"Persecuting Christians again!"......in Texas...

[Cricket]

I am NOT a part of the debate Ferre and I REFUSE to allow you to drag me into it. You may debate the TOPIC all you want. You may NOT do so in a manner that disrespects the members of this forum.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Cricket

I am NOT a part of the debate Ferre and I REFUSE to allow you to drag me into it. You may debate the TOPIC all you want. You may NOT do so in a manner that disrespects the members of this forum.

That's ok, but do not ask me to show respect to intellectual frauds and liars, that just makes no sense.

[G10]

I watched the video on youtube and read your articles (thanks for pointing those out to me) as I am always interested in seeing things from different angles otherwise how can people learn and form their own opinion.

I do not dispute the fact that there are some charlatans in the mix, some people that like to distort information so that the average layman can not understand it and goes along with it.

This happens on both sides of the fence as when I mentioned the 'piltdown man' that scam went on for about 40 or so years and yes, there are a lot of people on the creation side of the fence that also twist information.

I do not believe that we should 'tar and feather' the scientists that twist information just for the sake of their own good and I also do not believe that we should do the same towards the creationists that do this as I condone violence of any sort. If they want to twist information then that is up to them, it is a free world (mostly) and people can do and behave as they choose (within reason)

Many of the Cambrian fauna, still survive today, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, comments, "... We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Even George Gaylord Simpson had to admit, “In spite of the examples, it remains true that most new species, genera and families appear in the record suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”

As for frauds being on both sides of the fence, one must learn tollerance and yes, they will be exposed no matter who they are over time, though that said, you may notice that I am a little calmer in my approach towards exposing them and also a little more respectable towards other peoples views.

Originally Posted by Atom

I don't recall Gio stating that God ("the magical fairy") was factually correct, maybe you can point me to where he stated that.

There is a reason why you can not find where I said this Atom It is because I never did...

My statement still stands and that is that from what I can see, macroevolution is not fact, maybe one day it will be, maybe one day it will be disproven but until then, I am happy reading both sides of the argument open mindedly and not resorting to pulling down anyones belief system, be it the creation or evolution path.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by G10

My statement still stands and that is that from what I can see, macroevolution is not fact, maybe one day it will be, maybe one day it will be disproven but until then, I am happy reading both sides of the argument open mindedly and not resorting to pulling down anyones belief system, be it the creation or evolution path.

There is NO "both sides of the argument" Gio.

THAT is the core of the whole issue that science has with creationists.

If creationists had been able in all of the past decades to provide one single scientific argument for creation, there would be "both sides"

BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED GIO, There is NO CONTROVERSY, the "Both sides" argument is AS FRAUDULENT AS ALL OTHER CLAIMS.

A court case proved this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

Gio, I respect you as a person, I do not respect fraudulent claims however, and neither should you.

Please examine your claims and check them on intellectual honesty. Please.

So far I have provided credible sources for all my claims and exposed every single creationist argument as pseudo science or deliberate lies, as did science ever since creationists started to provide "evidence" for their claims.

Charles Dawson and his Piltdown man have been exposed by the academic world as you know Gio, and you also could be aware of the fact that Charles Dawson and every scientist who "verified" the Piltdown man as genuine has been ridiculed and some of them lost their credibility in the academic world forever.

When one lie is offered to science that's bad Gio, but when a group of religious extremists offer lie after lie for decades on a row, then it starts to become annoying. I hope you are able to understand this point of view from someone who does have a science degree and who had to work to get it, lies and deceit would not have provided me my chemistry degree Gio, and it would become rather dangerous to let people mess with science based on fraudulent assumptions, in the chemistry field for example, it could cause some nasty explosions.

There is no place whatsoever for superstition in science class, and as even a religious American judge has confirmed in a well known court case; ID is disguized creationism which is in its turn, a superstitious belief, like it or not, but that's the reality.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

Why do I need to keep providing you credible sources showing that ID/Creationism is proven not to be science? Both by court and by academic peer review?

If you are so open minded as you say you are, why do you deny the evidence which contradicts your claims?

[LeeD]

Originally Posted by Ferre

That's ok, but do not ask me to show respect to intellectual frauds and liars, that just makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Ferre

May I remind you that this topic is about the subject of TEACHING CREATIONISME IN SCIENCE CLASS.

May I also remind you that in general culture it is appropriate to ridicule and expose liars and frauds.

This is NOT a religion topic dear Cricket, this is a science topic and as long as frauds use lies and deceit disguised as "science facts" to push their agenda, every time they get exposed they WILL also receive some ridicule, like everywhere else in the real wold.

