Releaselog

Monkeys more clever than humans, damn!

One would think that the descendent of evolution should be more clever than his predecessor. Wrong! Researchers have shown that young chimps outperform adult humans in a memory test, a Concentration-like game using numerals on a computer screen. “We were very surprised to find this,” Tetsuro Matsuzawa of the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University said. “But it’s a very concrete, simple fact. Young chimps are superior to human adults in a memory task.” Dr. Matsuzawa and a colleague, Sana Inoue, first trained chimps to recognize the numerals 1 through 9 in sequence. Ai, the first chimp trained, an adult female was found with a memory capability equal to that of adult humans.

When the researchers went to see if there was a difference with chimps younger than 6, the animals had a touch screen where scattered numerals appeared for up to two-thirds of a second and were then masked by white squares. With the shortest exposure time, about a fifth of a second, the chimps had an 80 percent accuracy rate, compared with adult humans’ 40 percent. The findings are described in Current Biology. Dr. Matsuzawa speculated that perhaps somewhere back in common evolution, humans and chimps had this ability. But humans lost it because they gained something else, communicating through a complex language. As Ai demonstrates, adult chimps lose the ability, too. Dr. Matsuzawa suggested that as the chimps age, their memory capability is otherwise occupied.

Source: NY Times 

Comments (124)

Feel free to post your Monkeys more clever than humans, damn! torrent, subtitles, samples, free download, quality, NFO, rapidshare, megashares, sendspace, megaupload, filefactory, netload, crack, serial, keygen, requirements or whatever-related comments here. Don't be rude (permban), use only English, don't go offtopic and read FAQ before asking a question. Owners of this website aren't responsible for content of comments.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
  1. Sajonara
    December 5th, 2007 | 13:12
  2. creationist
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:17

    ok evolutionists, if you are so clever answer this question: which came first, the a$$hole or the turd?

  3. Worthingcollegefool
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:49

    This monkey can kick our alls asses!!!

  4. northernmyths
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:54

    our true ancestor i the noble ash

  5. Worthingcollegefool
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:56

    l2p n00b!

  6. WAH
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:56

    LOL. Even Richard Dawkins admits there’s an appearance of design and purpose but he says it’s merely an illusion because evolutionists explain these things. IOW, nature’s really fooling you. And that’s what ALL the other evolutionists are telling you. There’s a grand deception out there. Amazing! The times we live in today that people would SAY that, right?

  7. northernmyths
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:56

    Das Leben ist kein Pwnyhof!

  8. WAH
    December 5th, 2007 | 15:33

    LOL. The arguments on this board are arguing over two totally different things that are fallaciously treated as one general concept. You guys need to establish the correct meaning of “evolution”.

    Life ain’t easy.

    “The only reason the people who discovered DNA, work in paleontology and other fields of science support evolution is because the more they work in the field the more they understand how life works.”
    Yes. They support biological evolution not the theory because there’s no evidence for it.

  9. X
    December 5th, 2007 | 19:40

    @Sajonara: What amuses me is that Mr. Dawkins is as blind and as stubborn as those that he accuses for being blind and stubborn. Is anyone under the impression that only religious people can have fundamentalist ideas? Well, in my opinion Mr. Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist.

    He does not see that he is just as convinced of his own truth as the ones who he criticize are of theirs. In his mind nothing could make him think he is wrong. He doesn’t seem like a nice man when he’s riding his hobbyhorse.

    In the end it’s funny to blindly believe in non-believing and accuse those believing in something for *believing*.

    There are countless scientific evidences in the scientific community that simply blow away the evolution theory. But those evidences are immediately dismissed and fought against, in the name of belief.

    What’s more funny is The Central Dogma of medicine. Science and dogma put together? And I’ve seen Dawkins in one video saying that science and religion could *never* mix or live together. Yet science uses such terms.

    dogma

    1 a: something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
    2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

    Oh, well… evolution theory is one of those things which enters your mind when you embrace the thinking, “proof” and values of a select group of “others” as your own.

  10. Sajonara
    December 5th, 2007 | 22:05

    WAH –

    Evolution is taught in most schools around the world, unless you go to some freak religious school that illegaly hides this information and blindly puts arguments forward that there is no evidence of evolution. You can argue a long time and keep firing that evolution is just a theory, well i’ll stun you in your tracks. Because evolution is also a fact. To prove a theory in science you have to prove it by experiment, read about the fruit flies experiment. You can agree its hard to prove evolution by experiment when life took so many millions of years to evolve. Simply can’t do it just yet, but in the future I’m sure someone will computer model it with the same environment variables to this day. The other proof/fact is that if you travel around the world you’ll notice the same animals but with slightly different features evolved to the environment. Read about life on the Galapagos islands.

    I can understand R. Dawkin’s frustration as he’s professes in genetic biology, and understand evolution better than most. What annoys R. Dawkins is the thousands of active fundamentalist creationist and little protest from the other side. Why? because in America its culturally not acceptable to be advertising you don’t believe in the doctrine. I can see why he’s angered, when you have to vote to kick out creationism in classrooms. He at least has the courage to go to the middle east and talk to fundamentalist muslims, jews and christians without starting a fight. If you call him a fundamental athiest, well he’s at least nicer to listen to than a religious one such a muslim one who thinks we should all die if we don’t follow the Koran. Yeah, great ethics and moral from your religious teachings.

    At least from biology and continuing the study of evolution we can make new discoveries in the field that can help human kind and not the other way around. Such as going back to the 16thCentury and burning people because they were posessed demons (ref: Witch burnings at Salem).

  11. WAH
    December 6th, 2007 | 00:10

    Sajonara: I can see at least six logical fallacies in your argument.
    #1 Tautology: since it’s common knowledge that there is a factual aspect to ‘evolution’, your assertion that ‘evolution’ is also a fact is actually meaningless when it sounds meaningful.
    #2 Equivocation/Conflation: You’re subtly treating two totally different evolutionary ideas as one scientific ‘paradigm’ rather than clearly defining by terminology which part of ‘evolution’ is distinctively fact and theory.
    #3. Falsifiability: the scientific reliability of an idea is the test’s actual conductivity under today’s scientific knowledge. Future experiments to test the theory won’t automatically prove it. Like geocentricism, it could be falsified too.
    #4. Overgeneralization: You’ve generalized creationism to have a ’secret agenda against the world’ to a degree that apparently even little 11 year olds reading the story of Noah and believing it are involved in this conspiracy to destroy the world.
    #5. Genetic fallacy: you’re evaluating the ideas of evolution and creation based on its origin or history rather than its present—merits or demerits, even going far as to fallaciously argue that its history affect its present value.
    #6. Straw man: your argument that religious fundamentalism is worse off than scientific fundamentalism is weak. They’re both equally potent, especially in the hands of the corrupt. Even fascist movements seem to ground a part of their views from a biological evolutionary perspective to justify ethnic/cultural/racial purity, superiority and/or inferiority.

