Jack the Bodiless

Randman, would you LIKE scientists to explain the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution, or would you NOT like this?

If they do, they're trying to dissasociate evolution from the need to explain abiogenesis.

If they don't, they're "covering up" and not "being honest".

You are spinning aimlessly, Randman.

Malaclypse the Younger

randman

Depends on what you mean by "intelligent design". Under some definitions (e.g. like a human engineer) the evidence is entirely incompatible with ID.

Other definitions are "compatible" with the evidence only because they are scientifically meaningless: They would be compatible with any logically possible evidence, even that which contradicts the evidence we do have.

Last Thursdayism is "compatible" with the evidence. That doesn't mean it's scientifically sound.

You are obviously not fully qualified to assess it; it has already been found to be false. IC does not falsify nonteleological evolution because of scaffolding and functional transfer.

Sure it poses a problem. And the problem has been solved.

Your incredulity is not at all persuasive, especially since it appears to be willful.

As noted earlier, an arbitrary distinction is not necessarily wrong.

Sure it must... someday.

Whatever. Advance science by figuring out how to detect and quantify that realm. When (and if!) you do, I'll be happy to shake your hand in Stockholm.

It is not yet clear that you understand logic.

It doesn't "resonate" with people who have been force-fed cult indoctrination for millennia? Quelle suprise.

As I said, you don't appear to understand logic. This is an emotional argument, not a logical one.

Since it is very explicit that evolution is a scientific description about how life has p[rogressed, and it is very explicit that abiogenesis is not fully understood, it is very difficult to see how the distinction is intended to cover anything up. Scientists do not claim to be omniscient; we leave that to cult mythologies.

Scientists do admit that abiogenesis is a serious unresolved issue. How else do you think they get grant money? You don't start off a grant application with "we fully understand abiogenesis, so give me money".

This is very amusing. You've been shown a number of obviously false-to-fact assertions in AIG; should people go there for "honesty"?

Malaclypse the Younger

randman

What were you saying about honesty? This statement is simply false, and appears entirely mendacious. It has been admitted that Neaderthals were misunderstood. Misrepresentation implies that the truth was known and intentionally contravened. Is English your first language?

I have evidence that you are either lying, profoundly stupid, or do not understand the English language, and (to wit, your statement above). You have made a fact claim about an admission of misrepresentation: Either produce the fact of this admission, or admit that you yourself are mendacious, stupid or linguistically incompetent.

We love you too, randman.

randman

You guys are far from skeptics. You are taught from very early ages that evolution is true, shown pictures which are mere artist creations, and given a whole host of conclusions about evidence at a very eraly age, and told repeatedly that everyone that disagrees with evolution does so only because of religious prejudices, etc,...
By the time, you get to college and grad school, there is no doubt left in your mind despite the fact you never really questioned the evidence with an open mind and looked at the data objectively.
This is why it is so difficult for you to understand that claiming life came from spontaneous action of dead matter is not a scientific conclusion. It is matter of faith for you guys, but you are in so deep you can't see it.
As far as my faith in Christ, I prefer not to bring up purely religious subject matter here on this board with the type of people here.
My own experience does include direct observations, but at the same time, I do not feel it is more honorable to beleive having seen than to beleive having not seen. It's kind of like right and wrong. I don't think you have to be a scientist to have a conscience, and to know right and wrong. Having to have it proven to you in order to fully accept and obey something that is right is not more honorable than knowing it inwardly from the start, and accepting it then.
Science is a different and much more limited matter.

Jack the Bodiless

Let me ask you some simple questions, Randman.

Do you believe the Earth is round?

If so, how do you know?

Why do you trust those who claim it is?

Have you, personally, seen the Earth from space?

Do you think that round-Earthism is "brainwashing"?

What is your opinion of flat-Earthers?

Do you know that your Bible was written by people who believed the Earth was flat?

Kosh

Quite wrong again, dipshit.

