Christians Launch Campaign against Global Warming Hype

Baron Bodissey »

Mon May 19, 2008 6:16 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

GreatNW,

Again, I don't believe I said that. You originally mentioned only scientists, as if you want to blame science for everything that's wrong in the world. I certainly believe that scientists bear responsibility for their actions, just like everybody else. I didn't see that "like everybody else" in your statement. I DON'T see how you can blame scientists, though, for perversions of science by evil or unethical people.

Science is not perfect, but it is the best problem-solving mechanism humans have invented. And it IS self-correcting, something you can't say about most other institutions. I know many scientists and I'd say they are among the most ethical people with whom I've ever dealt.

I too fear we're headed towards a dark age, but I see the threat coming from fundamentalist religions, not science.

Christians Launch Campaign against Global Warming Hype

Baron Bodissey »

Sun May 18, 2008 10:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

GreatNW,

"Scientists have no moral or ethical responsibility for what they produce and invent? I will admit it is an interesting viewpoint. "

Oh, c'mon! That's not what I said and you know it. By that same rationale all industrialists would be in jail for the damage they are doing to the earth; the makers of hammers, knives, baseball bats, automobiles, etc., should be executed because the tools they make are sometimes used as weapons. Oh, and let's not forget firearms manufacturers. . . Are you willing to apply this requirement across the board? No, I didn't think so.

Christians Launch Campaign against Global Warming Hype

Baron Bodissey »

Sat May 17, 2008 10:40 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

GreatNW,

Whoa, yourself. Last time I looked it was not scientists belching industrial wastes into the air and water, not scientists responsible for our gluttonous lifestyles, not scientists cutting down the rain forests all over the world. True, science gave us to the tools to do these things but science didn't MAKE us do them. We did that on our own. Now have the integrity to admit it and not blame the messenger.

Christians Launch Campaign against Global Warming Hype

Baron Bodissey »

Fri May 16, 2008 9:03 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

RainForestMissionary:

Man, I hope you care more about the rain forest than your post would suggest. Oh, since the great majority of climatologists -- the scientists who actually, you know, study climate -- agree with global warming, your claim about "unsubstantiated conspiracy theory" is, uh, UNSUBSTANTIATED.

UC Berkeley Staff Face Lawsuit Over Pro-Evolution Bias

Baron Bodissey »

Fri May 16, 2008 6:23 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 3

I actually visited and followed the entire tour. Some of the people posting here would be well-served to do the same. I saw nothing that criticized a specific religion or promoted a specific religion. When fundamentalists lie about and misrepresent science, it seems to me entirely appropriate that science correct those lies and misrepresentations. The Berkeley website does that admirably.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Baron Bodissey »

Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The earth is 4.55 billion years old, give or take 1%. All of the evidence agrees on that age; it is not a matter of opinion.

Also, I disagree that Talk Origins is anti-creationist; it is pro-science. I think that is an important distinction.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Baron Bodissey »

Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Sorry, It was NOT C14 dating. Why don't you save all of us time and yourself embarrassment by checking creationist claims out at a real science site that debunks them one by one ... plunk, plunk, plunk.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Baron Bodissey »

Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Maranantha7593: Here we go again, another false claim from a creationist website. You should have learned by now the dishonesty displayed on such sites. It was C14 dating, it was potassium-argon dating and the real story is here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Baron Bodissey »

Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:32 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

maranatha7593: Evolution is exactly science; it is your concet of what is science that is incorrect. Most sciences are based on indirect observations. Examples: Nobody has seen an atom or an electron; no one has seen the core of the earth or the mantle. So by your definition, neither chemistry nor physics nor geology are sciences. Nor is forensic science: forensic scientists do not seen the crime, they reconstruct it from evidence. That is enough to convict criminals. If you demand direct observation then we can through out millions of convictions and open up the prisons. Virtually no scientist would agree with your requirement; the very few that do are speaking from religious convictions, not scientific ones.

In science, evidence leads to theories which are then tested against new evidence. It is a self-correcting system that has served mankind well for the last 150 years or so.

