a true scientist lets the evidence guide him. he would never say that science does not have the ability to answer a question.
Belief in evolution by country - % of population
- Thread starter Tresor
- Start date
Quote from kut2k2:
I believe in evolution. I'm not wedded to Darwinism but nor am I opposed to it; I believe in whatever theory of evolution best explains the evidence of evolution.
Your implication that only a dean of an engineering school can challenge another dean of an engineering school is a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad Authoritatum. I'm supposed to be cowed by some guy spouting nonsense just because he has more letters behind his name than I do. If a math professor told you that 2 + 2 = 5, would you just acquiesce because he's a math professor and you aren't, despite the fact that you KNOW that 2 + 2 = 4? If so, then BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Boylan has been debunked more than once. If you weren't such a sheep, you could have discovered that on your own. There's this thing called "google":
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/thermo_patterson.html
Strange that the supposed "debunking" was by a faculty member from the same university where Mr. Boylan received numerous faculty awards. Maybe the university needs to be debunked.
I dont need to google him, I have some of his work in front of me.
That seems rather "dogmatic"...........
you cant be a scientist and have a closed mind. at least not a real one.
your example does demonstrate the beauty of the scientific system. the peer review process weeds out these quacks. when someone who claims to be a scientist publishes statements that are bs they get called on it. here is what other scientists say about your guy:
"Several conclusions can be drawn from all this. First, one must conclude that Boylan, a Ph.D. and Professor in Chemical Engineering, has committed to print worse errors than those for which beginning thermodynamics students are penalized, if not failed, in their homework and examinations. Secondly, Williams, and especially Gish, are at least as devoid of thermodynamics understanding and knowledge as is Boylan. Thirdly, the same can be said for all the engineers in the CRSQ readership who read but did not question Boylan's analysis. If there were any who did submit criticism, I have a feeling the public will be the last to know.
Thus Boylan's paper is best viewed as a poor attempt to make a scientific case for creationism. The paper is self-contradictory, and hopelessly garbled when viewed from the perspective of science. Equally audacious attempts to rationalize the geological column in terms of fluid mechanics and hydrological sorting have also been advanced by creationist engineers, particularly by Morris;[43-46] here again the confusion and obfuscation betray an apologetic approach to discourse."
I did college classes until I could not take any more of their irrational shit... you can take an argument with circular reasoning that would get you an "F" in Philosophy 101, go right down the hall with it to another department and use it as significant support for evolution... I had an English teacher that saw death and sex in EVERYTHING... you could write about puppies, flowers and sunshine and the crazy son of a bitch saw death and sex...
Some people are discerning. I knew a gal that was definitely mentally slow but she said she just never believed evolution when they taught it to her in grammar school, she said it just didn't seem right... and now, I see that after many years fo thinking about it, basically, it makes me laugh to think that somebody would forward such a truly ridiculous argument for beginnings. It gets more ridiculous the more actual data we gather... but the thing is that the intellectual community owns the venue for the debate and are the self styled "experts" so they can't ever lose the argument.. they can get more irrational over time but they live on public monies baby, you can't unseat them......
Some people are discerning. I knew a gal that was definitely mentally slow but she said she just never believed evolution when they taught it to her in grammar school, she said it just didn't seem right... and now, I see that after many years fo thinking about it, basically, it makes me laugh to think that somebody would forward such a truly ridiculous argument for beginnings. It gets more ridiculous the more actual data we gather... but the thing is that the intellectual community owns the venue for the debate and are the self styled "experts" so they can't ever lose the argument.. they can get more irrational over time but they live on public monies baby, you can't unseat them......
This is the same individual and critique that your compadre linked, so my remarks would be similar.
However, since I have the paper that Mr. Lindsay's site is "debunking", allow me to cite this passage from the introduction:
"....It is the purpose of this paper to examine some of the hypotheses for the development of order by a consideration of the processes which are believed to have been involved.........."
I further quote the Boylan paper:
".........One philosophy is that these systems developed by natural processes and that evolutionary changes occur by natural selection acting on the wide variation in the gene pool to produce a "survival of the fittest" population. This concept rests heavily upon random chance, operating through long time spans. Not all scientists agree with this proposal.. There is the ever-present feeling amongst some that processes which will not go readily in our present world under laboratory conditions are not likely to go under conditions in which the process is not so easily controlled............"
He then quotes an antagonist and evolutionist:
".........Contrary to Dr. Wald's assertion that:
.....the important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the catagory of at-least-once phenomena, time is on our side. However improbably we regard this event...., given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once.....Time is in fact the hero of the plot.....Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain, one has only to wait; time itself performs miracles..."
Smells like faith to me.
Exactly. Academia = big money.
Evolutionists in academia must protect the turf on which they feed themselves. Unlike the "saga" they promote, no competition is allowed.
wow i had always considered you somewhat intellectual but putting yourself on the same intellectual level as someone like maxpi is troubling.
you actually believe its a conspiricy that creationists cant get work published?
Well vhehn, at the risk of my diminishing your kind remarks, it is not a conspiracy per se, it is sort of like when one political party has a "super majority", they can lock their opponents out of the process, for no other reason than they can.
But I greatly appreciate the fleeting conditional compliment