Please keep it REAL Cricket, or are you telling me to show respect for proven liars and fauds? Is that the case Cricket? Do you demand respect for liars and frauds?

When you read this whole topic back you will find that I exposed (with sources) EVERY SINGLE creationist "argument" as a deliberate lie.

..and you demand respect????

Ferre,

I figured this was a good opportunity for me to chime in with my thoughts on your methods of reasoning in this thread. Since you are operating on my turf, then regardless of what you feel is right or wrong, you are agreeing to abide by my rules. When my senior staff member, Cricket, says that you must communicate in a respectful manner to the other members of this forum, she means it. Regardless of who you think are frauds and liars, you will be respectful or you will be gone. It was with great caution that I allowed your account to be unlocked months ago. Do not jeopardize your current status by refusing to follow my rules.

Final warning.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Why do I need to keep providing you credible sources showing that ID/Creationism is proven not to be science? Both by court and by academic peer review?

If you are so open minded as you say you are, why do you deny the evidence which contradicts your claims?

Just out of curiosity here, have I ever said that creationism is a proven science?.... That said, have I ever said that it has been disproven either?

I do not respect fraudulant claims either and believe that those people should be weeded out.

As someone that has studied science, you know that one needs the other so as to go on to improve and possibly better ones hypothesis. No matter what certain creationists say, it is not going to stop scientific research.

My argument was never that creationism is a science in itself, my argument has always been that as science is still trying to get to the bottom of this and still researching, then it is just that, a hypothesis and not fact.

Sounds fair enough to me.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by G10

btw, just as an aside Ferre dude, I just wanted to ask - do you think that I am a Christian or follow a religion?

Just curious is all.

Originally Posted by Ferre

Yes, although you repeatedly state that you are not a believer, but the manner in which you always defend even the wackiest creationist ideas gives you away.

Originally Posted by G10

Oh no, I have openly admitted many times that my path has led me to believe in God more than macroevolution. No need to find the posts as I will just say it right here again.

Originally Posted by G10

There is a reason why you can not find where I said this Atom It is because I never did...

Not in the exact words no, but you did state that you believe in god. Even more than in macroevolution, which btw, does not require faith, it's a fact;

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...volution.shtml

So Gio declared he believes more in god than in a scientifically accepted fact.

That's what I call a believer Atom, Just imagine a non believer stating they believe in a god more than in macro evolution, a scientific fact supported by a wide range of evidence and part of the science curriculum at respected Universities.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by G10

I do not respect fraudulant claims either and believe that those people should be weeded out.

...but GIo, the "both sides of the argument" is a fraudulent claim. And intellectually dishonest as well.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

So Gio declared he believes more in god than in a scientifically accepted fact.

That's what I call a believer Atom, Just imagine a non believer stating they believe in a god more than in macro evolution, a scientific fact supported by a wide range of evidence and part of the science curriculum at respected Universities.

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:
1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.

The evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be considered a fact, yes?

Can

Mutations Produce New Species?

Many details of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations—or random changes—in the genetic code can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals.

In 1946, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Prize winner and founder of the study of mutation genetics, claimed: "Not only is this accumulation of many rare, mainly tiny changes the chief means of artificial animal and plant improvement, but it is, even more, the way in which natural evolution has occurred, under the guidance of natural selection."

Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. Is there any way to test this bold claim? Well, consider what some 100 years of study in the field of genetic research has revealed.

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced the idea that if natural selection could produce new species of plants from random mutations, then artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do so more efficiently. "Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular," said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany.

Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 28 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: "These researchers thought the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals."

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? "In spite of an enormous financial expenditure," says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, "the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure."

Lönnig said: "By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties."

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species.

After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: "Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one.

This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations."

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

All I am saying Ferre is that I believe the jury is still out there and my views are still open on the subject... Again, I think that sounds fair enough, don't you.

Ooops, I apologise about the bolding on that lot, not sure how I messed that up

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by G10

My argument was never that creationism is a science in itself, my argument has always been that as science is still trying to get to the bottom of this and still researching, then it is just that, a hypothesis and not fact.

Sounds fair enough to me.

Sure, were it not that creationists pseudo scientists provide fraudulent claims all the time to get their theories accepted by their own non academic audience, which provides them a group of loud supporters who are all deceived into supporting them.

That's not nice Gio. That's rallying support from people on false grounds.

What's that called again?

And then for your other (again) deceitful claim that the theory of evolution is "just a hypothesis" and not fact only because they have not filled in all the details is another one of those scams Which even the creationists fan sites warnes about in their "not to use arguments" page.

