| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"David Buckna" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2004 10:02:05 PM |
| Object: |
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
.
|
|
| User: "An Evil Meme" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
28 Dec 2004 06:18:54 AM |
|
|
<< Subject: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
From: (David Buckna)
Date: Mon, Dec 27, 2004 11:02 PM
Message-id: <5ff8dc2e.0412272002.4c6ddf3c@posting.google.com>
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? >><BR><BR>
Of course not. The theory of evolution may be the most critically analyzed
theory in the history of science. And that's partly due to fundie retards
attacking a theory they don't understand not from a basic of science but from
the viewpoint that it contradicts their religion. Ironically all these attacks
do in the long run is make the theory of evolution stronger. Thank you
fundies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
27 Dec 2004 10:17:34 PM |
|
|
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
1)
If you have to ask, you haven't the faintest clue about
science.
2)
And, oh: "Critical Analysis" doesn't involve an agenda,
not even a religious agenda ("creationism" / "intelligent
design").
3)
There is no alternative to evolution. There is no "scientific
theory of intelligent design." It doesn't exist. There isn't
even an argument for intelligent design. Nope. Attacks on
evolution do not constitute "evidence" for intelligent
design. Even if evolution was completely displaced by
science tomorrow, "intelligent design" would never be
taken seriously. There is no theory. There is no "evidence"
for it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton The Fat Man Who Cums But Once A Year" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
28 Dec 2004 12:41:49 AM |
|
|
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0412272002.4c6ddf3c@posting.google.com...
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
No, because without it, evolution wouldn't be so thoroughly supported and
evidenced. Critical analysis is what science is based on and evolution has
been one of the most successful beneficiaries of it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
27 Dec 2004 10:24:47 PM |
|
|
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0412272002.4c6ddf3c@posting.google.com...
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
No, it should not be, and what's more, it isn't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "XeNO" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
29 Dec 2004 02:05:27 AM |
|
|
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0412272002.4c6ddf3c@posting.google.com...
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
Evolution is always under crucial analysis. If you watch the history of the
theory, compare what it was in the 1800's to what it is now.
--
"For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law
of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret
that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected
with this. "--Albert Einstein
XeNO
Order of the 8th dIgIt
aa# 1901
In order to email me privately, you must remove god from my email address,
and follow the links to get past my spam sheild.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
27 Dec 2004 11:04:42 PM |
|
|
(David Buckna) wrote in
news:5ff8dc2e.0412272002.4c6ddf3c@posting.google.com:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
Hello, Buckna. You worthless shill.
Are you going to stick around to defend this stupidity, or are you going
tolend more evidence to the conclusion you cannot, and know it very well?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
30 Dec 2004 12:53:39 PM |
|
|
Eric Gill wrote:
dabuckna@direct.ca (David Buckna) wrote in
news:5ff8dc2e.0412272002.4c6ddf3c@posting.google.com:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
Hello, Buckna. You worthless shill.
You know this guy?
Are you going to stick around to defend this stupidity,
Apparently not.
or are you going
tolend more evidence to the conclusion you cannot, and know it very well?
Looks like it. Another hit-and-run fundy.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
31 Dec 2004 10:46:19 AM |
|
|
Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in
news:33j15lF41um54U1@individual.net:
Eric Gill wrote:
dabuckna@direct.ca (David Buckna) wrote in
news:5ff8dc2e.0412272002.4c6ddf3c@posting.google.com:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
Hello, Buckna. You worthless shill.
You know this guy?
He's been posting for years, especially here and Talk.Origins. Long ago,
he sometimes responded. I lured him into actually replying once by
mentioning one of the Jewish propoganda pieces that claimed the body of
Jesus was dragged theough the streets of Jerusalem. When I asked him why
he he had never replied before he believed he was catching me in a
mistake, he apparently stopped replying altogether.
