AM

Not interesting.
Just another Discovery Institute - Intelligent Design site.

I’m not going to say you’re missing the point, but you are certainly brushing it off.

Over a thousand scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.  Makes me wonder how many scientists make up the “scientific community” that is referred to so frequently in the Evolution vs Creation debate.

But no good ones, because good science isn’t based on ignorance, myth, magic and superstition.

Where on the site does it say that the scientists hold certain religious beliefs?  It specifically states that joining the list is not making a statement of beliefs, but only that they are skeptical of some of the concepts of Darwinian Evolution.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6875
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
22 February 2019 09:26
 
TwoSeven1 - 22 February 2019 09:07 AM
Jefe - 22 February 2019 08:54 AM

Not interesting.
Just another Discovery Institute - Intelligent Design site.

I’m not going to say you’re missing the point, but you are certainly brushing it off.

Over a thousand scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.  Makes me wonder how many scientists make up the “scientific community” that is referred to so frequently in the Evolution vs Creation debate.

The ‘debate’ only exists in the minds of ID proponents and creationists (who, by the way, are the same thing).
The Theory of Evolution has grown far beyond Darwin and now is a multi-disciplinary set of scientific facts.
Creation is a myth. Creationism is to stalwartly cling to that myth despite evidence to the contrary.

I treat the ‘debate’ with an appropriate amount of consideration.  It is an ideological mental block for those who place belief in creation myths over facts, proven hypotheses and practical advanced made because of evolution related science.

Now, I have no illusions about changing anyone’s mind, so carry on with your interest in a mythical belief set.
It is as useful as being skeptical of the theory of gravity, the germ theory of medicine, the theory of heliocentrism or any of a myriad of other scientific theories we utilize today.

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
22 February 2019 10:03
 
Jefe - 22 February 2019 09:26 AM
TwoSeven1 - 22 February 2019 09:07 AM
Jefe - 22 February 2019 08:54 AM

Not interesting.
Just another Discovery Institute - Intelligent Design site.

I’m not going to say you’re missing the point, but you are certainly brushing it off.

Over a thousand scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.  Makes me wonder how many scientists make up the “scientific community” that is referred to so frequently in the Evolution vs Creation debate.

The ‘debate’ only exists in the minds of ID proponents and creationists (who, by the way, are the same thing).
The Theory of Evolution has grown far beyond Darwin and now is a multi-disciplinary set of scientific facts.
Creation is a myth. Creationism is to stalwartly cling to that myth despite evidence to the contrary.

I treat the ‘debate’ with an appropriate amount of consideration.  It is an ideological mental block for those who place belief in creation myths over facts, proven hypotheses and practical advanced made because of evolution related science.

Now, I have no illusions about changing anyone’s mind, so carry on with your interest in a mythical belief set.
It is as useful as being skeptical of the theory of gravity, the germ theory of medicine, the theory of heliocentrism or any of a myriad of other scientific theories we utilize today.

Now I will say that you are missing the point…  The factuality of Evolution is being called into question by some of the scientific community.

Whether you believe Evolution or Creation, why would you ignore the scientific skepticism?  Regardless of the age-old debate I brought up, shouldn’t we listen to what the skeptical scientists have to say?  Doesn’t their skepticism also bring into question that the “scientific community” agrees that Evolution is fact?

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15677
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
22 February 2019 10:14
 
TwoSeven1 - 22 February 2019 10:03 AM
Jefe - 22 February 2019 09:26 AM
TwoSeven1 - 22 February 2019 09:07 AM
Jefe - 22 February 2019 08:54 AM

Not interesting.
Just another Discovery Institute - Intelligent Design site.

I’m not going to say you’re missing the point, but you are certainly brushing it off.

Over a thousand scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.  Makes me wonder how many scientists make up the “scientific community” that is referred to so frequently in the Evolution vs Creation debate.

The ‘debate’ only exists in the minds of ID proponents and creationists (who, by the way, are the same thing).
The Theory of Evolution has grown far beyond Darwin and now is a multi-disciplinary set of scientific facts.
Creation is a myth. Creationism is to stalwartly cling to that myth despite evidence to the contrary.