Also science does not oppose creationism (or its disguised offspring ID); indeed, science cannot address the supernatural at all. But most scientists oppose sneaking religion into public schools under the false guise of science.

Merry Christmas to all.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Baron Bodissey »

Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:06 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Professor X: If you think that website has anything at all to do with science, then I suspect you are a professor of something far removed from science, like perhaps wishful thinking.

There are no two sides to science, there is only science. Science says nothing about religion, indeed it cannot, since only naturalistic explanations are allowed in science. If they were not, then it wouldn't be science and we might as well teach astrology or fortune-telling or witchcraft in our schools.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Baron Bodissey »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

To s_vawter:
"The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a 'living fossil.'

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html

In other words, it is NOT the same animal as fossil coelacanths. The extant coelacanth is only a "living fossil" in the same way that cockroaches are "living fossils," they belong to a group that arose a very long time ago and have retained a similar body plan for hundreds of millions of year.

This is yet ANOTHER dishonest argument from a creationist web site. There are so many that at some point you have to think that they are not based on ignorance but are intentional misrepresentations.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Baron Bodissey »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Slacker: But science isn't an opinion or a bias. It is a method for gaining knowledge about the natural world with its own very strict rules. As such, supernatural explanations are beyond the realm of science. And if ID, undoubtedly the spawn of creationism, isn't a supernatural explanation, I don't know what is. I've visited creationist web sites and I participate in a news group where creationists continually bash evolution, and I haven't seen a single honest or accurate portrayal yet of the theory of evolution. Again, read the transcript of the Dover trial: there is no "science of ID," it is solely a strategy to wedge religion into the public schools.

As to other claims made here:

There are numerous transition fossils;

The "complex biochemical features" trotted out by ID (clotting cascade and flagellum) have been explained;

And universal common descent -- what scientists call the nested heirarchy of life-- has been supported in so many ways that it is accepted even by some ID leaders.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Baron Bodissey »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. "

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Which is exactly what Lucy is: a mosaic of human (hominid, actually) and ape-like characters.

You won't get accurate information from creationist web sites, since all they bare interested in is bashing evolution with inaccurate and dishonest attacks.

As to learning about intelligent design: "Godditit." What else is there to learn? There is no ID research, there are no ID hypotheses. Don't believe me, it's out the mouths of the ID leaders themselves; read the Dover trial transcripts and see for yourself at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Baron Bodissey »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Here, for those who have been suckered by the claim that there are no transitional fossils, is an extensive list analysis of the many, many that are known so far.

http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-transitional.pdf

There is no excuse for ignorance.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Baron Bodissey »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:10 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

bcoontz: Here you go:

"This is easy. Are you familiar with a small creature called a "Volvox"? This is a small spherical animal that lives in the water and is made up of individual cells of algae.

"Separate algae cells have been observed organizing into a Volvox, with the advantage of being able to propel itself in a way similar to an octopus, and capture food inside the sphere. The algae cells operate in a unified manner, just as the cells in a larger organism do.

"Here is a clear example of increased complexity for the sake of survival. Since mutation is factual (i.e. we have observed mutation, so it is not conjecture), why do you find it so hard to believe that increasingly complex organizations of cells, combined with favorable mutations, can result in a higher form of life?

From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/complexity.html#complex4

Go. Educate yourself.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Baron Bodissey »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:50 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

Actually, the theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories in science. You obviously have no clue that in science a theory is as good as it gets. There is not one piece of evidence, not one observation of the natural world that conflicts with the theory of evolution. You've heard of the theory of gravity? Or possibly the germ theory of disease? They're both just "theories."

Evolution is not a matter of faith but of science. It depends on evidence and the evidence is all there. Anything you've heard or read to the contrary is wrong.

Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism

Baron Bodissey »

Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:59 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 4

Quote mining is a time-honored tactic by creationists in which scientists are misquoted, partially quoted, or quoted out of context so that they appear to be criticizing the theory of evolution. The Patterson quote is one of the longest running such quote mines, even though it has been debunked numerous times, including by Patterson himself. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

Quote mining is dishonest and unethical. Also, the so-called failed predictions occur only in the imagination of creationist web sites. Learn something about evolution and biology before criticizing it.