Are you going to stick around to defend this stupidity,
Apparently not.
or are you going
tolend more evidence to the conclusion you cannot, and know it very
well?
Looks like it. Another hit-and-run fundy.
Buckna is apparently a professional Creationist. They are whores that
sell their integrity for the adoration of the fundamentalist set and a
few dollars. This is basically what Gastrich wants to be.
Though, at least JG seems to have set his sights as high as a
professional bottom-feeder can go. Buckna seems happy to remain a second-
rate shill for the Creationist "celebrities."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
28 Dec 2004 03:17:38 AM |
|
|
David Buckna wrote:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
Scientists critique each others work on evolution
allllll the time.
What we don't need is deeply ignorant religous kooks
trying to critique something which they simply don't have
the brain power to handle.
--
Dance, monkeys, dance!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
01 Jan 2005 05:27:53 PM |
|
|
David Buckna wrote:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
David Buckna wrote:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
Your essay is the standard creationist ***** from start to finish.
If your case is so strong, where are your science papers published in
the standard science journals supporting your pretence of a "Theory of
Creation"? Answer: You have none.
Where is *your* postive evidence supporting creation?
Answer: You have none.
Where are your papers, published in refereed science journals, refuting
the theory of evolution?
Answer: You have none.
There are hundreds of such papers supporting evolution. This is where
the work of science is published: in the standard journals, not in
cheesey, misleading articles published on the Internet that consist of
misleadingly selected quotaions from popular works on evolution, and
nothing from the journals themselves.
The first thing you creationists fail to realize is that school text
books are not the basis of the theory of evolution. They are merely
versions of it designed to introduce students to a wide-ranging and
complex theory. The giraffe's neck is a case in point.
The fact is that the giraffe's neck (despite lies from creationists to
the contrary) shows no evidence whatsoever that it was "designed" by
some god. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is no different in basic
anatomy, from the neck of any other mammal. There is nothing
miraculous about it. This in itself refutes special creation.
The fact is that there is insufficient evidence to indicate exactly why
the giraffe's neck is so long, but enabling the giraffe to reach leaves
at higher elevations is not the sole function of the neck. It has
other functions, and at this point it isn't possible to tell which of
these (if any) lies behind the neck's elongation.
You quote the Natural History reference to Gould's comments on the neck
as though you're referencing a science paper, but you're not. You're
referencing only an essay by an evolutionist who is doing nothing more
than making the same case Darwin did - urging caution with speculation
where there is insufficient data.
You would help your readers if you had told them they might more easily
find this same article in Dr. Gould's book, "Leonardo's Mountain of
Clams and the Diet of Worms", but then your aim isn't to help readers,
is it? Your aim is to muddy the water as much as possible in your
pathetic attempt to discredit evolution. If you actually told the
truth, you would fail in your quest because the truth is that evolution
is a demonstrated fact.
The reason there are few giraffe fossils is that organisms which die in
the kind of environment favored by giraffes - drier areas - do not make
good fossils. The corpses are ravaged and destroyed by predators and
scavengers leaving very little to fossilize. But your dishonesty is
apparent in your avoidance of any actual discussion of the okapi, which
is nothing more or less than the very thing you deny exists (an example
of what a transitional giraffe might well have resembled) and further
exemplified by your failure to reference the fossil Samothermium while
pretending that no fossil giraffe forms exist.
The okapi is a member of the same family as the giraffe. It is similar
to the giraffe in appearance, having its front quarters bulked-up with
strong muscles and a long neck (though not nearly so long as the
giraffe's). The okapi proves that the musculature for supporting a
long neck can be firmly in place before the neck ever begins to grow to
dramatic proportions.
Your reference to mesonychids is also nothing short of dishonest. This
is a family of fossil mammals, but you blather mindlessly about it like
it's just one animal and then dishonestly describe "this creature" as
wolf-like. Presumably you're referring to pachyaena, but it would be
as accurate to describe that as a hyena as it is to pretend it's some
sort of wolf. The fact is that mesonychids had limb bones like
ungulates and ear bones like cetaceans. They were not canids.
