Evolution and MooseOnTheLoose

[pancreasman]

Over in the thread on Macroevolution Moose got into a bit of strife for posting cartoons without actual argument. He got moderated for it. In a thread in the Psychotherapy room, he complains about this:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rs-%28again%29

In that thread, I suggested that if Moose were a little clearer about what his objections were to evolution were we could advance the discussion a little beyond superficiality. I was told by a moderator that that forum was not the appropriate place to do that and that I should start a thread here in NatSci. That's what I'd like this thread to be about.

I, for one, am not clear on what Moose's problems are with evolution. I am unclear whether he has problems with science in general. His tagline is, after all, 'All scientists are mad'. I was hoping in the spirit of civil and substantive conversation that Moose could give his own views on origins, problems with evolution, theistic and otherwise. I'd be interested to know what his own particular stand is. I would like to give Moose an arena where he can state his views. If he wishes to make several posts without interruption I'd be happy for that. I'd rather he stated his full case before anyone else attempted to rebut him.

[Cow Poke]

[Jorge]

Over in the thread on Macroevolution Moose got into a bit of strife for posting cartoons without actual argument. He got moderated for it. In a thread in the Psychotherapy room, he complains about this:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rs-%28again%29

In that thread, I suggested that if Moose were a little clearer about what his objections were to evolution were we could advance the discussion a little beyond superficiality. I was told by a moderator that that forum was not the appropriate place to do that and that I should start a thread here in NatSci. That's what I'd like this thread to be about.

I, for one, am not clear on what Moose's problems are with evolution. I am unclear whether he has problems with science in general. His tagline is, after all, 'All scientists are mad'. I was hoping in the spirit of civil and substantive conversation that Moose could give his own views on origins, problems with evolution, theistic and otherwise. I'd be interested to know what his own particular stand is. I would like to give Moose an arena where he can state his views. If he wishes to make several posts without interruption I'd be happy for that. I'd rather he stated his full case before anyone else attempted to rebut him.

************************************************

I too would be interested to hear Moose's views, particularly to see if he has
anything that has not already been stated here umpteen times before.

What I mean by that last statement is this : essentially every valid objection
to the Evo-Myth has been presented here on TWeb at one time or another
so what the devil does Pancreasman think Moose would be presenting?

Jorge

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Cowpoke, put that popcorn away.

I've dropped by to make a few points.

Firstly, don't assume that a criticism of evolution, or any aspect of evolution, is a blanket criticism of science and scientists. Secondly, there is a difference between science and scientism/materialistic naturalism. Thirdly, my tagline is only there to complement the funny scientist photo I use as my avatar. Sparko, for example, uses various forms of the skull & crossbones as his avatar but that doesn't mean he's really a pirate or condones piracy.

Finally can I draw your attention to what I said at the start of my Psycho Room thread about the amount of posting I've done in the Natural Science forum and the number of Twebbers I've engaged there since joining Theologyweb. Rehashing the same stuff gets tiring, which is why I started putting up pictures. I accept this wasn't a successful. approach.

[Tiggy]

What I mean by that last statement is this : essentially every valid objection
to the Evo-Myth has been presented here on TWeb at one time or another

For once Jorge gets something right. Every valid objection to evolutionary theory has been presented.

Here is the complete, unabridged list:

1) .....

- T

[Cow Poke]

Cowpoke, put that popcorn away.

WERKIN on it!

[pancreasman]

************************************************

I too would be interested to hear Moose's views, particularly to see if he has
anything that has not already been stated here umpteen times before.

What I mean by that last statement is this : essentially every valid objection
to the Evo-Myth has been presented here on TWeb at one time or another
so what the devil does Pancreasman think Moose would be presenting?

Jorge

His own point of view.

[pancreasman]

Cowpoke, put that popcorn away.

I've dropped by to make a few points.

Firstly, don't assume that a criticism of evolution, or any aspect of evolution, is a blanket criticism of science and scientists. Secondly, there is a difference between science and scientism/materialistic naturalism. Thirdly, my tagline is only there to complement the funny scientist photo I use as my avatar. Sparko, for example, uses various forms of the skull & crossbones as his avatar but that doesn't mean he's really a pirate or condones piracy.

Finally can I draw your attention to what I said at the start of my Psycho Room thread about the amount of posting I've done in the Natural Science forum and the number of Twebbers I've engaged there since joining Theologyweb. Rehashing the same stuff gets tiring, which is why I started putting up pictures. I accept this wasn't a successful. approach.

Thanks for that. My only comment would be that there are probably plenty of people here, myself among them, who don't know what your criticisms are.

[wattsr1]

Thanks for that. My only comment would be that there are probably plenty of people here, myself among them, who don't know what your criticisms are.

Indeed.

Often YEC objections to ToE, turn out to be nothing more than YEC objections to atheism/materialism.

It's hard to know of any scientific theory which is accepted by mainstream scientists who are either Christian or not Christian that is not empirical/natural in nature.

The only scientists who might see such theories in terms of atheism/materialism are the atheists themselves.

However, scientists who are theists would likely see such theories in terms of theism/supernaturalism.


But at day's end, either way, it's all empirical/natural science. So in that context, I'd love to see a YEC mount a scientific argument against ToE that is consistent with an underlying philosophy of science, an argument that remains logical, and evidence based.

[pancreasman]

Indeed.

Often YEC objections to ToE, turn out to be nothing more than YEC objections to atheism/materialism.

It's hard to know of any scientific theory which is accepted by mainstream scientists who are either Christian or not Christian that is not empirical/natural in nature.

The only scientists who might see such theories in terms of atheism/materialism are the atheists themselves.

However, scientists who are theists would likely see such theories in terms of theism/supernaturalism.