  12. WAH
    December 6th, 2007 | 00:13

    Sajonara: LOL. I can see at least six logical fallacies in your argument.
    #1 Tautology: since it’s common knowledge that there is a factual aspect to ‘evolution’, your assertion that ‘evolution’ is also a fact is actually meaningless when it sounds meaningful.
    #2 Equivocation/Conflation: You’re subtly treating two totally different evolutionary ideas as one scientific ‘paradigm’ rather than clearly defining by terminology which part of ‘evolution’ is distinctively fact and theory.
    #3. Falsifiability: the scientific reliability of an idea is the test’s actual conductivity under today’s scientific knowledge. Future experiments to test the theory won’t automatically prove it. Like geocentricism, it could be falsified too.
    #4. Overgeneralization: You’ve generalized creationism to have a ’secret agenda against the world’ to a degree that apparently even little 11 year olds reading the story of Noah and believing it are involved in this conspiracy to destroy the world.
    #5. Genetic fallacy: you’re evaluating the ideas of evolution and creation based on its origin or history rather than its present—merits or demerits, even going far as to fallaciously argue that its history affect its present value.
    #6. Straw man: your argument that religious fundamentalism is worse off than scientific fundamentalism is weak. They’re both equally potent, especially in the hands of the corrupt. Even fascist movements seem to ground a part of their views from a biological evolutionary perspective to justify ethnic/cultural/racial purity, superiority and/or inferiority.

    Your logic is all screwed up.

  13. WAH
    December 6th, 2007 | 00:17

    Sajonara: LOL. I can see at least six logical fallacies in your argument.
    #1 Tautology: since it’s common knowledge that there is a factual aspect to ‘evolution’, your assertion that ‘evolution’ is also a fact is actually meaningless when it sounds meaningful.
    #2 Equivocation/Conflation: You’re subtly treating two totally different evolutionary ideas as one scientific ‘paradigm’ rather than clearly defining by terminology which part of ‘evolution’ is distinctively fact and theory.
    #3. Falsifiability: the scientific reliability of an idea is the test’s actual conductivity under today’s scientific knowledge. Future experiments to test the theory won’t automatically prove it. Like geocentricism, it could be falsified too.
    #4. Overgeneralization: You’ve generalized creationism to have a ’secret agenda against the world’ to a degree that apparently even all religious little 11 year olds reading the story of Noah and believing it are involved in this conspiracy to destroy the world.
    #5. Genetic fallacy: you’re evaluating the ideas of evolution and creation based on its origin or history rather than its present—merits or demerits, even going far as to fallaciously argue that its history affects its present value.
    #6. Straw man: your argument that religious fundamentalism is worse off than scientific fundamentalism is weak. They’re both equally potent, especially in the hands of the corrupt. Even fascist movements seem to ground a part of their views from a biological evolutionary perspective to justify ethnic/cultural/racial purity, superiority and/or inferiority.

    Your logic is all screwed up.

  14. WAH
    December 6th, 2007 | 00:18

    Delete my last three posts including this one.

  15. Redem
    December 6th, 2007 | 05:18

    “LOL. Even Richard Dawkins admits there’s an appearance of design and purpose but he says it’s merely an illusion because evolutionists explain these things. IOW, nature’s really fooling you.”
    It would be mroe accurate to say that appearances can be decieving. Which they can. The sun certainly APPEARS to travel around the earth, rather than vice versa. It’s not true though.

    That statement is essentially the entire reason for sicence, because things don’t always work out in the way they first appear to.

    “Yes. They support biological evolution not the theory because there’s no evidence for it.”
    Apart from all the evidence, of course.

    “In the end it’s funny to blindly believe in non-believing and accuse those believing in something for *believing*.”
    Strawman, if you had ever read his works, then you would know that he does not “believe in non-believing”, as you put it.

    “There are countless scientific evidences in the scientific community that simply blow away the evolution theory. But those evidences are immediately dismissed and fought against, in the name of belief.”
    Uh-huh. Care to present some? These things are always a lotta fun. :)

    “What’s more funny is The Central Dogma of medicine. Science and dogma put together? And I’ve seen Dawkins in one video saying that science and religion could *never* mix or live together. Yet science uses such terms.”
    Medicine is not a science as such, more like engineering. And what the hell is ” The Central Dogma of medicine”? Google reports no results.

    I have yet to see the word Dogma applied to science by anyone who’s not a creationist. funny that. Seems like an attempt to paint us with the same brush as is applied to you.

    “#1 Tautology: since it’s common knowledge that there is a factual aspect to ‘evolution’, your assertion that ‘evolution’ is also a fact is actually meaningless when it sounds meaningful.”
    That makes is a statement of fact, then, not a tautology.
    Which means an argument using the conclusion as a premise.

    “#2 Equivocation/Conflation: You’re subtly treating two totally different evolutionary ideas as one scientific ‘paradigm’ rather than clearly defining by terminology which part of ‘evolution’ is distinctively fact and theory.”
    The two are easily confused, to be fair.

    “#3. Falsifiability: the scientific reliability of an idea is the test’s actual conductivity under today’s scientific knowledge. Future experiments to test the theory won’t automatically prove it. Like geocentricism, it could be falsified too.”
    Why is this a bad thing? Also, it’s not a fallacy, as claimed.
    It’s simply how science works, to be a useful explanation it must conceivably be proveable wrong. Which evolution is. Modern rabbits fossilised in devaronian rocks, being the classic example. That we have NEVER found a SINGLE modern animal fossilised in any ancient sediments, despite large scale efforts for over a century to find some, is evidence fo the trustworthyness of evolution.

    “#4. Overgeneralization: You’ve generalized creationism to have a ’secret agenda against the world’ to a degree that apparently even little 11 year olds reading the story of Noah and believing it are involved in this conspiracy to destroy the world.”
    Two words “Wedge strategy”.
    :p

    “#6. Straw man: your argument that religious fundamentalism is worse off than scientific fundamentalism is weak. They’re both equally potent, especially in the hands of the corrupt.”
    That’s not a strawman, then.

    As for “scientific fundamentalism”… I have yet to see someone killed for not accepting quantum loop gravity as the one true GUT.

