Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2012, 02:09 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 01:59 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 12:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please cite your source for 'this logical fallacy'. And sources for 'out of place' fossils.
I already cited wiki concerning the article on 'Rabbits in Cambrian rock' and Michael Cremo has documented many of these out of place artifacts including fossils and other anomalies. When Charlton Heston did a program on this topic many years ago the stationed received condemnation from many such as the NCSE before it even aired.
Are you talking about the Creationist and pseudoscientist Michael Cremo? Laughat

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 02:10 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 12:06 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 11:56 AM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  This is nonsense. Even wiki has an article on this logical fallacy. The truth is that we have been finding out of place artifact for centuries, and they are either written off as hoaxes without further examination, or they are just considered one of life's mysteries or anomalies, and there are volumes of examples of this. Of course the people that write of these examples are of course called all kinds of childish names as you have done the same.
Isn't it interesting that you keep talking about having "many examples", claiming that there are even "volumes of examples", yet you fail to cite even a single one of them? Drinking Beverage
All you had to do was ask. I learned my lesson already by citing evidence to back up everything I said only to have it be hand waived away or ignored. I will now only cite when asked to do so, and if you look at my previous post, again already I did so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 02:25 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 03:04 PM by THEMAYAN.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 02:39 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 02:09 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 01:59 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  I already cited wiki concerning the article on 'Rabbits in Cambrian rock' and Michael Cremo has documented many of these out of place artifacts including fossils and other anomalies. When Charlton Heston did a program on this topic many years ago the stationed received condemnation from many such as the NCSE before it even aired.
Are you talking about the Creationist and pseudoscientist Michael Cremo? Laughat
His work has also been published in peer review science journals. I suppose according to you, those who published his work are also fans of pseudo science. Your avatar reflects your mindset. Sorry but if you think this was one of those "I GOTCHA" moments you are sadly mistaken. Is this all you have man?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 03:15 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 03:26 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 02:39 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  His work has also been published in peer review science journals. I suppose according to you, those who published his work are also fans of pseudo science. Your avatar reflects your mindset. Sorry but if you think this was one of those "I GOTCHA" moments you are sadly mistaken. Is this all you have man?
Have I already degraded you to attacking me on a personal level? Phew, that was fast. Cool

With that out of the way, care to cite the peer-reviewed science journals that published "many of these out of place artifacts including fossils and other anomalies" that he supposedly found?

(04-12-2012 02:25 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  What did I say before? When someone puts forth data that is non kosher, they are attacked as pseudo scientist and or creationist as if that had anything to do with the data. I find it very hard to believe that you were able to research the entirety of the data in just three minutes. Yet it is easy to find people attacking someone in less than one minute. You see this is the Modus operandi. You attack the messenger and ignore the message. Galileo, Mendel Copernicus were creationist and theologians as was Newton who some still regard as a speudo scientist for his metaphysical views on sacred geometry and alchemy. Should we disregard their work also? Hoyle and Crick the co discoverer of the DNA molecule proposed directed panspermia. The notion that life on earth was so unlikely to arise on its own that aliens from outer space must have seed life on earth. Should we attack them as a pseudo scientist also? Of course not. We only do that to people we disagree with, and I use the term "we" very loosely. You forgot to add he is also a Hindu. Cremo's views are not creationist friendly. He does not believe the world is 6 thousand years old.
You're projecting. I don't think that whether or not someone is a Creationist has an impact on the validity of his data. Need an example? I spent two hours watching the YEC Kent Hovind talking about evolution in his video "100 reasons why evolution is stupid". You see, I didn't dismiss his claims out of hand, I actually spent even more time researching them and checking if they were supported by facts. As it turns out, they weren't. I give credit where credit is due.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 03:37 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 03:15 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 02:39 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  His work has also been published in peer review science journals. I suppose according to you, those who published his work are also fans of pseudo science. Your avatar reflects your mindset. Sorry but if you think this was one of those "I GOTCHA" moments you are sadly mistaken. Is this all you have man?
Have I already degraded you to attacking me on a personal level? Phew, that was fast. Cool

With that out of the way, care to cite the peer-reviewed science journals that published "many of these out of place artifacts including fossils and other anomalies" that he supposedly found?

(04-12-2012 02:25 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  What did I say before? When someone puts forth data that is non kosher, they are attacked as pseudo scientist and or creationist as if that had anything to do with the data. I find it very hard to believe that you were able to research the entirety of the data in just three minutes. Yet it is easy to find people attacking someone in less than one minute. You see this is the Modus operandi. You attack the messenger and ignore the message. Galileo, Mendel Copernicus were creationist and theologians as was Newton who some still regard as a speudo scientist for his metaphysical views on sacred geometry and alchemy. Should we disregard their work also? Hoyle and Crick the co discoverer of the DNA molecule proposed directed panspermia. The notion that life on earth was so unlikely to arise on its own that aliens from outer space must have seed life on earth. Should we attack them as a pseudo scientist also? Of course not. We only do that to people we disagree with, and I use the term "we" very loosely. You forgot to add he is also a Hindu. Cremo's views are not creationist friendly. He does not believe the world is 6 thousand years old.
You're projecting. I don't think that whether or not someone is a Creationist has an impact on the validity of his data. Need an example? I spent two hours watching the YEC Kent Hovind talking about evolution in his video "100 reasons why evolution is stupid". You see, I didn't dismiss his claims out of hand, I actually spent even more time researching his claims and checking if they were supported by facts. As it turns out, they weren't. There's a thread about it on TTA somewhere.



