insectman #fundie

insectman #fundie examiner.com

So, you cannot name a NP based upon evolutionism. Even if you could, I can show you that it is only in the imagination of the claimant. As I show (with insects) at http://www.insectman.us/articl...
peer reviewed papers based upon evolutionism are meaningless.

There are peer reviewed creation science journals such as http://www.creationresearch.or.... The so-called mainline journals censor anything that deviates from the party line on origins.

If it is relevant that a lot of living scientists believe in
evolution, it is more relevant that the founders of science did not. Nevertheless, beliefs are irrelevant. Things that matter in science (real products, inventions, etc.) have nothing to do with evolutionism. Arguments, such as antibiotic resistance, are
easily answered from the reality of creation science.

Please slowly, with comprehension, reread my above comment about a toothpick as well as the other points.

This is my last post in this thread because evolutionists are all hot air and the Life Science Prize http://www.lifescienceprize.or...
proves it. Endless Internet debate is all you can do. If you or the over 100 evolutionists listed on Dr. Mastropaolo’s website had any science to back up your beliefs, you would have relieved Dr. Mastropaolo of his money just to shut me up.

Your problem is not in your head—it’s in your heart.

Everything in the universe is devolving. That includes you.

Read Romans Chapter 1.

28 comments

old comment by Happy Atheist

Putting to one side the fact that evolution is not about the origin of life but rather, as I would think is made clear by the title of Mr Darwin's most famous work, the origin of species, I feel it necessary to point out that what modern scientists think is far, far more important and relevant than what the 'founders of science' thought, given that we have so much more information and the works of said previous scientists to work from.

We cannot know everything, Mr Insectman, and in fact we know very little. We work to the best of our ability with what little we possess and when some new piece of information comes along that doesn't fit with the best theories we have we admit that we were wrong and alter our theories to match it. Our new theories are still wrong, be under no illusion that we believe otherwise, but there is slightly more truth to them now. That is how science works.

But then again, this message will never reach you, and even if it did you would not take it on board.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

1) If you're going to disparage peer review, then it doesn't make sense to mention that there are peer-reviewed creationist journals. If you are accusing mainline journals of "censoring" creationist papers - rejection on the grounds of faulty methodology, poor reasoning and selective use of evidence do not count as censorship - what chance would a paper that demonstrated that evolution was right stand in getting published in a peer-reviewed creationist journal? If it were rejected out of hand, would it not show that the "peers" in question - I trust they are all PhDs in relevant natural sciences - were charlatans?
2) Strange, then, that the scientists who believe in creationism are very often engineers, i.e. with no scholarly background in disciplines relevant to evolution. And if what matters is what the "founders of science" believed, why appeal to living scientists?
3) The "founders of science" also believed that matter generated spontaneously, that the sun revolved around the earth, that all things were made of earth, air, fire, and water, and that our health was governed by the four humors. So why are the beliefs of the "founders of science" more significant than what scientists believe today?

old comment by Vifibi

How sad it is that you would use the biggest words to expose only the tiniest of minds...

But no matter. Let us refute.

First of all, the "founders of science" (I'm going to.assume you're referring to greek philosophers) also believed in Zeus and the "Noble Lie". Science, quite like evolution itself, expands and evolves over time, while always keeping its core principles accurate. So what the founders thought is irrelevant.

Second, people HAVE tried to claim that money with proof of evolution, but you just asked for an impossible "crocoduck" instead of actual evidence. Sadly, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him perform water ballet.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

I didn't imply that engineers are less credible than academics who, while in their "ivory towers," actually work on things like evolution; what I pointed out was that the discipline of engineering is not directly relevant to evolution. Of course engineers are just as credible as any other person applying the scientific method - when talking about their own discipline. All things being equal, I would respect the views of an evolutionary biologist over those of an engineer on the evolution of fruitflies, just as I would respect the opinions of a building engineer over those of an evolutionary biologist on the demolition of a skyscraper. While both may be very knowledgeable about the other's sphere of interest, I think it's reasonable to suppose that if one is going to appeal to someone, as the OP has done, as an authority by virtue of their training, one has to look to the specialist in the relevant field.

This does not mean that all engineers, or even more than a small minority of engineers, are as oblivious to the scientific method as creationists. The fact remains that when creationists point to scientists who agree with them, chances are they are engineers: I suggest you look up the Salem Hypothesis.

old comment by Raspberry

"Things that matter in science (real products, inventions, etc.) have nothing to do with evolutionism."

Someone is confusing technological output with science and the scientific method. (I realize I'm oversimplifying here but given the simplistic assertions of "insectman" I ask for some latitude.)

I am however very very interested in hearing of all the "real products, inventions, etc." that have been produced by "creation science." You know, 'cause that's all that matters in science.

As a side note ... one of the final blows to Glenn Morton's YEC beliefs was realizing that absolutely nothing that he was taught about "YEC geology" had any use whatsoever in the real world. It disturbed and nagged at him so deeply that he approached several of his YEC colleagues working in the oil industry if they could come up with one single thing they were taught that was of any productive value. Not one of them could.