  16. WAH
    December 6th, 2007 | 09:22

    “That statement is essentially the entire reason for sicence”
    It is also a very subjective statement as well. Today that might be the reason, tomorrow it may be different. Don’t miss the titanic shift that’s happening in the history of science from the days of Isaac Newton to the days of Richard Dawkins.

    “Apart from all the evidence, of course.”
    Evidence for what? Seems to me you’re subtly inferring evidence for biological evolution as evidence for the GTE, which is conflation. Evidence for biological evolution, not ‘general theory’, otherwise there would be no experiments to test the theory, and no experiments means the idea is useless.

    “Strawman, if you had ever read his works, then you would know that he does not “believe in non-believing”, as you put it….Uh-huh. Care to present some? These things are always a lotta fun….And what the hell is ” The Central Dogma of medicine””
    maybe you should address the person who actually said those things. You’re guilty for deceitful accusation once again. But I guess I’ll put my two cents in.

    You want to know if there’s scientific evidence that blows away the theory of evolution? Well, personally, I wouldn’t say ‘blow away the theory’ but rather today’s scientific knowledge or simply lack of evidence that presents an obstacle to the theory of evolution. Maybe X is referring to the law of biogenesis or 2nd law of thermodynamics as obstacles for the theory “to circumvent and create an alternative law.” LOL. Or simply the absence of evidence for the theory. For instance, we’ve never observed an actual human evolve from a ‘warm little pond’ or for us to repeatedly create life from non-life or artificially mutate a fruit fly to a human, which would be testable evidence to prove the GTE. While the scientific evidence we have now proves the biological evolutionary mechanisms behind the theoretical claims the historical claim itself is neither scientifically proven or scientifically disproven. Evolutionists are doing all they can to prove the theory by experiments, which requires humans to create life to prove it and that IMO is a tall order to take on and requires a leap of faith to say that one day we’ll prove the GTE. But God won’t let that happen and soon evolutionary theory will fade away as a fad. As a biblical theist, I don’t need scientific evidence to disprove a theory that is speculatively an unfalsifiable historical claim based on unfalsifiable philosophical assumptions. IOW, I don’t need scientific evidences to prove/disprove historical claims. All I need is just historical-legal proof that God created everything from scratch to historically disprove the historical claim of GTE and we find that in many types of ‘creation’ accounts in all religions, if not most, throughout history.

    the central dogma of medicine. LOL. that’s funny but maybe it’s a loose terminology of the medicine industry’s deceitful tactic to control society. Maybe. I don’t know exactly what X means by that. But you’ll understand my POV once you watch this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOEB05_3-p0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVZBkelUft8
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgwX0339DH4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTALoEHxjQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZOImPPL5bo
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isghdWXd4Lw
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn51CEHzft4

    “That makes is a statement of fact, then, not a tautology.”
    A tautology is a statement that is true under all circumstances, such that the statement carries no meaning. The correct way to respond to it is to charge it for it’s meaninglessness, not its integrity. In fairness of his argument he was simply stating a well known fact that doesn’t help his case or negate mine in any sense at all. That’s like saying, “Doing wrong is bad.” So?? It’s true but meaningless although it sounds meaningful.

    “The two are easily confused, to be fair.”
    Of course, and most evolutionists I see online appear to deceitfully, knowingly or unknowingly, switch the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, “bait-and-switch,” is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this “evolution,” then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. On top of that, they and creationists as well don’t bother to lay the foundational meanings of the word evolution before hand and argue over two different things.

    “Why is this a bad thing?”
    I wasn’t necessarily claiming that falsifiability is in itself is a logical fallacy but it is when you’re misconstruing the meanings or switching them in defining ideas as falsifiable by an experiment’s conceivability or by its tests’ conductivity under *tomorrow*’s scientific knowledge. In fact, falsifiability is the lifeblood of science because it is from the experiments’ capability to be tested under *today*’s scientific knowledge that new experiments are tested, new discoveries made, and new science developed.

    “Two words “Wedge strategy”.”
    Two words “evolutionary dogma.” NCSE, National Science Foundation, Dr Jerry Bergman all bear this proof.

    You are a materialistic scientist, a uniformitarian of philosophical naturalism, a perfect example of the atheistic bias present within the scientific community, and a typical biological historical evolutionist who uses the common logical fallacy of conflation, whose logic unfalsifiably presupposes the GTE is fact (when it is just a theory) simply because there is a great deal of evidence for biological evolution. The reason materialism must be overthrown is because of its implications of our culture (abortion and human rights) and because it is philosophically inferior to Biblical Christianity. Read Armstrong and Craig’s “A debate between an atheist and creationist”; it’s interesting.

    “That’s not a strawman, then.”
    Mine isn’t a strawman but his is. Now his is since he’s using an argument weaker than the fact that there are ‘fundamentalism’ in the science community as much as it is in any other ‘community’ political to religious.

    “scientific fundamentalism”
    Scientific dogma. People have been abused, fired and received death threats for simply being involved in creationism/ Intelligent design to teaching the two model approach.

    “I have yet to see someone killed for not accepting quantum loop gravity as the one true GUT.”
    Read the previous comment. And…
    But we have seen Jews, blacks and minorities, such as myself, who were killed in the past for being biologically inferior or less evolved than the perpetrators or being despised upon by ’supremacy groups’ and ‘fascist movements’ who use biological evolution to justify that we are a disease to be ridden of.

  17. WAH
    December 6th, 2007 | 09:27

    …but that’s a lie.

  18. Redem
    December 7th, 2007 | 01:55

    “Seems to me you’re subtly inferring evidence for biological evolution as evidence for the GTE, which is conflation. Evidence for biological evolution, not ‘general theory’, otherwise there would be no experiments to test the theory, and no experiments means the idea is useless.”

    You’re artificially splitting the theory of evolution into two parts, and calling it conflation when the rest of us use the proper term.

    You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t go along with your terminology, and instead stick with the real scientific terms.

    “maybe you should address the person who actually said those things. You’re guilty for deceitful accusation once again. But I guess I’ll put my two cents in.”
    I was addressing that person, they simply posted in between the two posts of yours I was responding to.

    “Well, personally, I wouldn’t say ‘blow away the theory’ but rather today’s scientific knowledge or simply lack of evidence that presents an obstacle to the theory of evolution.”
    An unsupported claim, and unsupportable. Plenty of evidence in the fossil record, in genetic tracers, in behavioural, physiological and biochemical similarities, and various other lines of evidence. All amply supporting the theory.

