Posts by Coded Logic

37

Top Scientist descent from Creationism

by Coded Logic in

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/intelligentdesign.html.

http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-resolution-intelligent-design-theory.

Coded Logic

Hahaha, yeah sometimes it is pretty funny to watch Crofty and others blow a gasket on Perrys psuedoscience.

37

Top Scientist descent from Creationism

by Coded Logic in

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/intelligentdesign.html.

http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-resolution-intelligent-design-theory.

Coded Logic

(In response to Perry "900 Top Scientist Sign Statement Skeptical of Macro-Evolution")

The following scientific organizations reject creationism:

National Academy of Sciences:

"Creationism, Intelligent Design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science"

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25

""Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence."

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

American Association for the Advancement of Science:

"[T]he lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education."

http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-resolution-intelligent-design-theory

"The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."

http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=443

American Association of University Professors:

"Such efforts run counter to the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution and are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the meaning of academic freedom."

http://archive.today/9fsvJ

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-latest-face-of-creationism/

American Astronomical Society:

"“Intelligent Design” fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers."

http://www.as.utexas.edu/~sj/a301-fa05/teachevolution.pdf

American Chemical Society:

"urges... State and local education authorities to support high-quality science standards and curricula that affirm evolution as the only scientifically accepted explanation for the origin and diversity of species."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/acs-acs081505.php

American Geophysical Union:

"Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7052/full/436761a.html

American Institute of Physics:

""For this reason, we do not endorse teaching the "evidence against evolution," because currently no such scientific evidence exists. Nor can we condone teaching "scientific creationism," "intelligent design," or other non-scientific viewpoints as valid scientific theories."

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/070.html

American Psychological Association:

"For a theory to be taught as science it must be testable, supported by empirical evidence and subject to disconfirmation. Thus, intelligent design lacks a basis in science."

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2007/03/design.aspx

American Society of Agronomy:

"Intelligent design is not a scientific discipline and should not be taught as part of the K-12 science curriculum. Intelligent design has neither the substantial research base, nor the testable hypotheses as a scientific discipline."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/asoa-sss081505.php

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology:

""Intelligent design" is not a theory in the scientific sense, nor is it a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. ..."intelligent design" might be appropriate to teach in a religion or philosophy class, but the concept has no place in a science classroom and should not be taught there."

http://archive.today/G2TnE

Botanical Society of America:

"The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. As professional scientists and educators, we strongly assert that such efforts are both misguided and flawed, presenting an incorrect view of science, its understandings, and its processes."

http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology:

"Arguing that evolution is "just a theory," rather than a fact,

they insist that intelligent design should be offered as an

alternative to evolution or given "equal time", and that schools

should "teach the controversy" surrounding evolutionary

theory. FASEB does not support these views. We also affirm that

these positions seriously undermine science education."

http://www.faseb.org/portals/2/pdfs/opa/EvolutionStatement.pdf

National Association of Biology Teachers:

"Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. ... Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke metaphysical, non-naturalistic or supernatural mechanisms, whether called “creation science,” “scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the scope of science and therefore are not part of a valid science curriculum."

http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/Documents/NABT.html

National Center for Science Education:

"So-called "evidence against evolution" or "weaknesses of evolution" consist of the same sorts of long-discredited arguments against evolution which have been a staple of creationism since the 1920s and earlier."

http://ncse.com/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism

National Science Teachers Association:

"Claims by proponents of these views have been evaluated and discredited based on scientific evidence. These claims have no empirical power to explain the natural world and its diverse phenomena."

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx

"We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom."

http://www.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794

Geological Society of America:

"GSA opposes teaching creationism alongside evolution in any science classroom and rejects the characterization of evolution as scientifically controversial."

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm

Global Network of Science Academies:

http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx

Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

European Society for Evolutionary Biology

http://www.evolutionmatters.at/

Council of Europe:

http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1580.htm

70'000 scientists and science teachers from Australian Academy of Science, Federation of Australian Scientific and technological Societies, Australian Science Teachers Association:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070811105349/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html

Reviews in journals:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v315/n6016/pdf/315185a0.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/full/444680b.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/full/444680a.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14527300

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267227/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC372862/

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2743476?uid=3738984&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104017369301

etc.