I was taught from a very early age
that creationism and the Bible were true. Then
I learned to think for myself, examined the
evidence, and realized that the Bible is a load
of crap.

randman

Misrepresntation, hmmm...It's kind of like all those people who insisted the Bill and Monica thing was a myth until the dress was found.
They can say they honestly did not know better, that they really thought Bill was innocent, but I guess you could also argue over the definition of what is is.
Look into for yourself. One of the links suggested here pointed out many scientists considered the evidence of arthritis so obvious as to raise the question of intentional misrepresentation, though it has been claimed this was done for creationist purposes, but beyond the initial error, why are such errors continually perpetuated in the teaching of evolution.
At some point, I think misrepresentation is an apt phrase.
By the way, I did point out how the guy from the University of Chicago who wrote the 1995 Wolrdbook section on "evolution" makes statements that appear to be misrepresentations such as claiming creationists beleive that no species can evolve from another. He also claims the motivation for critics of evolution is due to religious prejudices. I think misrepresentation as an apt word for that.
In fact, there is quite a bit of misrepresentations that many in the evolutionist camp make to convince others that their critics are wrong.

Jack the Bodiless

Why do you expect him to be an expert on what creationists are saying this week? Creationism is a fast-moving field: it moves backwards at a ferocious pace, as more and more of it is proved wrong with every passing year. Even WE are racing to keep up with the retreat...

Malaclypse the Younger

randman

It would appear you are resorting to insults, presumably because your case is so weak.

Insulting and false. You have shown us nothing that refutes our assertions of our own skepticism.

So what? It is true. Why shouldn't we be taught that?

Insulting and false. I have seen many diagrams that do not appear to be mere "artist [sic] creations". Why should I trust the opinion of an virtually illiterate person such as yourself?

Again, these conclusions are true. Why shouldn't we be given them?

Again, that is a true assertion, if you put "gross stupidity" and "willful ignorance" in the "etc."

Again this is false. Many of us, including myself, have questioned the evidence with an open mind and looked at the data objectively.

You have shown no evidence that we have not. Merely disagreeing with a person (whether or not that person does or does not happen to be willfully ignorant, virtually illiterate and obviously dishonest) is not evidence of closed-mindedness.

I don't make that claim. Nor does anyone else. In fact, this claim has been repudiated so many times that it is obviously dishonest to repeat it.

Again, it is unclear why you would ascribe a methodology to a statement that is not widely held.

I don't believe terrestrial life came naturalistically from dead matter. I don't disbelieve it either. I suspect it might have, but I simply don't know.

Since you are claiming that belief in evolution is not only a religious matter, but that it is a false religious matter, your own methodology with regard to religion is relevant.

Whatever.

Well, you have given us no indication that you are able to distinguish honest from dishonest. Perhaps your weird cult indoctrination has something to do with this.

Yes, science is vastly more limited than religion. It limits itself to reality, and excludes delusion, indoctrination and blatant political propaganda. I happily accept this "limitation".

randman

Well, I was raised to beleive in evolution, and my parents did not make a lot of comments on the Bible, but they certainly did not beleive it was all the word of God.
I think most Americans are indeed raised to beleive evolution is true, although that may be changing somewhat as the overstatements and myth-making of evolutionists have been more publicized in the past 20 years.
What utterly convinced me to reject evolution when I was asked to look into myself with an open mind. I considered the evidence I was taught that suppossedly affirmed evolution, and what I found is that the fossil record, for instance, did not show species gradually changing into new species and such. Maybe I got the wrong impression, but it seemed to me evolution was suppossedly so well-founded that there were thousands of clear cases of gradual evolutionary, and incremental changes documenting these diagrams we were all shown of the evolutionary tree, and as I learned that was a false impression, I talked to other people that also beleived evolution was true, many of whom were very well-educated to see what their impression of what they were tuaght concerning evolution, and what I came away with is that it seemed the scientific community may be more aware of the actual data to some extent, but they perpetuate false impressions to convince the public that evolution has more data behind it than it does.
Even an MD, an orthopeadic surgeon, shared many of the same false impressions that I had based on what we were told in school.
The more I looked into it, the more it appeared the whole thing was a house of cards designed as a propaganda campaign.
Now, as I have learned more, I can see a little more of why evolutionists beleive they are right, not that I agree, but at the same time, the hallmarks of propaganda are still there.
There is still the reluctance to fully disavow passing off things that they know are more speculative in nature as fact. There is still the false characterization of what their critics say, such as claiming creationists don't beleive any speciation occurs, and there is still the hostility within a large portion of the evolutionist camp that is evidence of people who have come to to their conclusions based on indoctrination rather than objective analysis.