    “Maybe X is referring to the law of biogenesis or 2nd law of thermodynamics as obstacles for the theory “to circumvent and create an alternative law.” LOL.”
    Neither of which are honest criticisms of the thoery of evolution. One displays a grave misunderstanding of the theory, and the other displays a total lack of understanding of thermodynamics.
    Any scientist would laugh in your face for bringing this up.

    “For instance, we’ve never observed an actual human evolve from a ‘warm little pond’ or for us to repeatedly create life from non-life or artificially mutate a fruit fly to a human, which would be testable evidence to prove the GTE.”
    If we did see those it would disprovbe the theory of evolution, not support it.
    We also can’t see a river carve a vally, or a glacier for that matter. Doesn’t make it any less scientifically supported for that. Luckily we have these nice historical records in the form of fossils, which do support evolution.

    “While the scientific evidence we have now proves the biological evolutionary mechanisms behind the theoretical claims the historical claim itself is neither scientifically proven or scientifically disproven”
    As proven as any historical claims of gravity are.

    “Evolutionists are doing all they can to prove the theory by experiments, which requires humans to create life to prove it and that IMO is a tall order to take on and requires a leap of faith to say that one day we’ll prove the GTE.”
    You’re thinking of abiogenesis there, not evolution. And I doubt that even if we did, you would accept it as proof of anything. It’s being worked on, though, just like many other areas of science, so I don’t see why this in particular requires any measure of “faith” to test.

    “But God won’t let that happen and soon evolutionary theory will fade away as a fad.”
    Still waiting for you oh so confident prediction to come true ;)

    “IOW, I don’t need scientific evidences to prove/disprove historical claims.”
    Why does this not surprise me?

    “All I need is just historical-legal proof that God created everything from scratch to historically disprove the historical claim of GTE and we find that in many types of ‘creation’ accounts in all religions, if not most, throughout history.”
    All mutually contradictory creation myths. Which proves nothing.

    “the central dogma of medicine. LOL. that’s funny but maybe it’s a loose terminology of the medicine industry’s deceitful tactic to control society. Maybe. I don’t know exactly what X means by that.”
    If it was, I would expect at least ONE hit on google. I got none. I would guess he’s making it up.

    “But you’ll understand my POV once you watch this:”
    Watched, I fail to see the relevance.

    “A tautology is a statement that is true under all circumstances, such that the statement carries no meaning.”
    More that it can be derived from any base. There is a narrow difference between this and a statement of fact, one you seem to have missed.

    “Of course, and most evolutionists I see online appear to deceitfully, knowingly or unknowingly, switch the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, “bait-and-switch,” is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this “evolution,” then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. On top of that, they and creationists as well don’t bother to lay the foundational meanings of the word evolution before hand and argue over two different things.”
    In an informal debate it’s usually assumed that meaning can be derived from context. Which it usually can be.

    It also helps if you don’t use different terms than everyone else, such as splitting a theory into two parts to accuse those who haven’t of conflating your two definitions.

    “Two words “evolutionary dogma.” NCSE, National Science Foundation, Dr Jerry Bergman all bear this proof.”
    Nice try, but not relevant.
    The wedge document explicitly states the goals of the DI in undermining science in public schools in order to eventually be able to teach creationism to school kids as science.
    Hardly the same as a national science foundation keeping up the standards all of science is held to.”

    “You are a materialistic scientist, a uniformitarian of philosophical naturalism, a perfect example of the atheistic bias present within the scientific community”
    All of science is materialist, by definition. Uniformitarianism, if you meanw hat I tihnk you do by this, is necessary for all empirical studies. And as for an atheistic bias, if the study of the universe biases one towards atheism, then that is certainly interesting. Otherwise, I’ll have to reiterate the distinction between atheism and secularism.

    “a typical biological historical evolutionist who uses the common logical fallacy of conflation, whose logic unfalsifiably presupposes the GTE”
    Again, these are not terms anyone else uses. And as I have already said to you elsewhere, The theory of evolution is entirely falsifiable. Fossils of modern rabbits in devaronian rocks would be the classic example. Pity they don’t exist, depsite desperate attempts to find something like that.

    “The reason materialism must be overthrown is because of its implications of our culture (abortion and human rights) and because it is philosophically inferior to Biblical Christianity.”
    Overthrown? So you then admit your leanings are not scholarly, but idealogical. Your religion is in no way “superior” philosophically, because it is entirely based on faith, not reason or evidence.

    “Mine isn’t a strawman but his is. Now his is since he’s using an argument weaker than the fact that there are ‘fundamentalism’ in the science community as much as it is in any other ‘community’ political to religious.”
    That’s still not a strawman. A strawman is a deliberately false version of an opponents argument that is designed to be easy to knock down, to avoid attacking the real argument. That definition in no way fits your description of his argument.

    “Scientific dogma. People have been abused, fired and received death threats for simply being involved in creationism/ Intelligent design to teaching the two model approach.”
    I doubt the death threats part greatly, at least from a scientific fundie sense, perhaps someonedid recieve them for another reason, like political opponents. If someone in a scientiifc field is espousing unscientific things as science, then they deserve to be fired, frankly. Obviously their judgement on what is or is not scientific is flawed. As for abuse, depends how you mean the term, certainly creationists are ridiculed a lot. As for the idea of a “two model approach”, it’s obviously not going to work until ID becomes scientific, which I expect won’t be any time soon. It would help if they began doing SOME sort of research. Reasearch is a good start when you want to do science. Sorta… the miminum necessary requirement. It’s not like they’ve tried much, even when specifically invited to apply for funding by the tempelton foundation, no one submitted a research proposal.

    “But we have seen Jews, blacks and minorities, such as myself, who were killed in the past for being biologically inferior or less evolved than the perpetrators or being despised upon by ’supremacy groups’ and ‘fascist movements’ who use biological evolution to justify that we are a disease to be ridden of.”
    Which had nothing to do with science, and everything to do with people looking for an excuse.
    You can no more blame science for that than you can blame science for hiroshima or the number of traffic accidents ever year.

  19. WAH
    December 7th, 2007 | 05:11

    You’re artificially splitting the theory of evolution into two parts, and calling it conflation when the rest of us use the proper term….. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t go along with your terminology, and instead stick with the real scientific terms….Plenty of evidence in the fossil record, in genetic tracers, in behavioural, physiological and biochemical similarities, and various other lines of evidence. All amply supporting the theory….Neither of which are honest criticisms of the thoery of evolution….If we did see those it would disprovbe the theory of evolution, not support it…..All mutually contradictory creation myths.