Evolution is fact, science has all the evidence for "the big picture" provided by biologists, chemists, archaeologists, physicists and a whole range of other sciences combined who all have provided evidence that evolution id fact, all the separate research in all those scientific fields confirm evolution.



The fact that science isn't "to the bottom" does NOT imply that all the rest of their research is not valid.

But that's what you claim.

Again Gio, please do some reading on this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

And try to keep to facts, maybe you find me a little bit too sceptical and respectless towards a movement with a proven track record of lies, deceit and manipulation of whole groups of non academics in our society to rally for them, but in my part of the woods that's normal behavior and it keeps the charlatans from taking over our education system.

As for the next defence for creationism I expect to hear from you as an aswer to my reply, which could possibly go somehing like this; Due to their preconceptions and bias for materialism, evolutionists have blinded themselves to seeing design. I recommend you again to do some research on that list I provided, it might save us both a lot of trouble.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Ferre

(...)That's what I call a believer Atom, (...)

Exactly. I think that you and I both know that Gio would not claim the abstract as concrete if lacking the ability to prove this.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by G10

All I am saying Ferre is that I believe the jury is still out there and my views are still open on the subject... Again, I think that sounds fair enough, don't you.

[/center]

Source? Fair enough if this would be the general consensus. Which it isn't.

Again you bring up one of those self-fabricated-controversies-by-the-ID-movement as an argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Criticisms of macroevolution

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually brandished by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1]
These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past.[6][7] The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community.
While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[8][9]
Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Macroevolution, by the definition commonly used by creationist critics, cannot be attained. They describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1]

Your argument, as with all of them is rejected by mainstream science and curiously enough only used by creationists.

That's not what I call a credible source Gio, not with the track record they have. Seriously.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Atom

Exactly. I think that you and I both know that Gio would not claim the abstract as concrete if lacking the ability to prove this.

No, he does not directly state: I believe in god, but in my world rhetoric to say the same thing while it "appears" to have a different meaning holds no grounds, and the quotes and explanations I posted are clear enough for why I think the way I do in my opinion.

Fact is that macroevolution is part of the science curriculum at Universities like Berkeley and others all around the world, fact is that Gio states that he believes in god "more" and fact is that he attempted to "prove" that macroevolution is somehow a not accepted theory by quoting a movement with a proven track record of lies, intellectual dishonesty and deceit and hides the source as he did before.

That's lame Atom, but saying so can get me banned from this forum, so I take that back.

[Ferre]

And the REAL fact about "evolution vs creation" is that history shows us that it is really; "A movement with a track record of deceit, lies and intellectual dishonesty vs mainstream science."

[LeeD]

Originally Posted by Ferre

That's lame Atom, but saying so can get me banned from this forum, so I take that back.

Your perceived intellectualism is no longer welcome here at v7n. Let this serve as a warning to all that disrespect won't be tolerated any longer.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Ferre

No, he does not directly state: I believe in god, (...)

That wasn't the issue, the issue was that you implied that he thinks that God = factual, I searched but could not find a statement by him that would indicate this, and now you are changing that to him 'believing' that God is factual. We all cannot choose our words correctly, but I think that those of us that post a lot should, as the odds of misstatement, and especially coupled with personal frustration increase with high word count.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

No, he does not directly state: I believe in god, but in my world rhetoric to say the same thing while it "appears" to have a different meaning holds no grounds, and the quotes and explanations I posted are clear enough for why I think the way I do in my opinion.

Fact is that macroevolution is part of the science curriculum at Universities like Berkeley and others all around the world, fact is that Gio states that he believes in god "more" and fact is that he attempted to "prove" that macroevolution is somehow a not accepted theory by quoting a movement with a proven track record of lies, intellectual dishonesty and deceit and hides the source as he did before.

That's lame Atom, but saying so can get me banned from this forum, so I take that back.

Hmmmm, of course it is an accepted theory, of course I accept it as a theory Ferre, how could I not.

Though I do think Atom is correct, I never stated what you claim within any post.

[FocalPoint]

DEFINING TERMS:

Could we once and for all come to understand that the scientific meaning of the word 'theory' is not the same as the word 'theory' used outside of science?

In science a theory is more than an idea or a guess. It is a fact supported by evidence.

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

So when speaking of scientific theories lets make sure we understand the terminology.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[Atom]

Originally Posted by FocalPoint

(...)In science a theory is more than an idea or a guess. It is a fact supported by evidence. (...)

I agree with the first sentence but not the second one. "Fact" is not the right word in that sentence.

[Atom]

You'll need to replace the word "fact", or leave it and rephrase the sentence.