The fact is that whales' closest living relative is the hippopotamus
(http://www.whalewatch.co.nz/_disc3/00000182.htm). Hippos are
ungulates. Deal with the facts, not the very rabid speculation of
which you accuse evolutionists, you hypocrite.
Your dishonesty is again apparent when you mention the Miller-Urey
experiments. You start by asking a question: "Isn't Miller's
experiment now considered irrelevant to origin-of-life studies because
many evolutionary scientists now say the primitive atmosphere was
probably quite different?" and then turn your question, with no
supporting evidence whatsoever, into a "fact" by going on to state:
"The text gives no hint of this, and makes it sound as though Miller's
experiment is the key to chemical evolution."
If you were being honest about this, as Dr. Gould was being honest
about evolution, you would discuss this and other experiments, and also
the fact that many of the organic building blocks of life are found in
space, so even if the Miller-Urey experiment was as obsolete as you
lie, it is irrelevant because the chemical components *do* exist
naturally, which is all the Miller-Urey were trying to show, and these
same chemicals are delivered to Earth on meteorites such as the
Murchison.
You ask how Christopher Beard can know that a fossil is 300 million
years old, but you give the answer yourself. It's because he's curator
of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie. If you want to know more,
why not ask him instead of indulging in the same foundless speculation
you erroneously accuse evolutionists of doing?
The reason you do this is so that you can fall back on yet more
creationist lies, namely that "Evolutionary geologists use rocks to
date the fossils, and use fossils to date the rocks."
This is a lie, plainly and simply. The order of rocks in the geologic
column was first mapped by creationists, not evolutionists. It's a
fact that rocks underneath are older than rocks on top, unless there's
evidence of geologic upheaval. Some of the strata contain materials
that can be radiometrically dated. This brackets them by date.
Individual layers contain distinctive sets of fossils. The same
fossils in a pattern of the same strata are the same age. It's that
simple. Unlike your article, there's nothing contradictory or
dishonest about it.
Another dishonest question: "While on the subject of amphibians, I
wonder if Beard could describe even one undisputed example of a
creature that was transitional between fish and amphibian." Why not
ask him? Better yet, read the FAQs here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html
Another example of your dishonesty is your reference to the National
Geographic (Nov 2004) article "Was Darwin Wrong". Again, this is not a
science paper aimed at establishing evolution, but a popular press
article based on those papers. (Incidentally, if you look at the
photograph facing page six of that article you will see that the front
legs of the giraffe skeleton *are* actually longer than the rear, if
only by a small amount, meaning that you are either observationally
challenged or simply a liar. I'm guessing both).
You hypocritically proclaim that "Students should be taught to weigh
the factual evidence" but your own article contains not a shred of fact
supporting creation. There is no such thing. You ask that students be
given colored markers to highlight established facts in that article?
Have you ever thought of removing the plank from your own eye before
you have the gall to imagine there's a mote in the eye of your
neighbor?
If students followed your advice with your own article, they would be
at a complete loss for what to highlight. Your entire diatribe is
dishonest speculation throughout - and nothing more. In other words,
it's the "work" of a creationist. What mroe needs to be said of it?
Creationists can offer nothing to science but sour-grapes diatribes
against evolution. All you do is all creaitonists are capable of -
trying to pull apart popular articles or textbook items on evolution.
Not a single one of you has the guts or the material to go up against
the science papers which actually contain the evidence.
But let me take your advice and go through that National Geographic
article. Below is what I highlighted. I now invite you to do the same
with your article:
1.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been confirmed to such a degree, by
observation and experiment, that knowledgable people accept it as fact.
2.
Earth orbiting the sun has been confirmed to such a degree, by
observation and experiment, that knowledgable people accept it as fact.
3.
