Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

[hecd2]

Quote mining? That is why I post the link to the article. All of us should find these relevant to the discussion at hand. Let us all read some of the raw research before it goes thought the evolutionist filter.

You did *not *post a link; you posted only an abstract, with the clear inference that it is somehow evidence that humans and other primates do not share a common ancestor. I posted other quotations from the paper which reveal the truth - that the authors of the paper themselves accept the fact that the the apparent discontinuity in human and nonhuman cognition is underpinned by continuity of biology and Darwinian evolution. If you want us to read the published research, will you be posting links to the hundreds of papers published every week in dozens of journals that contain evidence for the fact of evolution, or only the very few that you erroneously think are evidence against it?

The point if I remember is that crows are smarter than monkeys. (I think it was this paper)

You remember wrong. That is not a claim of the paper and to think so is clear evidence in support of the suspicion that you have either not read or not understood it. So, what you are doing is quote mining.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

You did *not *post a link; you posted only an abstract, with the clear inference that it is somehow evidence that humans and other primates do not share a common ancestor. I posted other quotations from the paper which reveal the truth - that the authors of the paper themselves accept the fact that the the apparent discontinuity in human and nonhuman cognition is underpinned by continuity of biology and Darwinian evolution. If you want us to read the published research, will you be posting links to the hundreds of papers published every week in dozens of journals that contain evidence for the fact of evolution, or only the very few that you erroneously think are evidence against it?

You remember wrong. That is not a claim of the paper and to think so is clear evidence in support of the suspicion that you have either not read or not understood it. So, what you are doing is quote mining.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Aahhh! I see the source of your irritation. My bad. I did not link it.

Yup. I will. The papers are good for us to read.

 

[Alethios]

“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” ~ *Communion and Stewardship *(2002)

The quote is taken from section 63 of the report from the International Theological Commission , a Vatican advisory grouip with the same Magisterial authority as the Pontifical Academy of Science - that is, NONE. The ITC source has no standing in this thread’s evidential rules for theology, which require STM only: Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

The section begins with “63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago .…”.
According to the first few words here, the whole section is summarizing the mainstream belief of modern science, not that of the Pope or the ITC (though this is hardly emphasized by the paragraph’s structure).
Some here routinely and erroneously cite this section as proof that the Pope subscribes to this description of what modern science believes, because he signed off on the document! Then, of course, he was CJR, not PB16.
Apparently the beliefs of a Pope before his reign - back to childhood, perhaps? - are doctrinally sound.
Also, it seems that acknowledging that section 63 describes what most scientific elite believe - which we do also acknowledge - is tantamount to citing your own beliefs.

This illogic is most transparent and not worthy of any consideration - shame, shame on its dissembling disseminators.

AMDG

 

[reggieM]

The section begins with “63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago .…”.
According to the first few words here, the whole section is summarizing the mainstream belief of modern science, not that of the Pope or the ITC …

That is correct and an important and blatantly obvious point.

This illogic is most transparent and not worthy of any consideration - shame, shame on its dissembling disseminators.

It is transparent and an attempt to cover-up the problem.

 

[Alethios]

Your “challenge” was absurd, it did not deserve a serious response, and I’m glad to see that it didn’t get one.

This thread is a similar travesty, as it essentially amounts to a one-sided spewing forth of narrow-minded intellectual sophistry masquerading as Catholicism. The responses necessary for your posts would take hours to assemble, and I for one do not have the time or desire to indulge you.

You’re obviously already convinced that you’re right, and no number of rational arguments or respected Catholic theologians (the Pope included) will be able to make you even hesitate, because you already have all the documents to “prove” that anything said against you is wrong. You’re clearly looking for an endorsement, not an honest argument.

All I can say is that you’re so far off the deep end here, it’s not even funny, and I’m honestly of the opinion that the sooner this thread dies off and sinks away, the better. But DO NOT presume to take the silence of the opposing side as an endorsement of your position, because it’s not. Far from it. Same goes for the Copernican thread.

Thomas Kuhn has noted that the shift to a new paradigm (in this case, a shift of crackpots) usually proceeds in definite steps:

• attempts to ignore the new paradigm, then
• emotional ridicule of its value…
• *ad hominem *charges of dishonesty and deception…
• downgrading its relevance…
• exaggerating its errors as threats…
• mind-reading the authors’ motivation…
• suppression of its visibility and distribution…

eventually, there is stony silence and acceptance of the new paradigm as though it has always been believed. Normally the shift takes years, but all the steps are already packaged in the diatribe quoted above…

Of course creation and geostatism were once the ruling paradigms in pre-modern thought. The challenge response just restores them with proofs based on rules and evidence.

Some other thoughts:
Perhaps there was no serious response because there is no serious response?

We have an informed and clear conscience that seeks neither endorsement or argument, but the truth. To remedy the twisting of the truth is an activity that we won’t apologize for.

It’s a strange way to defend Copernicus and Darwin - with invective, then the promise of silence. Just curious…is silence used as proof, or evidence, or both?