Here's a list of some other US scientific organizations rejecting 'intelligent design':

Alabama Academy of Science

American Academy of Religion *

American Anthropological Association (1980)

American Anthropological Association (2000)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1922)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1972)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1982)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2002)

American Association for the Advancement of Science Commission on Science Education

American Association of Physical Anthropologists

American Astronomical Society (2000)

American Astronomical Society (2005)

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society (1981)

American Chemical Society (2005)

American Fisheries Society *

American Geological Institute

American Geophysical Union (1981)

American Geophysical Union (2003)

American Geophysical Union (2007) *

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Physical Society

American Psychological Association (1982)

American Psychological Association (2007)

American Society for Microbiology (2006)

American Society of Biological Chemists

American Society of Naturalists *

American Society of Parasitologists

American Society of Plant Taxonomists *

American Sociological Association

American Statistical Association *

Association for Women Geoscientists

Association of Southeastern Biologists

Australian Academy of Science

Biophysical Society

Botanical Society of America

California Academy of Sciences (1994)

California Academy of Sciences (2007) *

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences (2008) *

Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution *

Committee for the Anthropology of Science, Technology, and Computing

Ecological Society of America

Entomological Society of America *

Entomological Society of Canada (2005) *

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

Genetics Society of America

Geological Society of America (1983)

Geological Society of America (2001)

Geological Society of America (2009) *

Geological Society of Australia (2008) *

Geological Society of Australia

Geological Society of London *

Georgia Academy of Science (1980)

Georgia Academy of Science (1982)

Georgia Academy of Science (2003)

History of Science Society

Idaho Scientists for Quality Science Education

Indiana Academy of Science (2006)*

InterAcademy Panel

Iowa Academy of Science (1981)

Iowa Academy of Science (1986)

Iowa Academy of Science (2000)

Kansas Academy of Science

Kentucky Academy of Science

Kentucky Paleontological Society

Louisiana Academy of Sciences (1982)

Louisiana Academy of Sciences (2006)

National Academy of Sciences (1972)

National Academy of Sciences (1984)

National Academy of Sciences (2007)

New Mexico Academy of Science

New Orleans Geological Society

New York Academy of Sciences

North American Benthological Society

North Carolina Academy of Science (1982)

North Carolina Academy of Science (1997)

Ohio Academy of Science

Ohio Math and Science Coalition

Oklahoma Academy of Science (1981) *

Oklahoma Academy of Science (1999) *

Oklahoma Academy of Science (2007) *

Pennsylvania Academy of Science

Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists

Philosophy of Science Association

Research!America

Royal Astronomical Society of Canada — Ottawa Centre

Royal Society

Royal Society of Canada

Royal Society of Canada, Academy of Science

Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter

Society for Amateur Scientists

Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology

Society for Neuroscience

Society for Organic Petrology

Society for the Study of Evolution (original)

Society for the Study of Evolution (revised) *

Society of Physics Students

Society of Systematic Biologists

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1986)

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1994)

Southern Anthropological Society

Tallahassee Scientific Society

Tennessee Academy of Science *

Tennessee Darwin Coalition

Texas Academy of Science *

The Paleontological Society

Virginia Academy of Science

West Virginia Academy of Science

etc.

69

Evidence Regarding the Evolution of Cetaceans - Whales etc

by cofty in

this excellent little video sumamrises some of the evidence for the evolutionary history of cetaceans.. if focuses on comparative anatomy, embryology, fossils and dna.. .... .

.

Coded Logic

Great video Crofty thanks for sharing!

Unfortunately, people don't dig themselves into cognitive holes because they appreciate facts and reasoning. To the contrary, a rejection of evolution often stems from a fundamental lack of understanding how the Scientific Method and Peer Review works.

43

From A Bublical Point Of View Did You Ever Think The Trinity Doctrine Made Sense?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i see no logic in it.

i see what appears to be some scriptural contradictions but i see no merit in a trinitarian view of god.. .

.

Coded Logic

Take the position that the trinity is true and I will show you from the Bible why it is false. Take the position that the trinity is false and I will show you from the Bible that it is true. You can use the Bible support or condem just about anything you want as it so often has contridictory claims. There's a reason there's over 30,000 denominations of Christianity in the United States alone.

149

Evolution and spirits

by Chris Tann in

as of now iam making an unbiased examination of evolution.

however one thing keeps me hanging on to the belief of a supreme spirit being; the existence of spirits.

i have heard countless accounts of people who have experienced frightening encounters with evil forces.

Coded Logic

Chris Tann,

We don't use anecdotal evidence to support evolution. We use facts that demonstrable with measurable accuracy. It is verifiable with direct observation and repeatable experamentation.

The claims of two people saying the saw something is not the same as the mountains of evidence that support evolution. But I'll ask my questions again:

1.) What are the names of the people who witnessed it?

2.) What is the name of the child that was dragged?

3.) How was it verfied that it was a supernatural event?

