is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
From the article on page 4
Creation science is not falsifiable: An idea or hypothesis is generally not considered to be in the realm of science unless it can be potentially disproved with certain experiments, this is the concept of falsifiability in science.
Can you give examples of ways to disprove Evolution (to the satisfaction of the naturalistic community?)
is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
. . . except I wouldn't use the word "guided'. I think evolution is unguided.
I agree with you on on that. A more clear way to say my definition could be:
“A version of the history of life on Earth in which it is claimed that all biological life that has ever existed came about solely by naturalistic processes (as opposed to intelligently guided).
is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
One of my definitions of Evolution (in the context of debate) is:
“A version of the history of life on Earth in which it is claimed that all biological life that has ever existed came about solely by non-intelligently guided naturalistic processes.”
I think this accurately describes Evolution in the context of the Creation/Evolution debate.
TonusOH wrote:
I believe that in science, the working definition is "descent with modification."
“descent with modification” can be vague (even possibly compatible with creationism depending on the situation), and is just one of several evolutionary scenarios, so it’s not a definition that’s comprehensive.
Also, evolutionary theory allows for traits to to be received laterally and not just by descent.
is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
So which type of evolution do you wish me to provide a definition for?
An overall definition, and a biological definition if you see that as distinct.
is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
Which one do you wish me to define and would you accept me simply copying and pasting a definition of such that is in a book or online?
“Evolution” is defined in many different ways. Even some biological definitions are compatible with Biblical Creationism. Others are not, but are still too narrow, and don’t reflect the diversity of “Evolutionary theory” even within biology. So it’s necessary to define terms on this issue.
I notice you created a number to topics which promote creationism and intelligent design. I thus have no expectations of convincing you of evolution.
That’s fine, however your last post on the previous page made numerous claims against creation science being science. Should not evolutionary theory pass these tests in order to be considered science?
i understand if it may be a while before you are able to respond due to work.
is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
I think I understand it good, for someone who is not scientist.
Could you please define “Evolution” (in the context of the Creation/Evolution debate?)
is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
Disillusioned JW.
Regarding issues brought up in your last post:
How well do you understand Evolutionary theory?
Do you think that it is a testable, falsifiable theory?
recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
Basically you have two proponents: infinite regression of more complex creators or the regression to zero of less complex things that create more complex things through simple processes.
Why would the claim that ‘the origin of organized biological complexity is evidence for an intelligent designer,’ necessarily also require an infinite regression of more complex creators?
You have to add several extra assumptions to the arguments of intelligent design advocates in order to try to generate an infinite regression. Assumptions not found in the arguments.
*organized complexity defined as complexity composed of parts, such as a biological system composed of proteins.
lecture by walter remine:.
https://youtu.be/o2usdd_8eay.
IReMine says "life is intended to be a message". It is this assertion on which he builds his own baseless message. If he could prove from evidence that life was intended to be a message, then he might have a case. As it is he is without credibility.
Have you read his book? Or any of it?
If not how are you a credible source to proclaim him as being “without credibility”?
lecture by walter remine:.
https://youtu.be/o2usdd_8eay.
Lecture by Walter ReMine:
