Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [creationevolutiondebate] 400 Skeptical Scientists

Expand Messages
  • Susan Cogan
    ... yes. And it was only printed because one of his buddies was the editor. Said editor no longer has his job. ... yeah, the list makes it obvious that the
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      At 11:46 PM 8/5/2005, you wrote:
      > >Michael: Very few scientists believed Alfred Wegener when he proposed
      > >that at one time there was just one continent. Now it is accepted.
      >
      >Susan: The title of the article is a lie. They are not convinced by new
      >evidence
      >Wegener had evidence to present to other scientists. He convinced the
      >others by continuing to pile up evidence until they could no longer
      >ignore
      >him. He didn't have a conversion experience and then start ignoring all
      >the
      >science he ever knew, which is how you get creation "scientists." The
      >IDists have nothing but "it looks designed to me."
      >
      >Michael: Stephen Meyer wrote a peer-reviewed article which can be found
      >at www.discovery.org titled The Origin of Biological Information and the
      >Higher Taxonomic Categories. Are you saying that the entire article
      >simply consists of "it looks designed to me"?

      yes. And it was only printed because one of his buddies was the editor.
      Said editor no longer has his job.

      >Michael: In the article in www.discovery.org, "80 Years After Scopes
      > >Trial New Scientific Evidence Convinces Over 400 Scientists That
      > >Darwinian Evolution is Deficient" click on the highlighted "list" and
      >you
      > >will see the field of each scientist.
      >
      >Susan: I've done that before and tracked some of them down. They are
      >doctors,
      >engineers, physical therapists, etc. I'd guess between 10 and 20% have
      >some
      >tenuous connection with biology. The opinion of engineers and physical
      >therapists about evolutionary biology is no better informed than the
      >average college graduate. And a *majority* of college graduates believe
      >evolution is true.
      >
      >Michael: It's more like 50% to me, but everyone in this group can view
      >the list and make their own decision.

      yeah, the list makes it obvious that the Discovery Institute is a pack of
      liars.

      >Biologists know as much about
      >evolutionary biology as an auto mechanic knows about cars. For those who
      >think auto mechanics know a lot about cars; auto mechanics do not design
      >cars, mechanical engineers do.

      the opinions of sewing machine repairmen aren't valid about auto mechanics
      just because they both repair stuff. That's what that list of "scientists"
      looks like.

      >Like I said, and that I have now confirmed the population from which
      >this list was drawn, almost certainly numbers in the millions. If
      >all they have been able to get was 400 it's pretty pathetic.
      >
      >Michael: How many scientists initially believed Alfred Wegener's theory
      >that at one time there was only one continent?

      actually he persuaded a few almost immediately. He persuaded the rest with
      EVIDENCE, not political power. The IDists and the DI don't have any
      evidence and are forced to use political power.

      Susan
    • Ralph Krumdieck
      ... From: Michael Tong To: Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 9:46 PM Subject: Re:
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Michael Tong" <mtong5@...>
        To: <creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 9:46 PM
        Subject: Re: [creationevolutiondebate] 400 Skeptical Scientists


        > >Michael: Very few scientists believed Alfred Wegener when he proposed
        > >that at one time there was just one continent. Now it is accepted.
        >
        > Susan: The title of the article is a lie. They are not convinced by new
        > evidence
        > Wegener had evidence to present to other scientists. He convinced the
        > others by continuing to pile up evidence until they could no longer
        > ignore
        > him. He didn't have a conversion experience and then start ignoring all
        > the
        > science he ever knew, which is how you get creation "scientists." The
        > IDists have nothing but "it looks designed to me."
        >
        > Michael: Stephen Meyer wrote a peer-reviewed article which can be found
        > at www.discovery.org titled The Origin of Biological Information and the
        > Higher Taxonomic Categories. Are you saying that the entire article
        > simply consists of "it looks designed to me"?

