vaxx:
i have trashed this rubbished of historical and operational science once with you before.

Aha! So you have history? Just goes to justify my "Peace" and "dust", I guess.

budaatum:

Aha! So you have history? Just goes to justify my "Peace" and "dust", I guess.

He once throw the same gabbage with me in olagbedu thread ( The name might not be correct) and I explained to him that the statement is nonsensical........

budaatum:
What youve posted amounts to claiming, "knowledge of the past is not essential for todays living",

not exactly. I think this is a strawman. History I believe is important for us today on many levels, but I agree with Skell that speculations about how organisms arose is not important to operational science today.

and while that may be true as far as daily bread goes, we can easily observe how a deficiency in history affects societal development, though, those with no knowledge of history would not see their deficiency since they have no knowledge of the past.

this is what follows building on the above strawman.

The following is from the article to which yours below is a response.

While Egnor’s misguided attack on evolution tells us nothing about the truth of Darwinism, it does prove one thing: Doctors aren’t necessarily scientists. Some, like Egnor, seem completely unable to evaluate evidence. Why does he so readily dismiss a theory that has been universally accepted by scientists for over a century?

Apparently because a rather old book, Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, first published in 1985, convinced him that evolutionary theory was underlain by very weak evidence. If Egnor had bothered to look just a little into Denton’s book and its current standing, he would have learned that the arguments in it have long since been firmly refuted by scientists. Indeed, they were recanted by Denton himself in a later book more than 10 years ago.

Since Egnor is decades out of date and shows no sign of knowing anything at all about evolutionary biology in the 21st century, one wonders what could have inspired his declaration at this time.

The tenets of evolutionary theory are simple: Life evolved, largely under the influence of natural selection; this evolution took a rather long time; and species alive and dead can be organized on the basis of shared similarities into a tree whose branching pattern implies that every pair of living species has a common ancestor.

Among genuine scientists, there is not the slightest doubt about the truth of these ideas. In contrast to Egnor’s claim, the evidence for all of them is not only strong but copious–so much so that evolution has graduated from a scientific theory to a scientific fact.
Why Evolution Is True

Whatever Prof. Coyne has written, it has still not done away with the fact that prominent scientists have questioned and still question both the veracity and usefulness of evolutionary teachings. Dr. Skell is just of those prominent scientists.

But in the beginning of this excerpt from Coyne's article the tendency of evolutionists to redefine science and who scientists are is already obvious. The excerpt also ends with a no-true-scotsman fallacy, where Prof. Coyne equates only those who do not doubt evolution to genuine scientists. I guess even so much learning does not protect one from committing logical fallacies.

I advise you go and read Dr. Skell's article in full though. It has some telling arguments.

vaxx:
He once throw the same gabbage with me in olagbedu thread ( The name might not be correct) and I explained to him that the statement is nonsensical........

If I were satan, would it not be in my interest to soil every enlightening thread with the darkness of lies and distortions so that the light does not shine through? It is for this reason that lightbearers must be wise and diligent so the darkness does not overcome and they be crucified.

vaxx:
but subscribe to the concept creationists ""created"" and hence developed it with backwater science. NOTHING like science is divided into two. Science is both historical and operational. Full stop.

If you're going to call Ernst Mayr and E. O. Wilson creationists, you're absolutely the only one with that opinion.

As for the fact that they recognized the distinction between historical and operational science, is it surprising? I mean a little walk into science makes this distinction obvious.

DoctorAlien:
not exactly. I think this is a strawman. History I believe is important for us today on many levels, but I agree with Skell that speculations about how organisms arose is not important to operational science today.

Evolution is however, not speculation. There is way more evidence for it than "God said"!

budaatum:

Evolution is however, not speculation. There is way more evidence for it than "God said"!

I, together with many others including well qualified scientists, think otherwise.

DoctorAlien:


If you're going to call Ernst Mayr and E. O. Wilson creationists, you're absolutely the only one with that opinion.

