Conference on Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Answer the question as asked.
Click to expand...
If the Magisterium were to “define” something in a way that directly contradicted the evidence (e.g., “the earth is a flat plate,” or “the earth is the center of the cosmos with everything revolving about it in concentric crystalline spheres”) there would be no reason for us to accept such nonsense.
 
StAnastasia said:
If the Magisterium were to “define” something in a way that directly contradicted the evidence (e.g., “the earth is a flat plate,” or “the earth is the center of the cosmos with everything revolving about it in concentric crystalline spheres”) there would be no reason for us to accept such nonsense.
Click to expand...
So regardless if this was direct Revelation scientism would still rule your day?
 
buffalo said:
So regardless if this was direct Revelation scientism would still rule your day?
Click to expand...
No, scientism does not rule my day. It is not scientism to say that evidence to the contrary falsifies a theory. If the church were to tell me that the snow I perceive as white when I am climbing Longs Peak is actually black, I would regard the Church as mistaken. That is not scientism. If Revelation were to suggest that the Earth is flat, I would interpret that as symbolic language; that is not scientism.
 
StAnastasia said:
No, scientism does not rule my day. It is not scientism to say that evidence to the contrary falsifies a theory. If the church were to tell me that the snow I perceive as white when I am climbing Longs Peak is actually black, I would regard the Church as mistaken. That is not scientism. If Revelation were to suggest that the Earth is flat, I would interpret that as symbolic language; that is not scientism.
Click to expand...
So you regard transubstantiation as symbolic?
 
buffalo said:
I am wondering where you draw the line. Should I assume you want to duck this question?
Click to expand...
This deflection is a vintage buffalo tactic! Start a thread on transubstantiation, if you like. Today I’m sticking to geology.

StAnastasia
 
hecd2 said:
Let’s see what knowledge you rely entirely on scientists for in this post:
  • The existence of bacteria
  • The fact that bacteria can cause illness
  • The concept of antibiotics and the development of specific antibiotics
  • The phenomenon of antibiotic resistance
  • The mechanism of various forms of antibiotic resistance
  • The existence of a genome
  • The code of the genome and the structure of DNA
  • The process of lateral gene transfer through conjugation
  • The process of lateral gene transfer by the viral route
  • The process of direct take-up of DNA in bacteria
  • The fact that the majority of antibiotics are derived from a soil living bacterium
  • The resistance of many soil living bacteria to antibiotics
In fact every true thing that you have stated in this post, you know only because scientists have discovered it. And you have the gall to claim that professional scientists are missing a connection that you, Ed, can see. That’s hubris.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
 
Glory be to the scientists who have figured it all out. That is how science progresses. Yes there are bacteria. Yes they can develop resistance to adverse factors. Yes they can supply or borrow DNA sequences when interacting with other organisms. But please note that none of this helps the theory of evolution. Evolution requires accidental formation of something that did not exist before, serves some new function, is capable of replacing or adding to a previously existing organism without being eliminated in the process or swamped in a mutitude of negative changes that disqualify the end effect.
I have disappeared indeed. I am a very busy man. Maciej
 
Maciej said:
Evolution requires accidental formation of something that did not exist before, serves some new function, is capable of replacing or adding to a previously existing organism without being eliminated in the process or swamped in a mutitude of negative changes that disqualify the end effect.
I have disappeared indeed. I am a very busy man. Maciej
Click to expand...
Busy presenting your ideas to the 100,000 biologists who work quietly with evolution every day? If you sincerely believe you are right, why not work to convince them, rather than hiding your light under this bushel basket?
 
Clearly hecd2 reverts to his already rebutted arguments.

He ridicules himself by his continuing attempt to belittle a world-class geneticist. If he had taken the trouble to read the url on Prof. Giertych’s talk at the Sapienza conference November 3, last he would have all the evidence necessary to refute evolution theory from molecular biology.

To my pertinent points:
The only really scientific posts were from Prof. Maciej Giertych a geneticist of repute.
Click to expand...
It was sad, therefore, to see those less qualified than he attempting to throw doubt upon his professional knowledge in biochemistry and genetics. Clearly, this was because the empirical evidence he offered based on laboratory research indicated the weakness of the proposed mechanism for evolution, thus showing evolutionary bias to be stronger than facts.
Click to expand...
Hecd2 responded:
Well, if you insist on the argument from authority rather than the argument from evidence, I will have to point you to the fact that the vastly overwhelming majority of biologists accept the fact of evolution.
Click to expand...
I would like readers to examine this ironic statement in which he accuses someone of arguing from authority by using himself the most classic argument from authority one could imagine.

To my comment:
I was struck by the fact that a 2003 rebutted critique was used to refute Berthault’s peer reviewed experimental research.
Click to expand...
He replies:
Rebutted? Not as far as I know. Where?
Click to expand...
Now this is extraordinary! Does he keep no records?