        [ralph] Exactly. In the article, Meyer himself calls it a "review", and
        that's what it is. There is no original science here from Meyer (no
        surprise). He's simply quoting from a bunch of other scientists (in other
        words, doing a review) and then offering his interpretation of their work,
        said interpretation being: 'it looks designed to me' (again, no surprise).
        Does he offer any original scientific work to support his hypothesis? No.
      • Randy Raymond
        ... proposed ... accepted. ... by new ... the ... ignoring all ... The ... found ... and the ... article ... Scopes ... and ... are ... have ... physical ...
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 9, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Michael Tong
          <mtong5@j...> wrote:
          > >Michael: Very few scientists believed Alfred Wegener when he
          proposed
          > >that at one time there was just one continent. Now it is
          accepted.
          >
          > Susan: The title of the article is a lie. They are not convinced
          by new
          > evidence
          > Wegener had evidence to present to other scientists. He convinced
          the
          > others by continuing to pile up evidence until they could no longer
          > ignore
          > him. He didn't have a conversion experience and then start
          ignoring all
          > the
          > science he ever knew, which is how you get creation "scientists."
          The
          > IDists have nothing but "it looks designed to me."
          >
          > Michael: Stephen Meyer wrote a peer-reviewed article which can be
          found
          > at www.discovery.org titled The Origin of Biological Information
          and the
          > Higher Taxonomic Categories. Are you saying that the entire
          article
          > simply consists of "it looks designed to me"?
          >
          > Michael: In the article in www.discovery.org, "80 Years After
          Scopes
          > >Trial New Scientific Evidence Convinces Over 400 Scientists That
          > >Darwinian Evolution is Deficient" click on the highlighted "list"
          and
          > you
          > >will see the field of each scientist.
          >
          > Susan: I've done that before and tracked some of them down. They
          are
          > doctors,
          > engineers, physical therapists, etc. I'd guess between 10 and 20%
          have
          > some
          > tenuous connection with biology. The opinion of engineers and
          physical
          > therapists about evolutionary biology is no better informed than
          the
          > average college graduate. And a *majority* of college graduates
          believe
          > evolution is true.
          >
          > Michael: It's more like 50% to me, but everyone in this group can
          view
          > the list and make their own decision. Biologists know as much
          about
          > evolutionary biology as an auto mechanic knows about cars. For
          those who
          > think auto mechanics know a lot about cars; auto mechanics do not
          design
          > cars, mechanical engineers do. The reason is that auto mechanics
          do not
          > know enough physics and mathematics to design cars. Likewise,
          biologists
          > may not understand the mechanics of mechanisms such flight.
          > Consequently, they do not understand the complexity involved.
          Engineers,
          > however, would. Biologists may not understand the mathematics
          involved
          > in evolution. Consequently, they may not grasp the small
          probabilities
          > involved. Mathematicians and physicists would.
          >
          > > Michael: In the article in www.discovery.org, "80 Years After
          Scopes
          > > Trial New Scientific Evidence Convinces Over 400 Scientists That
          > > Darwinian Evolution is Deficient" click on the
          highlighted "list"
          > and you
          > > will see the field of each scientist.
          >
          >
          *********************************************************************
          >
          > Randy: Doesn't answer my question! It tells who is on your list,
          it
          > doesn't
          > tell the population from which the list was chosen. It is
          evidently
          > quite a LARGE population as it includes several physicians,
          several
          > veterinarians, a horticultural research associate, several
          engineers
          > and a clinical assistant professor of "Alternative Medicine". The
          > list is also HIGHLY misleading. When I first read it, I assumed
          that
          > the column on the right side of the list were the institutions
          where
          > the people WORKED, however a more careful reading of the intro to
          the
          > list made me realize that it could either be the institution that
          > employed them or the institution that awarded their degrees.
          >
          > Like I said, and that I have now confirmed the population from
          which
          > this list was drawn, almost certainly numbers in the millions. If
          > all they have been able to get was 400 it's pretty pathetic.
          >
          > Michael: How many scientists initially believed Alfred Wegener's
          theory
          > that at one time there was only one continent?

          *********************************************************************
          Randy:

          I took earth science in the 8th grade in the early 60's. At that
          time Wegner's hypothesis was not part of mainstream Geology, but was
          still taught even in 8th grade advanced science classes as a
          possible explanation for the position of the continents. Wegner's
          hypothesis was NEVER considered unscientific like ID is. Unlike ID
          it made testable predictions about how things in the real world
          should look. Also, unlike ID, it suggested future observations that
          would confirm or falsify it. Its acceptance into mainstrearm
          Geology had to await this confirming evidence (the discovery of the
          magnetic anomolies in the mid-atlantic ridge etc.)but it was NEVER
          in any way comparable to ID.
        • Michael Tong
          ... theory ... ********************************************************************* Randy: I took earth science in the 8th grade in the early 60 s. At that
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 12, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            > Michael: How many scientists initially believed Alfred Wegener's
            theory
            > that at one time there was only one continent?

            *********************************************************************
            Randy:

            I took earth science in the 8th grade in the early 60's. At that
            time Wegner's hypothesis was not part of mainstream Geology, but was
            still taught even in 8th grade advanced science classes as a
            possible explanation for the position of the continents. Wegner's
            hypothesis was NEVER considered unscientific like ID is. Unlike ID
            it made testable predictions about how things in the real world
            should look. Also, unlike ID, it suggested future observations that
            would confirm or falsify it. Its acceptance into mainstrearm
            Geology had to await this confirming evidence (the discovery of the
            magnetic anomolies in the mid-atlantic ridge etc.)but it was NEVER
            in any way comparable to ID.

            Michael: Stephen Meyer wrote a peer-reviewed article titled The Origin of
            Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, which can be
            found in www.discovery.org How is this article unscientific? Like SETI,
            ID attempts to detect intelligence. Are you saying that SETI is
            unscientific? I have proposed two testable hypotheses that if proven
            true would support ID.
            1) All races genetically find Caucasian physical features attractive.
            2) Most men genetically find high heels, makeup, earrings, and long,
            polished fingernails on women attractive.

            Now, I want you to propose one testable hypothesis that would support
            evolution.

            >Michael: Stephen Meyer wrote a peer-reviewed article which can be found
            >at www.discovery.org titled The Origin of Biological Information and the
            >Higher Taxonomic Categories. Are you saying that the entire article
            >simply consists of "it looks designed to me"?

            Susan: yes. And it was only printed because one of his buddies was the
            editor.
            Said editor no longer has his job.

            Michael: Just criticize the article.
          • Ralph Krumdieck
            From: Michael Tong ... [ralph] I already did that, Michael (see message 40624).
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 14, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              From: "Michael Tong" <mtong5@...>


              > >Michael: Stephen Meyer wrote a peer-reviewed article which can be found
              > >at www.discovery.org titled The Origin of Biological Information and the
              > >Higher Taxonomic Categories. Are you saying that the entire article
              > >simply consists of "it looks designed to me"?
              >
              > Susan: yes. And it was only printed because one of his buddies was the
              > editor.
              > Said editor no longer has his job.
              >
              > Michael: Just criticize the article.

              [ralph] I already did that, Michael (see message 40624).
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.