I treat the ‘debate’ with an appropriate amount of consideration.  It is an ideological mental block for those who place belief in creation myths over facts, proven hypotheses and practical advanced made because of evolution related science.

Now, I have no illusions about changing anyone’s mind, so carry on with your interest in a mythical belief set.
It is as useful as being skeptical of the theory of gravity, the germ theory of medicine, the theory of heliocentrism or any of a myriad of other scientific theories we utilize today.

Now I will say that you are missing the point…  The factuality of Evolution is being called into question by some of the scientific community.

Whether you believe Evolution or Creation, why would you ignore the scientific skepticism?  Regardless of the age-old debate I brought up, shouldn’t we listen to what the skeptical scientists have to say?  Doesn’t their skepticism also bring into question that the “scientific community” agrees that Evolution is fact?

You are confused. First off, very few who actually work in the field call it Darwinism. Rather it is evolutionary theory, and it has a variety of aspects. The most advanced today is called the extended evolutionary synthesis. Scientists who work in the field are not skeptics about evolution, it’s the basic framework for their work. Scientists who don’t accept evolution are not working in that field, they are working on what they call intelligent design or some other thing and that is not considered legitimate science. Why don’t you get some skeptical comments from scientists who don’t accept quantum mechanics, or relativity (there are a few)?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
22 February 2019 10:32
 
burt - 22 February 2019 10:14 AM
TwoSeven1 - 22 February 2019 10:03 AM
Jefe - 22 February 2019 09:26 AM
TwoSeven1 - 22 February 2019 09:07 AM
Jefe - 22 February 2019 08:54 AM

Not interesting.
Just another Discovery Institute - Intelligent Design site.

I’m not going to say you’re missing the point, but you are certainly brushing it off.

Over a thousand scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.  Makes me wonder how many scientists make up the “scientific community” that is referred to so frequently in the Evolution vs Creation debate.

The ‘debate’ only exists in the minds of ID proponents and creationists (who, by the way, are the same thing).
The Theory of Evolution has grown far beyond Darwin and now is a multi-disciplinary set of scientific facts.
Creation is a myth. Creationism is to stalwartly cling to that myth despite evidence to the contrary.

I treat the ‘debate’ with an appropriate amount of consideration.  It is an ideological mental block for those who place belief in creation myths over facts, proven hypotheses and practical advanced made because of evolution related science.

Now, I have no illusions about changing anyone’s mind, so carry on with your interest in a mythical belief set.
It is as useful as being skeptical of the theory of gravity, the germ theory of medicine, the theory of heliocentrism or any of a myriad of other scientific theories we utilize today.

Now I will say that you are missing the point…  The factuality of Evolution is being called into question by some of the scientific community.

Whether you believe Evolution or Creation, why would you ignore the scientific skepticism?  Regardless of the age-old debate I brought up, shouldn’t we listen to what the skeptical scientists have to say?  Doesn’t their skepticism also bring into question that the “scientific community” agrees that Evolution is fact?

You are confused. First off, very few who actually work in the field call it Darwinism. Rather it is evolutionary theory, and it has a variety of aspects. The most advanced today is called the extended evolutionary synthesis. Scientists who work in the field are not skeptics about evolution, it’s the basic framework for their work. Scientists who don’t accept evolution are not working in that field, they are working on what they call intelligent design or some other thing and that is not considered legitimate science. Why don’t you get some skeptical comments from scientists who don’t accept quantum mechanics, or relativity (there are a few)?

So, you read over the list of skeptical scientists and observed their related fields?  Did you also review the criteria for scientists to join the list?  The stated purpose of the list?  The quotations of some of the scientists?

I didn’t call it Darwinism.  I called it Darwinian Evolution.  The site is even more specific as to what they are skeptical of than I have summarized.

Instead of brushing it off you should review the site’s content.  It’s very specific.

The reason I say that you shouldn’t brush this off is because Darwinian Evolution has been taught as fact, but not everyone agrees that it is fact.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6875
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
22 February 2019 11:19
 

For you, this may be a new discussion.
For us it is a rehash of tired ID silliness.
We do not simply write it off out of hand.
We’ve discussed this topic many times with many id creationists.

It is not new.  It is not interesting.  It is simply creationists t rying to elevate their voices.  Might as well be a flat earth non-debate.

 
 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›