But at day's end, either way, it's all empirical/natural science. So in that context, I'd love to see a YEC mount a scientific argument against ToE that is consistent with an underlying philosophy of science, an argument that remains logical, and evidence based.

Anticipating Magellan .... stop using fancy words like 'evidence' and 'empirical' and 'logical'. These words have no meaning. The dictionary is blank. All we have is 'somebody says something' and we just take their word for it or we don't. Everything is someone's opinion. Paris does not exist because I've never seen it. There are no laws of nature because induction is completely useless. My grandfather did not die because I never saw it and all we have is a doctor's opinion. The best guide to absolute truth is the voice in my head. Genesis is a scientific theory of Intelligent Design. You can tell a mud puddle is designed by just looking at it. When I say something it's true, but when you say something it's just an opinion. Scientists are all evil or stupid, but usually both. Einstein was a Jewish conman. Calculus is a fraud. Reading is bad for you. Schools are centres for brainwashing. Universities probably don't exist because I've never seen one. I like stories.

[rogue06]

Anticipating Magellan .... stop using fancy words like 'evidence' and 'empirical' and 'logical'. These words have no meaning. The dictionary is blank. All we have is 'somebody says something' and we just take their word for it or we don't. Everything is someone's opinion. Paris does not exist because I've never seen it. There are no laws of nature because induction is completely useless. My grandfather did not die because I never saw it and all we have is a doctor's opinion. The best guide to absolute truth is the voice in my head. Genesis is a scientific theory of Intelligent Design. You can tell a mud puddle is designed by just looking at it. When I say something it's true, but when you say something it's just an opinion. Scientists are all evil or stupid, but usually both. Einstein was a Jewish conman. Calculus is a fraud. Reading is bad for you. Schools are centres for brainwashing. Universities probably don't exist because I've never seen one. I like stories.

[shunyadragon]

Cowpoke, put that popcorn away.

I've dropped by to make a few points.

Firstly, don't assume that a criticism of evolution, or any aspect of evolution, is a blanket criticism of science and scientists.
Secondly, there is a difference between science and scientism/materialistic naturalism.

There is an obvious problem with this description of your view of scientists and science. Since more than 95% (conservative figure) of all scientists fully endorse evolution without question nor controversy, in part because its foundation rests in the ALL the basic sciences, and the ToE is intimately involved with all the applied sciences of biology and medicine.

Unless you can present something radically different in your world view I cannot assume anything else other than the fact that you are hostile towards science.

In your headline you state 'All scientists are mad.' This represents a more closer approximation of your view of science.

Thirdly, my tagline is only there to complement the funny scientist photo I use as my avatar. Sparko, for example, uses various forms of the skull & crossbones as his avatar but that doesn't mean he's really a pirate or condones piracy.

Ridicule of science is par for the course, and this is what is reflected in your posts irregardless of what photos or whatever you use in your headliner.

Finally can I draw your attention to what I said at the start of my Psycho Room thread about the amount of posting I've done in the Natural Science forum and the number of Twebbers I've engaged there since joining Theologyweb. Rehashing the same stuff gets tiring, which is why I started putting up pictures. I accept this wasn't a successful. approach.

I prefer scientists over psychos.

[wattsr1]

Anticipating Magellan .... stop using fancy words like 'evidence' and 'empirical' and 'logical'. These words have no meaning. The dictionary is blank. All we have is 'somebody says something' and we just take their word for it or we don't. Everything is someone's opinion. Paris does not exist because I've never seen it. There are no laws of nature because induction is completely useless. My grandfather did not die because I never saw it and all we have is a doctor's opinion. The best guide to absolute truth is the voice in my head. Genesis is a scientific theory of Intelligent Design. You can tell a mud puddle is designed by just looking at it. When I say something it's true, but when you say something it's just an opinion. Scientists are all evil or stupid, but usually both. Einstein was a Jewish conman. Calculus is a fraud. Reading is bad for you. Schools are centres for brainwashing. Universities probably don't exist because I've never seen one. I like stories.

I'm sure Mags doesn't believe in WWII either. It's just opinions by people making claims about what they say they did or saw, sometime in the past.

I never saw it, and I doubt if Mags did.


We do have to be consistent and coherent about these things.

[Jorge]

Often YEC objections to ToE, turn out to be nothing more than YEC objections to atheism/materialism.

***************************************

Keep that up and maybe in 2 - to - 3 decades you will finally
make the connection, the light bulb will go ON and we

can be friends. Until then, you continue to be a lost puppy.

Jorge

[magellan004]

Anticipating Magellan .... stop using fancy words like 'evidence' and 'empirical' and 'logical'. These words have no meaning. The dictionary is blank. All we have is 'somebody says something' and we just take their word for it or we don't. Everything is someone's opinion. Paris does not exist because I've never seen it. There are no laws of nature because induction is completely useless. My grandfather did not die because I never saw it and all we have is a doctor's opinion. The best guide to absolute truth is the voice in my head. Genesis is a scientific theory of Intelligent Design. You can tell a mud puddle is designed by just looking at it. When I say something it's true, but when you say something it's just an opinion. Scientists are all evil or stupid, but usually both. Einstein was a Jewish conman. Calculus is a fraud. Reading is bad for you. Schools are centres for brainwashing. Universities probably don't exist because I've never seen one. I like stories.

Misrepresentation.
When two people each claim to have evidence , and one party then claims 'My evidence is empirical' - that clarifies nothing.
Stop crowing about not understanding Moose. Make an honest attempt to understand objections to evolution instead of posting childish misrepresentations for your Pancho Wattts.
As for Watts - I have asked him several times to precis my arguments/posts. The coward runs and ballabers about 'opinions'. I have no idea what he's on about. Have you?

Magellan