    ROFL! Some of your statements are so truly outrageous and totally off the wall of common knowledge.

    Here’s my response to all that: You KNOW what I’m saying is right because you KNOW I got the evolutoinary theory up by its neck. So the natural thing for you to do is BS your way through and simply state the opposite, while hiding behind your facade that evolutionary theory is untouched when in fact you know deep down it has so many flaws and problems with the obstacles I presented beforehand that you willfully stubbornly treat them as a minor issue even though it bothers the hell out of you and the major holes in the theory. I know this because there is so much contrary and opposing kinds of arguments against evolution theory out there on the net and in real life that it would be absurd even for you to skip along the ‘yellow brick road’ as if evolution is unchallenged and proven. That takes a lot of faith to flippantly treat none of the problems of evolution as having a thorn on its side. On top of that, you’re no longer defending the theory of evolution. You’re defending your own kind of logic. And because of the problems that evolution theory faces have emerged out of this debate, you had to deviate from your original atheistic/agnostic/secular view of evolutionary theory to a primitive warped and sick version of a subjected variant of a logic you’ve pushed yourself into a corner defending. In the end you make yourself out not to know what you are really talking about. Every single piece of your response has a fallacious assumption on my part due to either your uncanny ignorance for what is being discussed OR you have deceitfully and knowingly and willingly tweaked your own logic in a way that is contradictory to the truth and is arguing off of THAT. Why? You know and I know you are backed in the corner here so why not get away with picking certain parts in the evolution theory and flavour your own ‘brand’ of logic. Evolution is still a theory. Check 1.

    “Your religion is in no way “superior” philosophically, because it is entirely based on faith, not reason or evidence. Still waiting for you oh so confident prediction to come true”
    Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. oh Evolution is still a theory.
    Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
    oh Evolution is still a theory. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
    Is evolution *still* a theory? Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
    Ding Dong. Ding Dong. Ding Dong. OH! Evolution is a fact now? Oh no. False alarm.
    Wow. isn’t that something? you must have tons of faith to trust that one day evolution will no longer be called a theory, whether it will be or not. Go ahead and deny that, even all the historical evidence for Christianity that millions of leaders and followers blindly disregard as objective credibility for faith.
    Evolution is still a theory. Check 2.

    “An unsupported claim, and unsupportable….The theory of evolution is entirely falsifiable…..Nice try, but not relevant….Watched, I fail to see the relevance…I doubt the death threats part greatly,”
    This CLEARLY demonstrates your total lack of research and critical thinking beyond your thick cornea. With a few mouse clicks they could easily be corrected as much as it is for you to ‘play it off.’
    Evolution is still a theory. Check 3.

    “That definition in no way fits your description of his argument.”
    ohhh. THAT definition. Then you’d be correct. But I’m not going by YOUR, as in THAT, definition. Here’s mine whifh is more of an objective basis AND that was what sajonara was arguing against position B that science fundies aren’t so bad, as opposed to position A which was science fundies are categorized worse off than Sajonara asserted, or in this case, the position A is stronger because its claim holds more truth as opposed to the pos. B which was way off base.

    This fallacy is where a person argues against an position similar to but weaker than their opponent’s actual position.

    Pattern:
    * A person holds to position A but their opponent argues against position B, which is similar to position A but weaker, as though it were position A.

    Example:
    * E. Creationists claim that species are fixed, but not only is there great variety with in species but species have been observed as coming from other species.
    * C: This is a fallacy because Creationists do not claim that species are fixed, but that Created kinds are fixed, with a great amount of variety within the Created kinds

    Evolution is still a theory. Check 4.

    “Which had nothing to do with science, and everything to do with people looking for an excuse.
    You can no more blame science for that than you can blame science for hiroshima or the number of traffic accidents ever year.”
    THAT is a double standard because it doesn’t save face for science any more than it does for religion, politics, economics, culture, which all are underpinnings of a fascist movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler proves that science, whatever field that maybe (look it up and you’ll see), was used as a basis for the foundation of racial hygeine for Hitler’s social policies. That has absolutley to do with science as much as it did with religion, politics, econonmics and culture being used for someone’s excuse. Don’t even try to make science look more innocent than the others when you know I’ve made a point that anyone with common sense can agree on.
    Evolution is still called theory. Check 5.

    Now I’ve noticed that you’ve simply disagreed for the hell of it and you’ve cleverly tweaked your logic away from truth to merely contradict mine by either practicing ignorance, equivocating facts and/or picking and choosing which information appeals to your subjective perspective on how you can argue against me. LOL.
    Evolution is still not fact. Check 6.

  20. Redem
    December 8th, 2007 | 07:57

    “ROFL! Some of your statements are so truly outrageous and totally off the wall of common knowledge.”

    “Common knowledge”? Yeah, that’ll pass.
    Common knowledge and common sense bear little relation to reality in many cases.

    I stand by all of those statements.

    Especially the ones regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics and biogenesis, which again you dismiss without responding to.

    “You KNOW what I’m saying is right because you KNOW I got the evolutoinary theory up by its neck.”
    HAH! A bold claim, that you have no way of backing up.

    I could say the same for you.

    “I know this because there is so much contrary and opposing kinds of arguments against evolution theory out there on the net and in real life that it would be absurd even for you to skip along the ‘yellow brick road’ as if evolution is unchallenged and proven.”
    I agree that there are plenty of attacks on the evolution, all of them distortions, lies, or simple willful ignorance.

    “And because of the problems that evolution theory faces have emerged out of this debate, you had to deviate from your original atheistic/agnostic/secular view of evolutionary theory to a primitive warped and sick version of a subjected variant of a logic you’ve pushed yourself into a corner defending”
    Support this please. My position is the same I began with. That you are not using the same words as the rest of us, that the theory of evolution is not the overarching atheistic conspiracy theory you seem to think it is, and that the various “flaws” and such that you bring up are all based on a flawed understanding of the topic at hand.

    “Every single piece of your response has a fallacious assumption on my part due to either your uncanny ignorance for what is being discussed OR you have deceitfully and knowingly and willingly tweaked your own logic in a way that is contradictory to the truth and is arguing off of THAT.”
    For the most part, so far in this board, we’ve been discussing nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but your response to another poster. The.. accuracy of your accusations of fallacies, and such.
    Not the arguments themselves.

    “Evolution is still a theory. Check 1.”
    The theory of evolution is a theory? Surprising that isn’t it? has anyone been claiming that it wasn’t? I haven’t seen anyone do so.
    It seems you too are guilty of equivocation over the terms.