Plate tectonics has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and
experiment, that knowledgable people accept it as fact.
4.
The existence and structure of atoms has been confirmed to such a
degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgable people accept
it as fact.
5.
Electricity has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and
experiment, that knowledgable people accept it as fact.
6.
The Theory of Evolution has been confirmed to such a degree, by
observation and experiment, that knowledgable people accept it as fact.
7.
Harun Yahya considers evolution to be a deceit.
8.
Srila Prabhupada considers evolution to be nonsensical.
9.
In February 2001, 45% of Americans considered that some god created
humans pretty much as they are now within the last 10,000 years (a
percentage that has changed so little in the last two decades that it's
now obvious that creationists are failing dismally even with the huge
lies they are forced to tell).
10.
Many people have never taken a biology course that dealt with evolution
nor read a book in which the thory was lucidly explained.
11.
Evolution has a mountainous accumulation of peer-reviewed scientific
studies.
12.
Darwin's "Origin of Species..." offered a rational explanation of how
evolution must occur.
13.
Small, random, heritable differences among individuals result in
different chances of survival and reproduction.
14.
Natural culling leads to significant changes in shape, size, strength,
armament, color, biochemistry and behavior.
15.
Less successful competitors produce fewer surviving offspring.
16.
Genetic changes sometimes accumulate within an isolated segment of a
species.
17.
At a certain point a sub-species becomes irreversibly distinct so that
its members can no longer mate with other members of that species.
18.
Darwin presented evidence in four categories: biogeography, embryology,
morphology, and paleontology,.
19.
Closely allied species tend to be found on the same continent.
20.
Similar habitats on different continents are not occupied by the same
species.
21.
Closely allied species are adjacent to one another in the fossil
record.
22.
One species endures for millions of years in the fossil record. Just
above, a similar but not identical species replaces it.
23.
All vertebrates have backbones. Among these, birds have feathers
whereas reptiles have scales. Mammals have neither but instead, fur
and mammary glands. Some mammals have pouches.
24.
All plants, animals and fungi have cells which contain a nucleus.
25.
All living orgnaisms have DNA and RNA (except some viruses which have
RNA only).
26.
As long ago as 1735, Karl von Linne showed how species could be
systematically classified, but could offer no explanation for it since
he was a creationist.
27.
The five digit skeletal structure of the vertebrate "hand" appears in
humans, apes, racoons bears, cats, bats, porpoises, lizards and
turtles.
28.
Darwin predicted that in Madagascar there would exist a moth with a
proboscis 11" long. 40 years later such a moth was found.
29.
Male mammals have nipples.
30.
Some snakes (notably boas) carry the rudiments of a pelvis and tiny
legs in their back ends.
31.
Some species of beetle have wings sealed beneath wing covers that never
open.
32.
The mouse genome has about 30,000 genes (the same number as humans)
with about 99% having direct counterparts in humans.
33.
The capacity for quick change among disease causing microbes is what
makes them so dangerous.
34.
The first penicillin-resistant strains of S. aureus were reported in
1947, four years after medical practitioners started using penicillin.
35.
Methicillin was introduced in the 1960's to combat the
penicillin-resistant strains, but by the 1980's MRSA was widespread.
36.
Vancomycin was introduced to combat those, but the first Vancomycin
resistant strain appeared in 2002.
37.
In 40 million year old deposits, Dorudon was discovered in Egypt. It
had a detached pelvis and useless legs.
38.
After a few years of infection and drug treatment, each HIV patient
carries a unique version fo the virus.
39.
Insects and weeds acquire resistance to insecticides and herbicides.
40.
Evolution among Darwin's Galapagos finches has been observed recently.
41.
Evolution in fruit flies has been observed.
42.
Evolution in E.coli has been observed.
43.
Relatively recently discovered fossil Pakicetus has whale-like ears in
a skull which appears more dog-like.
44.
Ambulocetus natans had webbed feet but was fully capable of walking.