-CL

149

Evolution and spirits

by Chris Tann in

as of now iam making an unbiased examination of evolution.

however one thing keeps me hanging on to the belief of a supreme spirit being; the existence of spirits.

i have heard countless accounts of people who have experienced frightening encounters with evil forces.

Coded Logic

At the hospital a few witnesses( a nurse and a social worker) saw one of the children levitate backwards across the floor and then float up the wall. This was a public activity of wicked spirits. Verified.

Where did this happen? What were the names of the witnesses? What was the name of the child? Who exactly "verified" it? And how have you determined that it was "spirits" that did it?

So how does soneone who is an atheist, believes in evolution account for these things that have been happening for thousands of years?

You are trying to switch the burden of proof from you to the athiest. You're the one making the claim that supernatural events occure. Thus, it is up to you to provide evidence for your claim and explain how you've determined what caused it. First you would have to demonstrate that such an event did in fact occure. Next, you would need to explain how you know that it was "spirits". Just because another person doesn't have a naturalistic explination for something DOES NOT MEAN that you just get to plug in a super natural explination. When we don't know the answer to something the answer is "I don't know" not "hey, let's make something up."

4

"Did Jesus Save The Klingons?"

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/religion-extraterrestrials-jesus-save-klingons/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed%3a+scientificamerican-news+%28content%3a+news%29.

even sci am magazine is getting in on the et/religion question.. they would have to give up blood pie to be witnesses though.

and duels to the death.. .

Coded Logic

No - no - no! Kahless saved the Klingons!

42

Please Give Me Your Thoughts On Unusual Elderly Behavior....(thanks)

by minimus in

jw
friends

my girlfriend's dad who is 82 lost his second wife to cancer last october.

while she was dying, he secretly was seeing another woman, in her 60s.

long story short, a month after the wife's death, they both moved in together and in early june , they secretly got married.

Coded Logic

I find all of these comments incredibly sexist! Who says she's not the one who is loaded and he's the one using her?

Maybe he's the one who's an 80 year old hottie!

24

Why I Refuse to Accept the term APOSTATE

by Black Man in

jw
friends

been going back in forth with my mom (who is a longtime pioneer and dyed-in-the-wool jw) about the term apostate.

she has labeled me one because of my fading and because i stopped attending meetings a few years ago.

i told her that i refuse to accept the term apostate because its a lazy way for the wts to not deal with dissenters and address why people are leaving this organization in droves.

Coded Logic

Okay I really got to speak my mind on this one because this is one of the most ridiculous things that the WTBTS does! The Greek word apostate (from apostasia) means to renounce, depart, or go away from. It does NOT mean to disagree with or to criticize. The WTBTS has taken the modern use of the world (synonymous with revolt) and has tried to apply it retroactively to the Bible. It is incredibly dishonest and in direct conflict with the teachings of the Bible.

Worse, they now use it as Loaded Language so thagt anytime a JW feels uncomfortable when being called out on the inconsitancy of their beliefs or when someone challenges authority they can just say, “Oh, that person is an apostate. Don’t talk to them."

* Loaded Language is intended to produce an emotional response in the mind of the audience while the meaning is intentionally obfuscated in order to vilify or condem a particular minority or belief without raising an alarm among those who would be offended by the actual meaning.

For example, the term "family values" immediately invokes the feelings of warmth, security, honesty and support that a family brings. Even though the term really means a few vicious pet social issues - hatred of gays , being anti- abortion , and restricting roles for women. (See also " traditional values ").

-Rational Wiki

20

Lockheed: Limitless Energy?

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://news.yahoo.com/lockheed-says-makes-breakthrough-fusion-energy-project-123840986--finance.html.

a prototype for testing in a year?

there have been a number of claims about fusion reactors in the past year but this seems the most bold.. .

Coded Logic

Another sensationalist claim. At best, fusion technology is 30 years away.

"There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical about Lockheed's announcement, says Mahajan, who, with a team of scientists, designed a new way to reduce waste from nuclear reactors in 2009. First, fusion reactors right now are pretty big. Mahajan says making them smaller is extremely hard to do—you need a very confined space, with loads of material at extremely high densities, and then you need to get that power out of the reactor to be used. "So it's both the physics and the engineering which are extremely, extremely daunting," he said. "We know of no materials that would be able to handle anywhere near that amount of heat."

Mahajan called Lockheed's announcement "poppycock." He said, "Getting net energy from fusion is such a goddamn difficult undertaking," he said. "We're all aware that there's always a finite chance of some breakthrough which is beyond the powers of imagination." But if there was a genuine breakthrough, he said, "we'd be screaming from the treetops."