AMDG

 

[StAnastasia]

Unless he has changed (and based on his post he hasn’t), Hugh doesn’t believe in publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals or presenting at scientific conferences. Peace Tim

That’s regrettable, if he wants to change minds. There is no substitute for serious engagement with the scientific community.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

That’s regrettable, if he wants to change minds. There is no substitute for serious engagement with the scientific community.

StAnastasia

Perhaps we should start looking into the peer-review process itself. Let’s start looking to see if it can be trusted.

 

[Luke65]

Perhaps we should start looking into the peer-review process itself. Let’s start looking to see if it can be trusted.

Divine Providence?

One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data (June 4, 2009)

Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than previously thought, a study suggests.

One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.

However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.

[And I can’t resist:]

The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS One…

 

[masterjedi747]

Perhaps there was no serious response because there is no serious response?

I don’t believe that for a moment. As I said, I simply don’t have the time to personally take on the project of correcting and commenting on such a large volume errors. Aside from the fact that an internet message board is hardly the appropriate medium for such a task… what you require, my friend, are books.

We have an informed and clear conscience that seeks neither endorsement or argument, but the truth.

I’m far more worried about your intellect than your conscience in this matter.
Regardless, I apologize if I took the wrong implications from your massive posts.

To remedy the twisting of the truth is an activity that we won’t apologize for.

I’m actually more concerned about you tearing down some truths in the name of defending others.

It’s a strange way to defend Copernicus and Darwin - with invective, then the promise of silence. Just curious…is silence used as proof, or evidence, or both?

Neither. As a rebuke. (…not that it worked, or anything )

 

[Alethios]

…The documents show that many Church leaders weren’t OK with evolution. The current position of the Church is another question. There is also the issue of whether (or to what extent) these documents represent infallible Church doctrine. …

The positions of the “Church” and many “Church leaders” have swung back and forth between fidelity and heresy throughout the centuries. In counterpoint, the position of the Magisterium has not. The former represent documents that are possibly true; the latter those that are true.
So the Magisterial documents alone are those that this thread relies on for true belief.

Infallibility means the supernatural prerogative given to the Church of Christ to be preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. It applies to certain of the Church’s teachings.

Inerrancy means there can be no contradictions in the Bible - there can be no real opposition between Biblical statements and the truths of philosophy, science, or history.
Inerrancy refers only to Revelation.
Three papal encyclicals have declared the inerrancy of Scripture, as well as verses of Scripture itself.
Inerrancy includes the Book of Genesis, a part of divine Revelation.

AMDG

 

[reggieM]

Perhaps we should start looking into the peer-review process itself. Let’s start looking to see if it can be trusted.

Evolutionist Admits that Scientists Lie to get Government Funding …

[Here is] is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence — the existence of religious scientists — is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.

– Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago, in The New Republic, Feb 4, 2009

 

[StAnastasia]

Perhaps we should start looking into the peer-review process itself. Let’s start looking to see if it can be trusted.

You should propose a paper on this to the AAAS. Do you have the qualifications to have a paper accepted?

 

[ricmat]

You should propose a paper on this to the AAAS. Do you have the qualifications to have a paper accepted?

StA - I think you’ve fallen down, and can’t get up.

Or…to use an old fashioned LP analogy, you’re skipping.

 

[ricmat]

For those of you interested in life, evolution, etc. Here is a series (12) of 4-5 minute videos on youtube which I thought was well done. It is probably considered favorable to ID, but it doesn’t bash Darwin. In any case it’s fun to watch, and the segments on how an individual cell and the bacterial flagellum work were fascinating (regardless of how they came to be).

Unlocking the Mysteries of Life

My apologies if this has been mentioned before and I didn’t see it.

 

[StAnastasia]

StA - I think you’ve fallen down, and can’t get up…

Something as interesting as buffalo proposes should be discussed in a broader forum than CAF.

 

[ricmat]

Something as interesting as buffalo proposes should be discussed in a broader forum than CAF.

Really?

So if Buffalo decided to propose a paper to the AAAS (as you suggested above), would you be willing to put your name on the application as an endorser - “that this is an interesting proposal and should be discussed in an AAAS forum?”

 

[StAnastasia]

Really?So if Buffalo decided to propose a paper to the AAAS (as you suggested above), would you be willing to put your name on the application as an endorser - “that this is an interesting proposal and should be discussed in an AAAS forum?”

That depends on how it was worded. “Do away with peer review” would not be constructive, and would get no where. “Reevaluate how peer reviews are conducted” sounds valuable, and I would support that.

 

[buffalo]

You should propose a paper on this to the AAAS. Do you have the qualifications to have a paper accepted?

Thank you for identifying one of the first areas to investigate.

If my dog submitted a paper that was true, the peer review process would deny it because he wasn’t part of the club?

 

[StAnastasia]

Thank you for identifying one of the first areas to investigate. If my dog submitted a paper that was true, the peer review process would deny it because he wasn’t part of the club?

If your dog submitted a paper that was credible, I’m sure the AAAS would accept it. As far as I know they are not speciesist, and they are less sexist than the Catholic Church. A good argument would earn a hearing.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

A good argument would earn a hearing.

StAnastasia

And that should be the only requirement, the merits and truth.