Let me remind him. Guy Berthault took time out to reply to his web critique by email of December 4, 2007. Berthault wrote in French and to facilitate the exchange for MacAndrew it was translated into English. He requested MacAndrew to have the courtesy of publishing the rebuttal on his site. This request was not only acknowledged but trashed by MacAndrew as follows:
Why on earth should I publish this poor piece of apologetics none of which addresses the key criticisms of my article. If he wants this published, let him publish it himself
Click to expand...
In fact the rebuttal addressed each item of his “key” criticisms on a numbered basis. The translator terminated with the following words:
Although Berthault is prepared to debate any objective authority in sedimentology/geology, he considers the tenor of your remarks and their lack of scientific substance hostile to such an exchange. Your obvious attempt to introduce a religious element is foreign to his professional work and suggests a wish to denigrate his research by whatever means.
Your disparaging comments regarding an Academy of Sciences publication being inferior to “main stream scientific journals” is inexcusable and should be beneath the standards of an informed critic. Your attempt to inform the public that Russian professional sedimentologists are inferior to their American counterparts should turn any knowledgeable scientist from your ill-informed assertions.
Trying to make a case that experimental research done 20 years ago has no longer any value, apart from exposing your lack of information on research taking place at the present time, is a sad reflection upon the scientific knowledge of the author of the document. Your lack of awareness of recently published paleohydraulic analyses by professional sedimentologists showing rapid formation of upper Jurassic conglomerates is a further reason why your critique cannot be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Let’s address his affirmation that Berthault’s
recent papers are of very poor quality and are unpublishable in respectable Western journals
Click to expand...
Having been taken short by Berthault’s experimental research being published by Academies of Science, no less, he resorts to the impossible task of attempting to decredibilise the publishers. He does this, I imagine, on the basis that the texts do no flow in terms of grammar, syntax and vocabulary as they do in journals where the native language is English. The simple and well-known reason, accepted by scientific academia everywhere, is the inevitable lack of precision in translating foreign languages, especially from Russian, through French into English. I suggest he obtains the original Russian text and bases his criticism on that. The content, however, is written and reviewed by professional sedimentologists whose credentials are recognised by the scientific community world-wide. This is just another unscientific method of misleading his followers. An attentive reader will note the words “recent papers”. This allows earlier papers published by the French Geological Society and Academy to be overlooked.

James
 
James_Edward said:
He ridicules himself by his continuing attempt to belittle a world-class geneticist. If he had taken the trouble to read the url on Prof. Giertych’s talk at the Sapienza conference November 3, last he would have all the evidence necessary to refute evolution theory from molecular biology.James
Click to expand...
If this “world class” geneticist has the evidence necessary to refute evolution, he should hurry up and do so before he gets “scooped.” :eek: Young scientists will be lining up at podiums all over the world to make their careers by declaring the refutation of a theory that has apparently only gotten stronger every year since 1859! Of course, perhaps Prof. Giertych doesn’t actually have the evidence after all; that would be a problem.:mad:

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
No, scientism does not rule my day. It is not scientism to say that evidence to the contrary falsifies a theory. If the church were to tell me that the snow I perceive as white when I am climbing Longs Peak is actually black, I would regard the Church as mistaken. That is not scientism. If Revelation were to suggest that the Earth is flat, I would interpret that as symbolic language; that is not scientism.
Click to expand...
According to my dictionary, scientism does rule lots of people’s days because a lot of people extend “all” to all kinds of things. You know how silly the ordinary person can act.😉

Scientism: the belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable in all fields of inquiry.
 
grannymh said:
According to my dictionary, scientism does rule lots of people’s days because a lot of people extend “all” to all kinds of things. You know how silly the ordinary person can act.😉

Scientism: the belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable in all fields of inquiry.
Click to expand...
I am confident that you do not believe that serious scientists think that science is applicable in all fields of inquiry.
 
grannymh said:
According to my dictionary, scientism does rule lots of people’s days because a lot of people extend “all” to all kinds of things. You know how silly the ordinary person can act.;)].
Click to expand...
Very silly. I met an ordinary person today.
 
StAnastasia said:
Busy presenting your ideas to the 100,000 biologists who work quietly with evolution every day? If you sincerely believe you are right, why not work to convince them, rather than hiding your light under this bushel basket?
Click to expand...
“work quietly with evolution every day”? How do they do that? Comparative genomics deals with currently living organisms. Period. So-called synthetic biology - a trial and error process - deals with currently living organisms.

I don’t think anyone works with macro-evolution every day. And if bacteria can be found in nature that are already resistant to natural and synthetic antibacterials, I think that puts micro into question as well.

Evolution, as described here, does not appear to be involved in day to day biology.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top