45.
Rodhocetus balochistanensis had nostrils halfway between the front of
its snout and the top of its head.
That's more than one fact per page (counting even the photo pages) and
I didn't even list them all. Which of these facts are you disputing?
Budikka.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
28 Dec 2004 07:12:47 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 27 Dec 2004 20:02:05 -0800,
(David Buckna) let us all know that:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
Should creationism be immune from critical analysis?
Creationists believe so.
Evolution is analyzed every day.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
28 Dec 2004 01:37:38 AM |
|
|
In article <5ff8dc2e.0412272002.4c6ddf3c@posting.google.com>,
(David Buckna) wrote:
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
The scientific theory of evolution has been critically analyzed by
scientists for over 150 years and is still standing.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
27 Dec 2004 09:38:27 PM |
|
|
In article <5ff8dc2e.0412272002.4c6ddf3c@posting.google.com>,
dabuckna@direct.ca says...
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
It has built up an immunity (in the sense of an immune system) to
sniveling theistic nonsense and their silly non-argument, which are
easily deflected for lack of factual substance. The design whiners have
no ability to analyze anything and certainly don't apply critical
thinking to their own philosophy. If they did then they would find that
their rehashed watchmaker arguments have long ago been discredited for
the fallacious and faulty analogies that they are.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
28 Dec 2004 01:42:22 AM |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2004 20:02:05 -0800, (David Buckna)
wrote:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
No, and it isn't. However, immunity from critical analysis is
*exactly* what you cretinists demand for your position.
<web spam snipped>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
27 Dec 2004 11:35:00 PM |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2004 20:02:05 -0800, (David Buckna)
wrote:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
No. Did you have any to offer?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rune Børsjø" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
28 Dec 2004 09:58:51 AM |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2004 20:02:05 -0800, (David Buckna)
wrote:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
When said 'critical analysis' is based solely on religious scripture,
yes.
--
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-James Madison
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
01 Jan 2005 02:24:44 PM |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2004 20:02:05 -0800, (David Buckna)
wrote:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
Buckna, you're terminally clueless and bearing false witness..
Go ***** somewhere else.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
01 Jan 2005 08:36:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 12:24:44 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On 27 Dec 2004 20:02:05 -0800, (David Buckna)
wrote:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
Buckna, you're terminally clueless and bearing false witness.
What else is new?
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
03 Jan 2005 12:26:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 02:36:57 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 12:24:44 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On 27 Dec 2004 20:02:05 -0800, (David Buckna)
wrote:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
Buckna, you're terminally clueless and bearing false witness.
What else is new?
Nothing. I figured he needed the reminder observation.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
30 Dec 2004 08:14:54 AM |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2004 20:02:05 -0800, (David Buckna) wrote:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
Nononono. Analysis, based on the presupposition that all material evidence, is
fraudulent, is not exactly what " Critical Analysis", means.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
30 Dec 2004 11:54:21 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:14:54 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
said in alt.atheism:
[piggybacking]
On 27 Dec 2004 20:02:05 -0800, (David Buckna) wrote:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
Just a few random thoughts:
"For example, all radiometric dating methods assume a) that no decay
product was present initially or that initial quantities can be
accurately estimated b) that the decay system was closed through the
years and c) that the decay rate was constant over time."
People who know nothing about a subject really shouldn't set up web
pages about it. Radioactive dating is about ratios, not about
absolute amounts.
"Of course, evolutionists maintain the okapi is a 'living example' of
one of these short-necked 'giraffes'."
It's a living example of a descendent of the ancestor common to both
okapis and giraffes. Not exactly the same thing. Not even close.
"While on the subject of amphibians, I wonder if Beard could describe
even one undisputed example of a creature that was transitional
between fish and amphibian."
So many to choose from ...