    I have stated this before, but it seems I must do so again.

    Yes, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. And will always be a scientific theory. That’s is what scientific theories are. The word is used to represent scientific explanations, in this case the explanation for the observed fact that life evolves.
    It will always be a theory in the same sense that the theories relativity will always be theories, that all of the theories of gravity will always be theories, that atomic theory will always be a theory and that cell theory will always be a theory.
    That’s what theories are until they’re discarded.

    So no, the theory of evolution will never be a “fact”, in the sense you are using the term. Just like no other scientific theory has ever been, or ever will be, a “fact”.

    “This CLEARLY demonstrates your total lack of research and critical thinking beyond your thick cornea. With a few mouse clicks they could easily be corrected as much as it is for you to ‘play it off.’”
    Which one? And perhaps you could educate me.

    “Here’s mine whifh is more of an objective basis AND that was what sajonara was arguing against position B that science fundies aren’t so bad, as opposed to position A which was science fundies are categorized worse off than Sajonara asserted, or in this case, the position A is stronger because its claim holds more truth as opposed to the pos. B which was way off base.”
    Your definition is correct, but your use of it is not.

    He was not painting a flawed image of creationism to attack, he was painting his perception of creationism.

    Whether it is correct or not is another matter.

    “Example:
    * E. Creationists claim that species are fixed, but not only is there great variety with in species but species have been observed as coming from other species.
    * C: This is a fallacy because Creationists do not claim that species are fixed, but that Created kinds are fixed, with a great amount of variety within the Created kinds”
    To be more accurate, some creationists do claim that species are fixed. Creatioists do not have a single creed, they are a group of similar ideologies under a single umbrella term. For example old earth and young earth creationists, those who accept or deny a literal noah’s flood, etc..

    “THAT is a double standard because it doesn’t save face for science any more than it does for religion, politics, economics, culture, which all are underpinnings of a fascist movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler proves that science, whatever field that maybe (look it up and you’ll see), was used as a basis for the foundation of racial hygeine for Hitler’s social policies.”
    Not a double standard at all. There is a difference between those who kill in the name of something, and those who use something to kill. The idea of eugenics was not because of evolution, but because of the idea of breeding an undesirable trait out of a population. That practice long predates science, let alone the theory of evolution.

    “Don’t even try to make science look more innocent than the others when you know I’ve made a point that anyone with common sense can agree on.”
    Common sense also tells us the earth is stationary and the universe wheels around overhead.
    Science is innocent in so much as a method and a body of works can be.

    “Now I’ve noticed that you’ve simply disagreed for the hell of it and you’ve cleverly tweaked your logic away from truth to merely contradict mine by either practicing ignorance, equivocating facts and/or picking and choosing which information appeals to your subjective perspective on how you can argue against me.”
    No, not really. Nice to see how you think though.

    “Evolution is still called theory.”
    Mmhmmmm

    Which just goes to show how good a theory it is. :)
    The bad ones don’t stay theories.

  21. wah
    December 15th, 2007 | 18:42

    “HAH! A bold claim, that you have no way of backing up.”
    Evolution theory is guilty by association. [raises gavel] Order in the court! [slams gavel] :D

    “which again you dismiss without responding to.”
    Why waste my time on trivial matter?

    “but your use of it is not.”
    Keep fooling yourself.

    “Common sense also tells us the earth is stationary and the universe wheels around overhead.”
    According to ancient common sense, yea. But common sense today tells us otherwise.

    “Common knowledge and common sense bear little relation to reality in many cases. I stand by all of those statements. I agree that there are plenty of attacks on the evolution, all of them distortions, lies, or simple willful ignorance. Especially the ones regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics and biogenesis…There is a difference between those who kill in the name of something, and those who use something to kill.”
    I’m certain a great many people would contest those assertions.

    “There is a difference between those who kill in the name of something, and those who use something to kill.”
    I disagree. In essence they are the same in the real world. Maybe philosophically they are different. But in real life if I kill in the name of God or science, I’m using them to kill. Hitler killed in the name of everything. Fascist people use things that are good and twist and warp it for their purposes. Science is no exception. They believed in the name of “survival of the fittest” and used an evolutionary concept to justify to exterminate people.

    “Which one? And perhaps you could educate me.”
    The pressures that science imposes shows that many “open-minded” scientists are indeed bias against creationism and intelligent design. What this does is create an atmosphere of complete denial of any scientific credit through journal publishing of supernatural or design inferences in nature. It effectively propagates a scientific philosophy that implies a discredited and un-scientific nature of creationism and intelligent design that is not, yet paraded as it is based on scientific grounds rather than philosophical presuppositions which are in actuality what is non-scientific and unfalsifiable. What this, “pressure that science imposes” does is mask evolutionists philosophies under the cloak of science. Many creationists have lost their job because of their conclusions. Dr Jerry Bergman has documented not dozens, not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of accounts of genuine scientists’ being abused for their belief in scientific Creationism/Intelligent design. Some teachers have been fired just for teaching the two model approach. Around 12 percent of those interviewed received death threats.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Bergman#Religious_Background
    The National Science Foundation, which is a government organization, is known for their views against creationism. They even released a pamphlet denouncing creationism (Science and Creationism: The view from the National Academy of Sciences) and they give thousands of dollars a year to secular scientists, but only give one dollar a year to people like Robert Gentry. Surely this shows that evolutionary dogma is creeping in our collages and schools.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry

    “It seems you too are guilty of equivocation over the terms…..That you are not using the same words as the rest of us, that the theory of evolution is not the overarching atheistic conspiracy theory you seem to think it is, and that the various “flaws” and such that you bring up are all based on a flawed understanding of the topic at hand.”
    Not quite. I never switched the meaning of any word. The meaning I still stick by and now have appeared to be clearer now. And that is evolution theory, big bang, abiogenesis, common descent, and a few more, although separate things, are within the same atheistic/secular worldview as much as the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 and Christ’s ressurection are within the same worldview but are separate things. Now, I’m not attributing the development of evolution to naturalism but I’m attributing the interpretation of evolution to the overall worldview of the naturalistic history of the universe. Thus, the evolution theory which is used to represent the aforementioned ‘claims’ are related to these so-called scientific explanations. And proof for biological evolution does not merit evidence for these ‘explanations’ that the theory seems to speak for the worldview, even as some evolutionists try to conflate them.

