12
   

International Scientific Conference Deems Evolution A "Hoax"

 
 
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2018 10:55 am
https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/29183-international-scientific-conference-deems-evolution-a-hoax

The academic deadwood still defending evolutionism (e.g. Formerman here) still site taxonomic charts as evidence of evolution.

There is a better explanation for taxonomic charts and the way that families of living creatures appear to be able to be described in what look like tree diagrams. Taxonomic charts are evidence of object-oriented design. In other words, it looks as if God has used the selfsame methodology which you would call best practices in software engineering. The analogy would be between our living world and a pure object language such as Smalltalk or Eiffel which begins with a base object for the entire programming system.

 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2018 01:46 pm
@gungasnake,
Ha! If that's a "Scientific Conference", then I'm a 400lb ballerina.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2018 03:39 pm
@gungasnake,
never knew the John Birch Society was against biologicl science. I always thought they were more associated with the nuclear power advocates. I guess the need to pick nd choose and deny only parts of atomic theory, namely radioisotopic dating but not disintegrations per second
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2018 03:40 pm
@rosborne979,
we always look to welcoming cities to hold geology conferences. Ankara seems a bit out of the mainstream.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2018 04:03 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
then I'm a 400lb ballerina.


The clumsy manner in which you dance around here seems to make that a distinct possibility, ros.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2018 04:19 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
never new the John Birch Society
. Spoken like a true bigot. Concentrate on the world view of the group of scientists and the publication rather than the facts.

I dont think I know an atheist who isnt a bigot. I cant say that about the John Birch Society.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2018 09:07 am
@brianjakub,
the paper is a function of the Birchers, or didnt you know??

If I said that "Gee I never knew the KKK was made up of Creationists" would you still call me a bigot?
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2018 09:10 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Concentrate on the world view of the group of scientists
I did, and to my un surprise I saw that they would introduce your "Experts" first based upon their religious views first. and not their scientific expertise.
Sounds a bit like the Trump Whitehouse."**** the law and th Constitution" we must first protect the President!!"
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2018 09:43 am
@farmerman,
Here you are, farmerman, taking part in a gungasnake thread about "science" but you can't seem to discuss science that matters, science that is real.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jul, 2019 07:13 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
If I said that "Gee I never knew the KKK was made up of Creationists" would you still call me a bigot?


But the KKK has beliefs similar Nazism and they based the idea that they were the master race on Darwinism. A bigot is someone who judges an argument according to the person who is delivering the argument rather than the validity of the argument.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jul, 2019 07:20 am
@farmerman,
My quote was
Quote:
. Spoken like a true bigot. Concentrate on the world view of the group of scientists and the publication rather than the facts.


I meant Spoken like a true bigot who concentrates on the world view of the group of scientists and the publication rather than the facts.

Quote:
I did, and to my un surprise I saw that they would introduce your "Experts" first based upon their religious views first. and not their scientific expertise.
Sounds a bit like the Trump Whitehouse."**** the law and th Constitution" we must first protect the President!!"
So, the introduction describing the religious views of the person disqualifies their argument? Why not just discuss where their argument is flawed?

I haven't seen Trump do anything unconstitutional yet, could you give an example?
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2020 09:25 am
I love how half the people here are like "they must not be real scientists then."

Congratulations, typically the No True Scotsman fallacy is applied to religion, not science. But that still doesn't mean there can't be scientifically feasible reasons why real scientists might deny it.

Aside the idea that because this is in Istanbul, Turkey, they might just be religious nutters posing as scientists they are a few things to consider.
First, they might be right in saying that the theory of evolution is indirectly or directly responsible for communism and national socialism (also known as the Nazi party), two dictatorship systems that killed and oppressed millions, and also eugenics which was responsible for trying to weed out undesirable races. Without the pureblood mentality that was behind Hitler's hatred of the Jews, he had only a few personal grievances, and things would have gone better.
Second, as wikipedia has pointed out, not only are there theists who believe in evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
but there are many alternate theories to Darwin's ideas. In particular, I favor Lamarck's and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire's ideas. I have not known natural selection to be effective at anything but ethnic cleansing. But species do tend to adapt to environments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_evolution_by_natural_selection
Third, really, I do not believe the Linnaean classification of reptiles as close to birds is sound. They do so purely on the basis that feathers are like scales. But their anatomy is nothing alike.

Here is a dinosaur skeleton.
https://www.ponoko.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/apatosarus_skeleton_1880s.jpg
Now here is a crocodile skeleton.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-d23I_S3NReI/TzRxp9z2VII/AAAAAAAAAHg/KgUnrcEvlFs/s1600/Skeleton%2Bof%2Ba%2Bcrocodile.jpg
Now here's a bird skeleton.
https://etc.usf.edu/clipart/58000/58004/58004_skeleton_lg.gif
Quite different, right?

Reptiles have cervical, thoractic, lumbar, and caudal vertabrae. When we get into internal organs, the differences widen even further.
Reptiles, aside from amphibians having gills or whatever, are fairly similar to humans internally.
http://rjfisherjoanides.pbworks.com/f/1299727337/crocanatomy.jpg
With me so far? This is what a bird's anatomy looks like.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/classconnection/935/flashcards/2902935/jpg/bird_internal-14BC3751ADD0970FEA6-thumb400.jpg
Much less anatomy in general, and they have organs like the gizzard that neither mammals nor reptiles have. Conclusion? Reptiles did not evolve into birds (which are less evolved, and more specialized), they evolved into mammals if evolution took place at all.

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2020 10:00 am
@farmerman,
Somebody said that gungasnake died. I shall miss him as he at least tried to make arguments ,even though quite flawed.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2020 10:05 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Somebody said that gungasnake died. I shall miss him as he at least tried to make arguments ,even though quite flawed.



I had not heard that. Hope it is just a rumor.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2020 11:33 am
@McGentrix,
he was often fun to talk with. He knew his guns,(unlike a few others who read about em but dont use em).
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2020 12:20 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
I favor Lamarck's and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire's ideas.


I don't know if you are completely closed minded or not... but I will take a chance that you are open to actual facts.

Science is about things that are testable. When there is a question in science, you set up an experiment or a set of observations, and then you make the measurements to see what is correct.

Lamark's claims are pretty easy to test. And they are factually incorrect. Hilaire's claims are equally testable (and false). That means that Lamark and Hilaire are simply wrong.

In science there are right answers and wrong answers. These answers are determined by experiment. If the experiment or the observation contradicts with your belief, then if you claim to be a Scientist (or a Scotsman) you need to drop your belief.

This is just how science is done.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2020 01:41 pm
@farmerman,
He also knew a lot about boxing.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2020 05:08 pm
@maxdancona,
Lamarck Is being looked at with an entirely new toolbox of genetic information and he's slowly being recognized as someone not to be ridiculed as we once thought.

St Hillaire not so much
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2020 05:12 pm
@farmerman,
My understanding of Lamark (which may be simplistic) is that if you provide stresses to change a fruit fly, it's children will inherit the change. At the extreme... if you pull the wings off of a fruit fly, it should have wingless offspring.

Is there more to it?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2020 05:32 pm
@maxdancona,
Since epigenetic expression can retain "acquired characteristics" for a few generations in which they can become fixed generationally. Lamarck is getting a new look-see in light of epigenetics .


St Hillaire, is like a poster child for ID. His big observation wasnt that big to start with. He just had enough money to be listened to.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » International Scientific Conference Deems Evolution A "Hoax"
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 01:54:21