"Evolutionists say, 'We continually revise our theories and welcome
critical examination and evaluation.' They may revise aspects of their
theories, but because evolution is so incredibly malleable, no amount
of contrary evidence will convince them otherwise. But how much
contrary evidence must accumulate before a theory is discarded?"
Which theory would that be? (Evolution is a fact. There are many
theories of [about] evolution, so one must be specific.) Since
evolution happens, the idea that it happens will never "be discarded".
"Which is a more objective question: 'What were the ape-like creatures
that led to man?' or 'Did man evolve from ape-like creatures?'"
The first, since man IS an ape, so of course we evolved from other
"ape-like" creatures. Heidelbergensis was "ape-like", so was Cro
Magnon.
"2. Regarding University of Massachussetts [sic] professor Lynn
Margulis, Michael Behe writes in "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution" (1996): 'At one of her many public talks she
asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single,
unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the
accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet.' (Behe, p. 26)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Pick one.
"3. Are you able to describe the specific evolutionary process that
accounted for the complex arrangement of inanimate matter into a life
form that grows, metabolizes, reacts to stimuli, and reproduces? (the
four criteria for biological life). If 'yes', what was the process? If
'no', why can't the process be specifically described?"
Are you able to describe the specific creationary process that
accounted for the complex arrangement of inanimate matter into a life
form that grows, metabolizes, reacts to stimuli, and reproduces? (the
four criteria for biological life). If 'yes', what was the process? If
'no', why can't the process be specifically described? ('God did it'
is not specific.)
"4. On page one of your book, 'The Blind Watchmaker' you write:
'Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
of having been designed for a purpose'.
a) If living things look designed--if the empirical evidence suggests
purpose--then how do you know they weren't designed?"
No evidence of a designer, for one thing
"In this class: a) is evolution taught as fact or theory? b) do you
have the academic freedom to critique evolution?"
Since evolution is a fact, these are the wrong questions.
"As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and
evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only
approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [province/state]
science curriculum ..."
Evolution has nothing to do with origins.
People who would argue against something should really learn what it
is they're fighting against *before* making public fools of
themselves.
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
31 Dec 2004 10:56:50 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:14:54 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
said in alt.atheism:
[piggybacking]
On 27 Dec 2004 20:02:05 -0800, (David Buckna) wrote:
Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
by David Buckna [December 22, 2004]
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
Just a few random thoughts:
"For example, all radiometric dating methods assume a) that no decay
product was present initially or that initial quantities can be
accurately estimated b) that the decay system was closed through the
years and c) that the decay rate was constant over time."
People who know nothing about a subject really shouldn't set up web
pages about it. Radioactive dating is about ratios, not about
absolute amounts.
In the case of C-14 dating, this is false. for exanmple, science knows full
well that the rate that C-14 is formed and absorbed in living plant
material is not constant and has put a lot of work into calibrating and
correcting for that problem.
The problem with 'critics' of science and evolution is, most of them are
utterly ignorant and wrong about everything.
Everything.
And their arrogance is equal only to their laziness and unwillingness
to do their homework before spouting nonsense that is totally and utterly
wrong.
As far as other forms of dating, theer are many ways to do that, and if
there are problems, dating a rock formation from methods A, B, and C,
will give dates that match. showing that this is accurate.
There are some ways that may need to be calibrated.
For example, uranium gives a way of dating minerals, and zircon traps
the Uranium and daughter elemnets in a stable manner. This allows
dating of less stable methodologies that allows calibration of those
for cases where zircon is not present with Uranium.
Basically, a huge amount of effort has been put into this all, which snot
nosed ignoramt creationsit types have not the foggiest about as they spew
ignorance at us all.
Sometimes, you just want to slap the crap out these morons and
shut their ignorant mouths.
Arrogant, stupid, ignorant, lazy and utterly uninterested in facts or truth.
Many of them too stupid to understand it if somebody explained it to them
anyway.
"Of course, evolutionists maintain the okapi is a 'living example' of
one of these short-necked 'giraffes'."