As for the fact that they recognized the distinction between historical and operational science, is it surprising? I mean a little walk into science makes this distinction obvious.

I repeat, science evidence and claims are both operational and historical. NOTHING separate the two. Every hypothetical or theoretical claim of scientist can be tested, observed, verify, documented, and measured.



Scientific finding are entirely emperical......



Any form of idealogy that created a biased and uninformed opinion about mainstream science is highly confused.

vaxx:
I repeat,

who are you? in comparison with Ernst Mayr, E. O. Wilson and others?

science evidence and claims are both operational and historical. NOTHING separate the two. Every hypothetical or theoretical claim of scientist can be tested, observed, verify, documented, and measurable. .



Scientific finding are entirely emperical......



They are

Where did they do the lab tests to see the first organism arise from pond scum?

DoctorAlien:


I, together with many others including well qualified scientists, think otherwise.

Name these "well qualified scientists" who "think otherwise" so we can access their credentials ourselves. I've done two above, both evolutionists, and would gladly do others you name. You might also wish to include your credentials since you mentioned yourself too as a "think otherwise". But bear in mind that science is hardly about what one "thinks" but what one can provide scientifically researched evidence for which would be reviewed by one's peers.

DoctorAlien:


I, together with many others including well qualified scientists, think otherwise.

I'm going to assume the "Doctor" in your moniker implies you are a doctor. Could you point to anything in the link above that relates to what you were taught while studying to be a doctor please?

budaatum:

Name these "well qualified scientists" who "think otherwise" so we can access their credentials ourselves. I've done two above, both evolutionists, and would gladly do others you name. You might also wish to include your credentials since you mentioned yourself too as a "think otherwise". But bear in mind that science is hardly about what one "thinks" but what one can provide scientifically researched evidence for which would be reviewed by one's peers.

C'mon, a host of them are at [url]creation.com[/url]. Can I even finish naming them? I don't think so. These are PhD scientists in various disciplines who obtained their degrees from acclaimed institutions around the world. Check them out. Try it. It's harmless.

DoctorAlien:


well qualified scientists,

The following is from your "well qualified" link. Show me just one credible scientist who agrees with this crap!

On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end.

DoctorAlien:


C'mon, a host of them are at [url]creation.com[/url].

Name just 3! I bet you not a single one of them would be teaching in any reputable school!

DoctorAlien:


C'mon, a host of them are at [url]creation.com[/url]. Can I even finish naming them? I don't think so. These are PhD scientists in various disciplines who obtained their degrees from acclaimed institutions around the world. Check them out. Try it. It's harmless.

Here is a list of your PhD scientists. None of them work or lecture in a reputable accredited educational institution, and all probably live off the contributions of the gullible. But you are very welcome to prove me wrong!

budaatum:

The following is from your "well qualified" link. Show me just one credible scientist who agrees with this crap!

On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end.

I don't know what credible means but here is a list of some scientists who agree with the "crap".

budaatum:

Here is a list of your PhD scientists. None of them work or lecture in a reputable accredited educational institution, and all probably live off the contributions of the gullible. But you are very welcome to prove me wrong!

is the argument now where they work/teach? And not where they obtained there degrees or even the qualifications they have?

DoctorAlien:


I don't know what credible means but here is a list of some scientists who agree with the "crap".

All preachers! Not one of them even works in university! Doesn't that tell you anything? It's not as if they've published their "theological biology" in any reputable scientific journal for their peers to review!

budaatum:

Name just 3! I bet you not a single one of them would be teaching in any reputable school!

But let us even agree, for the sake of argument, that no creationist scientist is teaching in "any reputable school", would this still discredit their qualifications? If anything, at best, it would mean that the ruling paradigm in the scientific circles is hostile to them, which does not still discredit their qualifications, nor does it invalidate the arguments they raise.

budaatum:

All preachers! Not one of them even works in university! Doesn't that tell you anything? It's not as if they've published their "theological biology" in any reputable scientific journal for their peers to review!