    “Just like no other scientific theory has ever been, or ever will be, a “fact”…Creatioists do not have a single creed, they are a group of similar ideologies under a single umbrella term……Which just goes to show how good a theory it is….
    Even when given the fact that evolution is not goal-oriented or directionly-oriented, to me, the biggest threat to the theory of evolution so far is that no species except for humanity has moved beyond poking at ants with pointy sticks. Scientists have marveled over monkeys making weapons… but monkeys won’t ever have, for example, an Internet. The difference in the technical and mental capacity of humans and the “next best-evolved” creature is just immense, in every possible dimension. Despite that sophisticated language is the reason given, I’d count that as yet another problem rather than a solution. Heh. One would have to wonder why only we got to talkin’ real smart. So I doubt that science has an answer other than that for the huge chasm of experience that exists between us and the rest of the animal kingdom. A BIG leap from them to us without a time machine, know what i mean? Why didn’t anything else evolve to this level? On a different note, the fact that our DNA is 98.4% identical to that of a chimpanzee, that water is the primary constituent of all living things, that reproduction is a primary action of all living things, that our DNA is 75% identical to that of an earthworm, simply shows that they are implied by the creation account that we are all made up of the same stuff, IMO. Even though you may suggest that they all are indicative of evolution, which you probably would, I personally don’t see how showing that we’re similiar support evolution. I mean, water’s existence is indicative of evolution? Or the fact that we are primarily water and carbon? How the heck does that indicate anything other than that we are primarily composed of water, and carbons? Reproduction of such things as amoebas does not allow for any form of sexual repoduction and a minimum of alterations. Reproduction occurs many different ways in nature and creatures do not reproduce outside of parameters. So how is it that reproduction is of itself indicative of anything other than self perpetuation of a species. How is DNA being similar indicative of evolution? Why not merely evidence for the same designer? Really it’s all in how you look at the data. Common maker, or common ancestor? If God formed us all as Scripture teaches, why would we not be similar?

    “I agree that there are plenty of attacks on the evolution, all of them distortions, lies, or simple willful ignorance.”
    I will flip the table on you about Christianity. Unless your skepticism of the bible is hermeneutical, you seem to be basing your view of scripture on your assumptions about man’s interpretations of his world. A rather dangerous thing to do. Nevertheless, it does not negate the fact that evolution theory, while not the entirety, is a damnable heresy to Scripture. It’s in direct contradiction to what the Bible says. Were you there to observe how everything happened? It goes to the heart of the failings of the scientific method. Even if you tried to contradict what the Bible says, you weren’t there, therefore you can’t say what happened therefore you have no basis to contradict what the Bible says. You may claim the Bible is untrue but you have no basis to insert any other ‘evolutionary’ story in its place even if you tried.

    “Support this please….The word is used to represent scientific explanations..”
    Sorry to burst your bubble but EVOLUTION THEORY IS the ‘umbrella corporation’ over other particular so-called scientific explanations. It is their ‘trunk’ used to represent their ideas and they are its branches and atheism/secularism are the roots. Unfortunately, those ideas aren’t scientific at all because they are either unfalsifiable or falsified. Together they defy common scientific reasoning. And this worldview is the ‘paradigm’ for science. It was the Christian worldview, which pre-supposes an ordered creation based on Scripture, that led to the birth of the scientific revolution. Christians believed that when God created the world, He brought order out of the primordial chaos; and that if this were true, then it should be evident in the created order. Christians then began to look for order in the universe, and viola! – they found it. They found it in the laws of physics, thermodynamics, gravitation, biology, chemistry, etc. The universe is indeed governed by natural laws. However, none of this would have become known if it were not for the Christian worldview which prompted the search for order. Ironically, Western Science is now trying to commit patricide by killing the very thing that gave it birth – the Christian worldview.

    Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called, ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,’ in 1962. One of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century, he claims that science does not tend towards the pursuit of truth, but rather it undergoes what he called, “paradigm shifts.” He says science can be just as dogmatic as religion, if not more-so. Scientists interpret evidence according to their pre-conceived notions of how things are (or rather should be). They aren’t necessarily interested in finding the truth, but in finding evidence that can be interpreted to justify their worldview. If a scientist does not want to believe in God, then that will skew how he interprets evidence; and he won’t necessarily come to the right conclusion so much as he will come to an acceptable conclusion. I’m not summarizing Kuhn’s book, but rather giving my own opinion.

    Is science consistent as a whole? Well the evolution theory doesn’t seem to play by their own rules of science and positivism even with the fossil evidence since it’s not the scientific method. But it has its kinks to work out and mistakes to correct. Always changing and refining and progress to be made but eventually it will trip and fall over itself and die. No more knowledge can be attained due to human limitation despite there will be so much more to know. And the world will become like the days of Noah. “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” – Jastrow

  22. Redem
    December 18th, 2007 | 10:06

    “Why waste my time on trivial matter?”
    Dodging the issue I see. Fair enough.

    “According to ancient common sense, yea. But common sense today tells us otherwise.”
    Because scientists went out and studied the issue and reached a conclusion based on the evidence. In spite of the prevailing biblical teaching.

    “I’m certain a great many people would contest those assertions.”
    Probably. They would all be wrong, though.

    :)

    “Maybe philosophically they are different. But in real life if I kill in the name of God or science, I’m using them to kill.”
    Does that make them responsible for it? No.

    “They believed in the name of “survival of the fittest” and used an evolutionary concept to justify to exterminate people.”
    Yes, so? They also used Judaism’s historical difficulties with Christianity to justify it.

    “The pressures that science imposes shows that many “open-minded” scientists are indeed bias against creationism and intelligent design.”
    It’s also biased against other pseudosciences like alchemy and astrology. Science is inherently critical, and if ID and creationism cannot survive in a rigorously critical environment… that tells us much about them.

    “Dr Jerry Bergman has documented not dozens, not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of accounts of genuine scientists’ being abused for their belief in scientific Creationism/Intelligent design.”
    Based on the wiki link he doesn’t seem the most honest of people.
    Why should I take his word on this?

    “Some teachers have been fired just for teaching the two model approach.”
    You forgot the word “illegally” in there.

    “The National Science Foundation, which is a government organization, is known for their views against creationism. They even released a pamphlet denouncing creationism (Science and Creationism: The view from the National Academy of Sciences) and they give thousands of dollars a year to secular scientists, but only give one dollar a year to people like Robert Gentry. Surely this shows that evolutionary dogma is creeping in our collages and schools.”
    No, it just shows that creationism and ID aren’t science, and that this is recognised by one of the largest science organisations in the world.

    That is their job, afterall.