It's a living example of a descendent of the ancestor common to both
okapis and giraffes. Not exactly the same thing. Not even close.
"While on the subject of amphibians, I wonder if Beard could describe
even one undisputed example of a creature that was transitional
between fish and amphibian."
So many to choose from ...
"Evolutionists say, 'We continually revise our theories and welcome
critical examination and evaluation.' They may revise aspects of their
theories, but because evolution is so incredibly malleable, no amount
of contrary evidence will convince them otherwise. But how much
contrary evidence must accumulate before a theory is discarded?"
Which theory would that be? (Evolution is a fact. There are many
theories of [about] evolution, so one must be specific.) Since
evolution happens, the idea that it happens will never "be discarded".
"Which is a more objective question: 'What were the ape-like creatures
that led to man?' or 'Did man evolve from ape-like creatures?'"
The first, since man IS an ape, so of course we evolved from other
"ape-like" creatures. Heidelbergensis was "ape-like", so was Cro
Magnon.
"2. Regarding University of Massachussetts [sic] professor Lynn
Margulis, Michael Behe writes in "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution" (1996): 'At one of her many public talks she
asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single,
unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the
accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet.' (Behe, p. 26)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Pick one.
"3. Are you able to describe the specific evolutionary process that
accounted for the complex arrangement of inanimate matter into a life
form that grows, metabolizes, reacts to stimuli, and reproduces? (the
four criteria for biological life). If 'yes', what was the process? If
'no', why can't the process be specifically described?"
Are you able to describe the specific creationary process that
accounted for the complex arrangement of inanimate matter into a life
form that grows, metabolizes, reacts to stimuli, and reproduces? (the
four criteria for biological life). If 'yes', what was the process? If
'no', why can't the process be specifically described? ('God did it'
is not specific.)
"4. On page one of your book, 'The Blind Watchmaker' you write:
'Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
of having been designed for a purpose'.
a) If living things look designed--if the empirical evidence suggests
purpose--then how do you know they weren't designed?"
No evidence of a designer, for one thing
"In this class: a) is evolution taught as fact or theory? b) do you
have the academic freedom to critique evolution?"
Since evolution is a fact, these are the wrong questions.
"As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and
evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only
approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [province/state]
science curriculum ..."
Evolution has nothing to do with origins.
People who would argue against something should really learn what it
is they're fighting against *before* making public fools of
themselves.
--
Dance, monkeys, dance!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis? |
01 Jan 2005 04:45:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:56:50 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> said
in alt.atheism:
People who know nothing about a subject really shouldn't set up web
pages about it. Radioactive dating is about ratios, not about
absolute amounts.
In the case of C-14 dating, this is false.
C12/C14 ratio, anyone?
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bloodyvikings" |
|
| Title: Why is religion exempt fronm critical analysis? |
28 Dec 2004 05:32:28 AM |
|
|
Throwing ad hominem arguments as if they were rocks at scientists isn't
critical analysis; it isn't analysis at all.
Science *is* critical analysis. Explain to me why religion is exempt
from critical analysis. To quote Dr Richard Land: "Gahd said it, that
settles it, ah buhlieve it".
Yet you expect a busy scientist to dignify your bunch of facetious
whinings, strawmen and ad hominem arguments with a response.
Go to your room and play with your crayons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is religion exempt fronm critical analysis? |
28 Dec 2004 05:24:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:32:28 +0000, bloodyvikings <spam@spam.not> wrote:
Throwing ad hominem arguments as if they were rocks at scientists isn't
critical analysis; it isn't analysis at all.
Science *is* critical analysis. Explain to me why religion is exempt
from critical analysis. To quote Dr Richard Land: "Gahd said it, that
settles it, ah buhlieve it".