I see what you did there with the word "reputable". But in case you didn't know, they actually have a Journal of Creation.

DoctorAlien:


is the argument now where they work/teach? And not where they obtained there degrees or even the qualifications they have?

No! Its not about where they got their degrees! If you are truly a doctor, I'm sure you must have gotten your degree from a reputable institution, but I can bet my last dollar that in none of your exam papers did you ever mention God or what you are claiming here!

It's about research they have published and its review by their peers, and I bet you they published none or their peers told them it was crap!

budaatum:

No! Its not about where they got their degrees! If you are truly a doctor, I'm sure you must have gotten your degree from a reputable institution, but I can bet my last dollar that in none of your exam papers did you ever mention God or what you are claiming here!

It's about research they have published and its review by their peers, and I bet you they published none or their peers told them it was crap!

Surely are there evolutionists peers going to welcome their papers which challenge their evolutionary teachings? Just as they themselves are never going to welcome the evolutionary papers.

Yeah, I know, it boils down to who is the majority. But majority does not validate arguments.

DoctorAlien:


I see what you did there with the word "reputable". But in case you didn't know, they actually have a Journal of Creation.

You mean the Journal of the Creation Ministries International? You are not serious!

In 1977, the Creation Science Association (CSA) was organised in Adelaide, Australia by Carl Wieland. In 1978 the organisation began the magazine Ex Nihilo (from the Latin phrase Creatio ex nihilo, meaning "Creation out of nothing" ). Soon after, the Creation Science Foundation (CSF) took over production of Ex Nihilo (later renaming it Creation Ex Nihilo, and eventually simply Creation). In 1984, CSF started the Ex Nihilo Technical Journal for more in-depth analysis of creation issues (it was later renamed Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, then simply TJ, and now the Journal of Creation).

DoctorAlien:


Surely are there evolutionists peers going to welcome their papers which challenge their evolutionary teachings? Just as they themselves are never going to welcome the evolutionary papers.

Yeah, I know, it boils down to who is the majority. But majority does not validate arguments.

It does not boil down to "who is the majority"! If it did, Darwin, Galileo, Corpenicus etc would not have stood a chance in a world where creationists were a majority!

It boils down to facts and evidence!

DoctorAlien:


But let us even agree, for the sake of argument, that no creationist scientist is teaching in "any reputable school", would this still discredit their qualifications?

It is not their qualifications that matter! They can be very well qualified and still know jack and produce invalid research just as doctors can be well qualified and still be crap at treating patients!

budaatum:

It does not boil down to "who is the majority"! If it did, Darwin, Galileo, Corpenicus etc would not have stood a chance in a world where creationists were a majority!

It boils down to facts and evidence!

Good. Facts and evidence. I'm good as long as you bear in mind that creationists see today the same things that evolutionists see.

budaatum:

It is not their qualifications that matter! They can be very well qualified and still know jack and produce invalid research just as doctors can be well qualified and still be crap at treating patients!

Invalid research according to who? Evolutionists. Hardly troubling for creationist scientists.

DoctorAlien:
who are you? in comparison with Ernst Mayr, E. O. Wilson and others?

what are their contribution to mainstream science? Are they noble laurel holder or had they perform any experiment that is scientifically used till date.

Where did they do the lab tests to see the first organism arise from pond scum?

This does not discredit evolution. Evolution doesn't state The arrival of species but the evolving of species. Stop reading meaning out of nothing.

What is evolution?

As taught in KS2! (Second year in nursery school).

vaxx:
what are their contribution to mainstream science? Are they noble laurel holder or had they perform any experiment that is scientifically used till date.



This does not discredit evolution. Evolution doesn't state The arrival of species but the evolving of species. Stop reading meaning out of nothing.

Are you seriously asking what the contributions of Ernst Mayr and E. O. Wilson are to mainstream science? Since when did your Google stop working?