    “And proof for biological evolution does not merit evidence for these ‘explanations’ that the theory seems to speak for the worldview, even as some evolutionists try to conflate them.”
    No one has claimed that evidence for evolution supports abiogenesis or big bang cosmology or anthing else you seem to want to link in here. We’ve all been talking about evolution itself.

    “One would have to wonder why only we got to talkin’ real smart. So I doubt that science has an answer other than that for the huge chasm of experience that exists between us and the rest of the animal kingdom. A BIG leap from them to us without a time machine, know what i mean? Why didn’t anything else evolve to this level? ”
    Anthropic principle. Only those who are smart in that manner can ask why.

    Why didn’t anything else because… only we did. Why didn’t any other rocks fall off the mountian other than the ones that did?

    “Even though you may suggest that they all are indicative of evolution, which you probably would, I personally don’t see how showing that we’re similiar support evolution.”
    Similarities between existing animals supports it in the sense that it is compatible with it. The traces in the genetics of ancestry go far beyond “similar”, though. Otherwise uselss parts of the DNA that are idenitcal, for example. Concrete evidence of common ancestry.

    “I mean, water’s existence is indicative of evolution? Or the fact that we are primarily water and carbon? How the heck does that indicate anything other than that we are primarily composed of water, and carbons?”
    It is what we would expect to see if common ancestry is correct.
    Unlike creationism where we could see absolutely anything and say it was created thusly.

    “Reproduction of such things as amoebas does not allow for any form of sexual repoduction and a minimum of alterations. Reproduction occurs many different ways in nature and creatures do not reproduce outside of parameters. So how is it that reproduction is of itself indicative of anything other than self perpetuation of a species. How is DNA being similar indicative of evolution? Why not merely evidence for the same designer? Really it’s all in how you look at the data. Common maker, or common ancestor? If God formed us all as Scripture teaches, why would we not be similar?”
    based on genesis life could be anything and it would fit.
    Life as we know it fits specifically with evolution and common ancestry. And again, not all of DNA can be used to support the idea of design, because so much of it is non-functional or is a relic of earlier events.

    The two examples I used previously, telomeres in the middle of a single human chromosome where two ape chromosomes fused together at some point in our ancestry, they’re useless except at the ends of DNA strands. And the retroviral DNA insertions, that aren’t even DNA from the host organism, but are from viruses that injected themselves into the machinery.

    “Nevertheless, it does not negate the fact that evolution theory, while not the entirety, is a damnable heresy to Scripture. It’s in direct contradiction to what the Bible says.”
    Only if genesis is read as literal history.

    “Were you there to observe how everything happened? It goes to the heart of the failings of the scientific method. Even if you tried to contradict what the Bible says, you weren’t there, therefore you can’t say what happened therefore you have no basis to contradict what the Bible says. You may claim the Bible is untrue but you have no basis to insert any other ‘evolutionary’ story in its place even if you tried.”
    No. Were you? Didn’t think so
    So lacking in witnesses we base our conclusions on all of the available data. The scientifically determined history of the earth was the conclusion.

    “It is their ‘trunk’ used to represent their ideas and they are its branches and atheism/secularism are the roots. Unfortunately, those ideas aren’t scientific at all because they are either unfalsifiable or falsified. Together they defy common scientific reasoning. And this worldview is the ‘paradigm’ for science.”
    On the contrary, all of them are a part of science, just like the rest of science is. They just have the honour of being some of the best supported areas of science.

    “Western Science is now trying to commit patricide by killing the very thing that gave it birth – the Christian worldview.”
    Irrelevant and untrue. Science predates christianity, in the way we are using the term now.
    And science in no way required monotheism to thrive, it simply required time.

    “He says science can be just as dogmatic as religion, if not more-so. Scientists interpret evidence according to their pre-conceived notions of how things are (or rather should be). They aren’t necessarily interested in finding the truth, but in finding evidence that can be interpreted to justify their worldview.”
    So he says.
    In my experience they’re interested in finding what works, although admittedly my exprience with actual scientists is from an engineering point of view, so that may skew the result somewhat. There are rare scientists who bring along revolutionary ideas that change everything about how science is done, Einstein was one such. Does that mean that those before them were dogmatically opposed to the idea of curved space? No, it means no one had thought of it yet. When it came along Einstein’s ideas were accepted because they made sense of the universe in a way that nothing else could. The theory of evolution by natural selection was the equivalent in biology. Suddenly things made sense. We already knew, and had known for many decades if not centures, that animals evolved. We simply had no concept of how this was possible, or why. And suddenly he explained the mechanism, and it was… so obvious in it’s simplicity.
    Without evolution nothing makes sense.

    “Is science consistent as a whole? Well the evolution theory doesn’t seem to play by their own rules of science and positivism even with the fossil evidence since it’s not the scientific method.”
    And what aprt of it was not by the scientific method? Observation and experimentation? No they have that, you agree with it yourself.
    What you disagree with is how the theory is applied to the evidence, because it contradicts your preconcieved conclusion.

    “Always changing and refining and progress to be made but eventually it will trip and fall over itself and die.”
    Rarely does this happen, and never with something as well supported as evolution.

    ““For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” – Jastrow”
    Cute, is it not? Rubbish, of course, but cute.

  23. Max
    January 19th, 2008 | 21:58

    This is a hoax and a fraudulent news item trying to manipulate truth unto the masses into blindly accepting ape-human evolutionary propaganda and further Marxism worldwide.

    The chimp has NO IDEA what numbers are or how to add random numbers (I dare any Apeist believer to put 9+33+2+9+0=? in front of a chimp or any other random numerical question without teaching him the question and answer prior and see if he can add and create a value =x ).

    All the chimp has been taught is how to repeat a sequence of images (the numbers are just images to him) which over a long period of time he has been able to put into memory by use of sound and food reinforcement.

    This is the same type of trick you can teach many other animals to do over a long period of time. The chimp is NOT COUNTING, the chimp is REPEATING PATTERNS ingrained into him over time through reinforcement (NOT through coherent understanding of what a number is or what number value even means).

    Anyone who had good fast use of their hands and arms after memorizing the patterns that the chimps learned here could easily keep up with the chimps, but the test subjects in this hoaxed experiment were not given months if not years to practice and put the patterns into memory mentally and physically through movement of arms as were these chimps.

    Of course none of these facts will EVER be exposed in any mainstream media outlet as most all of them are controlled by people who wish to further the Marxist Darwinian propaganda.

  24. wah
    January 26th, 2008 | 16:53

    I agree to a certain extent.

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Leave a reply