You're welcome to perform critical analysis on religion.
duke
*****
Matthew 11
28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened,
and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you
and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in
heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is religion exempt fronm critical analysis? |
28 Dec 2004 05:32:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:24:00 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:32:28 +0000, bloodyvikings <spam@spam.not> wrote:
Throwing ad hominem arguments as if they were rocks at scientists isn't
critical analysis; it isn't analysis at all.
Science *is* critical analysis. Explain to me why religion is exempt
from critical analysis. To quote Dr Richard Land: "Gahd said it, that
settles it, ah buhlieve it".
You're welcome to perform critical analysis on religion.
duke
*****
Matthew 11
28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened,
and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you
and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in
heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
*****
From I believe the early 900's to the late 1700's Europe studied
Christianity to the exclusion of about every thing else. The
conclusion in the late 1700's was that Christianity was a myth. Europe
is much more religion free than America.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is religion exempt fronm critical analysis? |
30 Dec 2004 06:39:51 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:32:49 -0500, Eris <vithant01@yaya.comcast.net> wrote:
You're welcome to perform critical analysis on religion.
duke
From I believe the early 900's to the late 1700's Europe studied
Christianity to the exclusion of about every thing else. The
conclusion in the late 1700's was that Christianity was a myth. Europe
is much more religion free than America.
That's not critical analysis. That's foolishness. The current world population is now
33% Christian.
duke
*****
Matthew 11
28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened,
and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you
and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in
heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is religion exempt fronm critical analysis? |
30 Dec 2004 09:14:42 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:39:51 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:32:49 -0500, Eris <vithant01@yaya.comcast.net> wrote:
You're welcome to perform critical analysis on religion.
duke
From I believe the early 900's to the late 1700's Europe studied
Christianity to the exclusion of about every thing else. The
conclusion in the late 1700's was that Christianity was a myth. Europe
is much more religion free than America.
That's not critical analysis. That's foolishness. The current world population is now
33% Christian.
Hope they are not counting me. I was' baptised' without my permission
being asked.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is religion exempt fronm critical analysis? |
30 Dec 2004 08:21:29 PM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:39:51 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:32:49 -0500, Eris <vithant01@yaya.comcast.net> wrote:
You're welcome to perform critical analysis on religion.
duke
From I believe the early 900's to the late 1700's Europe studied
Christianity to the exclusion of about every thing else. The
conclusion in the late 1700's was that Christianity was a myth. Europe
is much more religion free than America.
That's not critical analysis. That's foolishness. The current world population is now
33% Christian.
Hope they are not counting me. I was' baptised' without my permission
being asked.
Neither were you consulted as to whether you cared to be born or not, or whether you wanted
elementary education--among many other matters. Parents have the right to make those
decisions concerning what they consider best for their children's welfare, including
religion (or no religion at all), wouldn't you say. How could you know what your position
regarding religion is, if you were never exposed to it? No person who is uninformed about
the nature and place of religious faith in all nations and cultures can hardly be considered
an educated human being. Those without a first hand experience of religion from the inside
as children and youth, are deficient in the background from which to make an
adequately existential and experiental decision concerning the place or lack of religion for
themselves.
Denny
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is religion exempt fronm critical analysis? |
30 Dec 2004 10:56:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:21:29 -0500, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
said in alt.atheism:
How could you know what your position
regarding religion is, if you were never exposed to it?
If there were any substance to it, one's 'position' would be
self-evident. What's your 'position' regarding gravity? Do you step
off the edges of high cliffs?
No person who is uninformed about
the nature and place of religious faith in all nations and cultures can hardly be considered
an educated human being.
There's a HUGE difference between knowledge of religions and
inculcation in one of them.
Those without a first hand experience of religion from the inside
as children and youth, are deficient in the background from which to make an
adequately existential and experiental decision concerning the place or lack of religion for
themselves.
Au contraire - it just those who aren't brainwashed as children who
can make the best decision. Those for whom the decision has already
been made (those who were taught, as young children, to believe)
aren't able to decide for themselves.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