Projecting? Your first comment was, is he a creationist and pseudo scientist. WTH does being a creationist have to do with anything? And what evidence do you have that he is a pseudo scientist? What would you say if I tried to marginalize someone you cited by asking 'is he that atheist pseudo scientist, followed by a silly smiling avatar?' According to this logic, are we only allowed to take the word of agnostics? Shouldn't the data be the most important thing. I have no idea why you mentioned Hovind. I never brought him up and he has nothing to do with what I said. You also completely ignored Virginia Steen-[i]McIntyre story which is well documented. Nice try changing the goal post. You asked for source. I gave it to you, and yet the first thing that entered your mind was how can I marginalize this guy. I grew up around BS'ers all my life. Sorry but your to have to try that on someone else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 03:46 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 03:15 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 02:39 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  His work has also been published in peer review science journals. I suppose according to you, those who published his work are also fans of pseudo science. Your avatar reflects your mindset. Sorry but if you think this was one of those "I GOTCHA" moments you are sadly mistaken. Is this all you have man?
Have I already degraded you to attacking me on a personal level? Phew, that was fast. Cool

With that out of the way, care to cite the peer-reviewed science journals that published "many of these out of place artifacts including fossils and other anomalies" that he supposedly found?

(04-12-2012 02:25 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  What did I say before? When someone puts forth data that is non kosher, they are attacked as pseudo scientist and or creationist as if that had anything to do with the data. I find it very hard to believe that you were able to research the entirety of the data in just three minutes. Yet it is easy to find people attacking someone in less than one minute. You see this is the Modus operandi. You attack the messenger and ignore the message. Galileo, Mendel Copernicus were creationist and theologians as was Newton who some still regard as a speudo scientist for his metaphysical views on sacred geometry and alchemy. Should we disregard their work also? Hoyle and Crick the co discoverer of the DNA molecule proposed directed panspermia. The notion that life on earth was so unlikely to arise on its own that aliens from outer space must have seed life on earth. Should we attack them as a pseudo scientist also? Of course not. We only do that to people we disagree with, and I use the term "we" very loosely. You forgot to add he is also a Hindu. Cremo's views are not creationist friendly. He does not believe the world is 6 thousand years old.
You're projecting. I don't think that whether or not someone is a Creationist has an impact on the validity of his data. Need an example? I spent two hours watching the YEC Kent Hovind talking about evolution in his video "100 reasons why evolution is stupid". You see, I didn't dismiss his claims out of hand, I actually spent even more time researching them and checking if they were supported by facts. As it turns out, they weren't. I give credit where credit is due.
You accused me of being a flake without using the word flake by saying I could not back up my words with citations, even before you asked me to do so. You then publicly accused a man you don't even know of being a pseudo scientist, and now your complaining about personal attacks. It seems the skin on your tongue maybe thicker than the skin on your backside. If you cant take the heat you are willing to dish out then stay out of the hot kitchen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 03:56 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 02:25 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 02:09 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 01:59 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  I already cited wiki concerning the article on 'Rabbits in Cambrian rock' and Michael Cremo has documented many of these out of place artifacts including fossils and other anomalies. When Charlton Heston did a program on this topic many years ago the stationed received condemnation from many such as the NCSE before it even aired.
Are you talking about the Creationist and pseudoscientist Michael Cremo? Laughat







What did I say before? When someone puts forth data that is non kosher, they are attacked as pseudo scientist and or creationist as if that had anything to do with the data. I find it very hard to believe that you were able to research the entirety of the data in just three minutes. Yet it is easy to find people attacking someone in less than one minute. You see this is the Modus operandi. You attack the messenger and ignore the message. Galileo, Mendel Copernicus were creationist and theologians as was Newton who some still regard as a speudo scientist for his metaphysical views on sacred geometry and alchemy. Should we disregard their work also? Hoyle and Crick the co discoverer of the DNA molecule proposed directed panspermia. The notion that life on earth was so unlikely to arise on its own that aliens from outer space must have seed life on earth. Should we attack them as a pseudo scientist also? Of course not. We only do that to people we disagree with, and I use the term "we" very loosely. You forgot to add he is also a Hindu. Cremo's views are not creationist friendly. He does not believe the world is 6 thousand years old.

Michael Cremo is not a credible source for evolutionary theory.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 04:25 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(04-12-2012 03:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-12-2012 02:25 PM)THEMAYAN Wrote:  

Michael Cremo is not a credible source for evolutionary theory.


Of course not. Anyone who disputes the status quo is not considered a credible source. Now of course he is credible enough to have his work published in peer review science journals, but hey, thats just a technicality right? You asked me to cite examples of out of place artifacts and I did, and your only answer without any evidence to support it is, "he is not a credible source". Yet again I find it hard to believe that you could research every example given in the time I posted. Chas, you like many others here seem to un wittingly make my points for me, and again like other poster, you also completely ignored the Virginia Steen Mcintyre story.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 04:27 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 04:39 PM by tiagorod84.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
In a random process like fossilisation it is astonishing that one can make sense of it. The so-called miss placed fossils require an explanation, that's for sure! However, what is the reasonable thing to do in science when you want to integrate a great amount of data: follow the rule or the exceptions? You can say that there are a long list of exceptions, but, at the same time, there's an imensly greater list of fossils that follow a common pattern. Do you think that paleontologists are conspirers, dishonest or simply dumb?

You want evolution to explain it all, no exceptions! Once again, by your standards cosmology is as good as astrology! And yet you do not put any criteria to your faith!

It's also interesting that you cite Michael Cremo that advocates the presence of humans in the earth for billions, not millions, billions of years and poor Dr. Sanford that advocates the opposite, just a few thousand years. Anytinhig will do to refute evolution! Talking about inconsistency...

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: