"A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

[Shermana]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.�
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Are these scientists all frauds?

Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?

Are they all being dishonest?

Is their view on the matter unscientific?

Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?

Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?

Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?

Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?

Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?

Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?

Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?

Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 370:

Because there's organizations out there, such as the National Center for Science Education, that does this stuff for a living. I'm on a limited time budget, and consider credible sources a valid pathway to discussing the various issues.

There were times when I was working 60+ hours a week and I still made the time to research somethings I thought was very important instead of having to rely on the opinion of others.

For sure. We don't just rely on the opinion cause there they said it, we rely on it based on their experience somewhat, but mostly their argument.

I fully expect that THEMAYAN, in all good ways, does the same when he relies on "religious" angles regarding the same set of data we both examine.

Why would you find them more credible? Is it just because of the title or have you actually researched the organization?

As an amateur, I've come to expect the NCSE to produce quality work.

I see, since the NCSE whose Director Eugenie Scott is a consignor of that 3rd humanist manifesto and she and other members are involved with secular humanist groups who boldly state their agenda as wanting to free the world from spirituality, religion and promote an atheist life style for society, well there is no way that thy could be biased, (now I'm being sarcastic)

I don't accept their various arguments based on the above criteria (unless they presented an argument about such - and even then, I reserve the right to object).

They say that they came together to promote accuracy in science yet they are apposed to any school district that teaches children that they should think critically about the theory, and critical thinking is one of the hallmarks of science. Their response is that critical thinking of neo Darwinism is really just a Trojan horse conspiracy for creationism. They never sue anyone who is critical of any other theory except for neo Darwinism.

I happen to agree about the horse. As the most effort at 'spoiling' science (my term) is in the area of the ToE, I see exactly why they'd focus on such.

Scott also has a track record of lying and was forced to retract statements and had to issue a mea culpa because of a law suit filed against her for lying.

I didn't see it that way. I saw she used some terms that could be considered "ad homish" and retracted those.

This private organization was set up in the 80's to promote neo Darwinism.

Exactly. To ensure the ID bunch couldn't force pseudo-science into the classrooms.

Have you ever heard of an org set up to promote Newtonian physics?

I'm just not seeing a lot of religious organizations trying to overturn this paradigm.

Have you ever heard of an organization that will sue a school district for teaching general relativity from a critical perspective because thats exactly what the NCSE has done?

Please provide supporting documentation.

Scott and other members of the NCSE have made a lot of money on speaking engagements and she has won awards for defending and promoting neo Darwinism.

Have the proponents of ID or creationism not done the same?

Again, have you ever heard of anyone winning an award for defending or promoting Mendelian genetics?

What's that got to do with anything?

The NCSE did not even support the Altenberg 16 summit who are a group of evolutionary biologist and other scholars who are trying to extend the scope of the modern synthesis based on current data as apposed to an outdated 80 year old so called modern synthesis based on neo Darwinism.

Are they to support each and every summit, no matter how related, that comes along?

I at least give them credit for admitting that the emperor really needs some new clothes.

An emperor needing new clothes would fit with what we know about the world around us - styles change.

The reason why the NCSE did not support the proposition of an extended synthesis is because they think it is a threat to neo Darwinism which is the theory that they have been defending for as many years as the organization has been around.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

There official stament was that they did not support any theory wich incorporated self organization models because too many people would confuse it with Intelligent design, yet these men and women of the Altenberg summit are anything but proponents of ID. Most if not all of them are very critical of ID. They themselves are evolutionist who just feel the theory should go in another direction, and are even still willing to incorporate at least some of the basic frame work of the modern synthesis but feel it needs to be extended.

There is vigorous debate regarding how far we should extend the various notions within the ToE, but little debate, outside of religious groups, that it occurs.

I only bring up Altenberg again just to show how adamant people are at trying to protect an outdated theory at all cost, including a cost to the advancement of science.

That's rich, considering how much litigation and cost the ID movement has brought about.

For more on that subject, see video I posted entitled (Will the real theory of evolution Please Stand up?)

I'm not searching. You'll either link me to it or ya won't.

That there are competing notions regarding how evolution occurs is hardly news.

I already answered that question. There is no way an oop art object can be validated or in validated unless it is tested. Did I waste my time making my point about the miester print and the way it was handled? I mean since an amateur like you can clearly see its fake only based on a photo, then case closed end of story. (I'm being sarcastic again)

You "wasted your time" because you admitted your own doubts as to the veracity of these tracks.

When you concede that you yourself are uncertain as to the authenticity of your own evidence or conclusions, I don't understand why you'd get upset when such is dismissed. That said, I did look into the notion, and found a credible source that offered a counter proposal, from a guy who is known to be an expert. I've yet to find any credentials on your guy

You have not even stated which example out of all the examples mentioned in book that your expert source disputes, nor have you cited who your source is. . You have repeated the credential thing ad nauseam even though I already responded. How many credential do you need to research and gather documented cases of oop art?

Look here.

Well then I suggest you take the time out to actually research about the way some have been treated in academia who have dissented or fired or discriminated against just based on their personal views.

Please cite specific cases.

The visceral hatred and retaliation for anything that threatens or is a perceived threat to the theory is real.

Funny, I find such "visceral hatred" from so many folks who uphold an ancient religious text as the be all and end all of how humans oughta go about being just that.

The latest is the one concerns a NASA who got fired for merely bring it up ID in conversation. It seems someone over heard his conversation and felt offended and complained, and again this is one of many. These are not make believe. They are real actual cases.

Please present documentation for analysis.

A good example of this is all the flack that many of these cosigners of the Dissent list have had to deal with. The case of Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez are also two of many more examples.
...
http://www.evolutionnews.org/GG-QA%20final.pdf

Link is dead for me.

http://trinitylawschool.wordpress.com/2 ... nt-design/

I can sue anyone for anything. That site does not present the ruling in the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19kentucky.html

I can sue anyone for anything. That site does not present the ruling in the case.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41006

An opinion piece complaining about the use of useful terms.

http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithso ... ge=summary

A man offers his accounts of events surrounding his dismissal, while offering no opposing viewpoint, or while offering no statement from those he accuses.

If anything, it is Intelligent designe advocates who are accused of conspiring to ruin science only because of the dispute over one theory. Talk about being paranoid.

Please see the Wikipedia: Wedge strategy. Where an organized conspiracy exists, well, there we go.

Please note, this is not to say that such a strategy doesn't have its merits.

Are you advocating conspiracy?

I s'pose one man's "conspiracy" is another man's "plan". This is why I prefer not to accuse folks with such a term full of negative connotations.

The wedge document is critical of scientific metaphysical naturalism as being the only paradigme. So what.

So we see they're going about "conspiring" to ensure their point is taken. My point here is these continual charges of "conspiracy" are, I contend, designed to slander, as opposed to simply admitting that one's pet notions are not accepted, and that those reasons need not be nefarious.

As I said before members of the NCSE support many secular humanism organizations that boast of there own world atheist views, agendas and goals on their own websites. Can we say dual standard?

How can an organization that states its goals, and goes about accomplishing them, be employing a double standard?

Let me counter by showing you another document that presents a different perspective from a well respected biologist.

Dr. Richard Lewontin—Dr. Coyne’s mentor at Harvard—wrote Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

I see a bunch of complaining that science - the study of the natural world - has no means by which to study the supernatural world.

Can we concede then that referencing ancients as regards to notions that were not present in their day is problematic?

You missed that part where I said that the notion of telic vs non telic origin was around long before the middle ages.

And you keep missing the part where I say we have no way of knowing of the men you mentioned would or would not have accepted theories and notions based on what we know today.

I am, frankly, tiring of some theists continually pointing to great men of the past while trying to argue against that which we know today.

I will no longer entertain this part of our discussion, as it is apparent you will continue to imply these men, thiests all, nominally or not, would not change their minds if they encountered the evidence we have today.

I'm with ya to an extent. I can only say that one man's "dogma" is another's "reasonably and logically concluded"

Sure why not. I also admit that my religious views are based largely on faith but at the same time, I feel no need to use or even quote scripture when it comes to analyzing science and the scientific method. I think science speaks for itself. The only problem is ideologues who think they can arbitrarily speak for science.

Now that ya mention it, I gotta say, you have not sought to introduce the Bible or other strictly theistic notions as somehow disproving the ToE, and I 'preciate ya for it.

I agree with Galileo when he said that...
>snipped because I will no longer entertain notions presented by the ancients, unless those notions directly address the argument at hand - namely, scientific dissent from Darwinism, which is a theory/notion that wasn't around in their time.
I include what I did so folks see I'm keeping up.

but to think that ToE somehow disproves God...

It only does so if the God is claimed to have created humans "whole cloth" - notice, I present that from a reasonably and logically concluded standpoint, and not as inerrant "fact". My point being that we have little means of directly confirming any hypothesis or theory in this regard.

Show me the empirical evidence that neo Darwinism is an incontrovertible truth and I will have to concede your point.

Reasonably and logically concluded.

I have no concern with you conceding my point.

How can you believe in something that you dont even have the time or wont make the effort to research and understand for yourself?

Does this conversation not indicate to you that I'm sitting right here doin' a good bit of all that?

Do you, THEMAYAN, accept that the record shows there's species alive today that are not in the fossil record - and that there's species in the fossil record that are not alive today?

No, there are many species alive today who are not only in the fossil record, but many that we even can trace back to the Cambrian era...

Let me rephrase...

Do you, THEMAYAN, accept that the record shows there's species alive today that are not in the fossil record?

And...

Do you, THEMAYAN, accept that the record shows there's species in the fossil record that are not alive today?

Blue green alge is the one of the first prokaryote organism to appear on the planet and even before the Cambrian radiation event, and its still the same now as it was then.

This says nothing about the changes we see in other lifeforms.

The primordial ameba has more genetic information than man by orders of magnitude and is still around today.

This says nothing about the changes we see in other lifeforms.

As for creatures that went extinct and are not alive today. So what. That proves nothing. Every year species go extinct. Is this really your litmus test?

"No, I do not believe there are species in the fossil record that are not alive today."

Surely you can admit that I try my best to respond honestly, and that I am willing to document or clarify my assertions when challenged. If I fail to convince, that's another deal.

Fair enough but you have not really offered anything empirical.

Because I contend the ToE is the most reasonable and logical conclusion to be had. Can I prove, empirically, that man evolved from a single-celled organism? No. I contend that based on the evidence, such is the most reasonable and logical conclusion to draw.

I will not be beholden to debate in a manner you deem fit. If you feel anything I post is not within the rules of this site, you're perfectly free to report such. Please note, the rules of this site allow for reasonable and logical conclusions to be presented, but of course do not require that anyone accept such conclusions.

I dont think having an orderly debate is unreasonable.

I can dig it. So we see that we can't always provide empirical evidence, as much as we'd like to, but that we can present arguments based on the reasonable and logical.

Just as you may contend ID is the most reasonably and logical conclusion. In presenting your case though, I contend you've failed to show such - but of course that's merely my opinion. I debate mostly for the observer's sake, and rely on them considering me doing the most reasoning and logicing when they go to siding with either one of us.

Again I can appreciate your sensibilities concerning what you feel is logical but that is not science.

It's the epitome of science.

Empirical science requires testable, repeatable and falsifyable evidence, and if it cant do this then a sound theory which meets its prediction criteria must be presented. If the theory consistently fails at meeting its predictably requirements then is it really isn't a theory at all. At least not on a scientific sense.

For the "hard sciences", yes. The ToE is a "soft science" that relies on sound thinking. Not that I'm any good at it

Life, as in even the most simplest living cell, (as if there is such a thing as a simple living cell cell) is much more enigmatic than the concept of macro evolution which if there was sufficient empirical evidence would actually be feasible.

"Enigmatic" is in the eye of the enigmaticer.

That may be true but in this case everyone on both sides who understand the subject agree.

I do not. I consider life rather inevitable, given the conditions.

I must say yes - if you'll agree that by "poof" I mean that life came about through otherwise mundane means.

I have never heard anyone in OOL/ origin of life refere to this hypothetical process as mundane, but then to each his own.

Mundane, of course, being subjective. I consider the combining of chemicals rather mundane, as it happens all the time.

Even if you say that it was a result of chemical evolution, still at some point spontaneous generation had to have occurred where non living matter became living matter.

Are all the chemicals on this planet alive?

No and thats the problem

So we see chemicals can combine to form life.

No, abruptly is not a subjective term when we are comparing it to the geological time scale, and ediacara biota are not even considered living things by many.

"By many". Indicating the difficulty of sorting life from non-life.

They also went extinct millions of years before the radiation event, and for an event to happen on this scale in as little as 3-10 million years is almost unthinkable.

But awhile back there, you said "no" when I asked if you accepted that the fossil record contains species that are not alive today.

Major animals also show up abruptly even long after the Cambrian event.

So we see that there are species alive today that are not fully reflected in the fossil record - IOW, they appear after other life.

The mantra is that its just the theory evolving. Neo Darwinism has been continually falsified since the modern synthesis began all the way up until today, and the modern synthesis itself was developed because classical Darwinism could'nt even meet the standards of 1930's science. The strength of a theory is how well it meets its prediction criteria and I can cite many failed predictions.

You seem to be discounting the many accurate predictions

Why dont you give me an example analysis for once.

Given enough change, an animal will no longer be able to mate with its precedents. Ever see a goat and a donkey getting it on?

Theories are required to be right all the time not just some of the times. Newtonian physics is a good example. We still use it today. It never had to be reformulated. With a simple ball string and a stick we can measure it repeat it and the results match every time we perform the experiments.

And the ToE is among the most well established theories in all of science.

[Clownboat]

Clownboat said

First off, this was directed at Pax (You have already failed at addressing how it happened, and I don't like to continually hear repeated claims that don't address the question).
Secondly, readers please note that THEMAYAN makes an assertion that the forms just appear without any how being noted like has been requested twice now.

This is not just an assertion. This based on the observable evidence. The fact that animals appear abruptly in the fossil record and then go through long periods of stasis with little change was also cited by Gould and Eldredge and this why they proposed punctuated equilibrium. Unfortunately PE only raises more questions than answers, but what else can you do when the evidence doesn't fit the theory? Why would you put the burden on pax or myself? If the emperor wears no clothes then the emperor wears no clothes. It's not our obligation to dress him. As I said before concerning the the exact details, the answer is nobody knows, and sometimes its OK to admit that we just don't know yet instead of trying to spoon feed people a bunch of BS based on metaphysical naturalism.

3rd time is a charm! Your answer is: "You don't know".
I can respect that. Thank you.

[THEMAYAN]

From Post 370:

Because there's organizations out there, such as the National Center for Science Education, that does this stuff for a living. I'm on a limited time budget, and consider credible sources a valid pathway to discussing the various issues.

There were times when I was working 60+ hours a week and I still made the time to research somethings I thought was very important instead of having to rely on the opinion of others.

For sure. We don't just rely on the opinion cause there they said it, we rely on it based on their experience somewhat, but mostly their argument

.

Well this is where you and I differ. Anyone can present a rhetorical argument. You also seem to have some skill at this. I am much more interested in the observable evidence and the fact that you have asked me to present citations for things like soft tissue and other subjects that are common knowledge to those who research this subject indicates that you are not as familiar with the arguments as you might think.

I fully expect that THEMAYAN, in all good ways, does the same when he relies on "religious" angles regarding the same set of data we both examine.

I dont beleive everything I'm told just because a preacher says it. Yes this is true.

Why would you find them more credible? Is it just because of the title or have you actually researched the organization?

As an amateur, I've come to expect the NCSE to produce quality work.

You can expect anything you like but that wasn't the question.

I see, since the NCSE whose Director Eugenie Scott is a consignor of that 3rd humanist manifesto and she and other members are involved with secular humanist groups who boldly state their agenda as wanting to free the world from spirituality, religion and promote an atheist life style for society, well there is no way that thy could be biased, (now I'm being sarcastic)

I don't accept their various arguments based on the above criteria (unless they presented an argument about such - and even then, I reserve the right to object).

Fair enough but the point was in response to your wedge doc citation. I merly pointed out that the NCSE is not as unbiased as you might expect

They say that they came together to promote accuracy in science yet they are apposed to any school district that teaches children that they should think critically about the theory, and critical thinking is one of the hallmarks of science. Their response is that critical thinking of neo Darwinism is really just a Trojan horse conspiracy for creationism. They never sue anyone who is critical of any other theory except for neo Darwinism.

I happen to agree about the horse. As the most effort at 'spoiling' science (my term) is in the area of the ToE, I see exactly why they'd focus on such.

Remember it was you who accused me of being a conspiracy theorist. I would also add that to propose that a theory should not be taught critically as all other theories are taught is a sure science stopper. In fact the DI has gone on record as saying that they wish neo Darwinism was taught in even greater depth including the weakness of the theory which is published in peer review journals all the time. Why should kids not hear about this? What is everyone afraid of? Is it that they may find out that theory is not as strong as it is? But then again you are entitled to your conspiracy theories. Barbera Forrest of the NCSE also accused the DI of trying to sneak in a trojan horse under the guise of science. When she was asked about her own world views and affiliations she said "but I'm not the one trying to use a religious argument. This is a nonsensical statement because on one hand she claims a trojan horse, and on the other she says that they are trying to use a religious argument. If you think that critical thinking is akin to imposing religion then I would have to regard that as paranoia.

Scott also has a track record of lying and was forced to retract statements and had to issue a mea culpa because of a law suit filed against her for lying.

I didn't see it that way. I saw she used some terms that could be considered "ad homish" and retracted those.

No she lied about someone and made false accusations.

This private organization was set up in the 80's to promote neo Darwinism.

Exactly. To ensure the ID bunch couldn't force pseudo-science into the classrooms.

I dont support psuedo science and neither does the DI, The whole argument that ID theorist do not get published in peer review is over. This was the excuse given for many years and now that ID are indeed getting their articles published in peer review the goal post has changed.

Have you ever heard of an org set up to promote Newtonian physics?

I'm just not seeing a lot of religious organizations trying to overturn this paradigm.

Maybe the reason why no one including religious orgs are trying to overturn this paradigm is because it is a valid and solid theory. It can be tested in real time and meets all the credential of empirical falsify-able science.

Have you ever heard of an organization that will sue a school district for teaching general relativity from a critical perspective because thats exactly what the NCSE has done?

Please provide supporting documentation.

I should have written the sentence....Have you ever heard of an organization that will sue a school district for teaching general relativity from a critical perspective because thats exactly what the NCSE has done with neo Darwinism.

Scott and other members of the NCSE have made a lot of money on speaking engagements and she has won awards for defending and promoting neo Darwinism.

Have the proponents of ID or creationism not done the same?

No not even close. I believe the fee for a top and well known ID spokesman is around a thousand dollars. Eugenie wouldn't even waste her time for that chump change.

Again, have you ever heard of anyone winning an award for defending or promoting Mendelian genetics?

What's that got to do with anything?

The point is that if someone wins awards for promoting a theory why would it only be neo Darwinism and why would a sound theory need to be promoted? It should be able to stand on its own two feet.

The NCSE did not even support the Altenberg 16 summit who are a group of evolutionary biologist and other scholars who are trying to extend the scope of the modern synthesis based on current data as apposed to an outdated 80 year old so called modern synthesis based on neo Darwinism.

Are they to support each and every summit, no matter how related, that comes along?

If you have a group of some of the top evolutionary biologist in the world who represent many other scientist around the globe and these men are calling for the modern synthesis to be updated because they have discovered that it is outdated and that we should have a theory on par with 21 century standards as apposed to 1930-50's standards then I think that if they care about the advancement of science then the answer is yes.

I at least give them credit for admitting that the emperor really needs some new clothes.

An emperor needing new clothes would fit with what we know about the world around us - styles change.

I can see you have never heard the story.

The reason why the NCSE did not support the proposition of an extended synthesis is because they think it is a threat to neo Darwinism which is the theory that they have been defending for as many years as the organization has been around.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard

. This is my opinion based on my experience. You will not find every opinion cited in a journal. Ican cite testimony of Susan Mazur who was told by Scott that the reason why they did not support this proposal was because it incorporated self organization models and that they were afraid that some would confuse self organization with ID. In my34567890-=-+
In my opinion, a piss poor answer, and by the way, you will not see that opinion cited in any journal either.

There official stament was that they did not support any theory wich incorporated self organization models because too many people would confuse it with Intelligent design, yet these men and women of the Altenberg summit are anything but proponents of ID. Most if not all of them are very critical of ID. They themselves are evolutionist who just feel the theory should go in another direction, and are even still willing to incorporate at least some of the basic frame work of the modern synthesis but feel it needs to be extended.

There is vigorous debate regarding how far we should extend the various notions within the ToE, but little debate, outside of religious groups, that it occurs

.
Fair enough but the fact remains that if you do not have a cohesive theory then all you have is an assortment of ideas and educated guesses. If you think that this theory is not being challenged even by other evolutionist then I urge you to go to google scholar and type in (challenges to neo Darwinism) or (challenges to the modern synthesis) Keep in mind that the biologist who are most critical of the modern synthesis are the same evolutionary biologist who actual specialize in evolutionary theory. The vast majority of biologist can still do their work without ever having heard of the modern synthesis.

I only bring up Altenberg again just to show how adamant people are at trying to protect an outdated theory at all cost, including a cost to the advancement of science.

That's rich, considering how much litigation and cost the ID movement has brought about.

I think you have it wrong. It is the NSCE who has brought up the litigation. In fact the NCSE proudly boast there docket sheet on their website.

For more on that subject, see video I posted entitled (Will the real theory of evolution Please Stand up?)

I'm not searching. You'll either link me to it or ya won't.

If copy and pasting the title on to your browser is to hard, then sure here are the links
Its posted on my youtube channel.






Just make sure you see all five parts to put it into proper context.

That there are competing notions regarding how evolution occurs is hardly news.

Well it should be news because children and adults in school are taught the neo Darwinian synthesis in a dogmatic fashion. Again this comes back to suppression of critical thinking which leads to the suppression of relevant information.

I already answered that question. There is no way an oop art object can be validated or in validated unless it is tested. Did I waste my time making my point about the miester print and the way it was handled? I mean since an amateur like you can clearly see its fake only based on a photo, then case closed end of story. (I'm being sarcastic again)

You "wasted your time" because you admitted your own doubts as to the veracity of these tracks.

Really when did I do that?

When you concede that you yourself are uncertain as to the authenticity of your own evidence or conclusions, I don't understand why you'd get upset when such is dismissed. That said, I did look into the notion, and found a credible source that offered a counter proposal, from a guy who is known to be an expert. I've yet to find any credentials on your guy

If this is what you took from all that I have said on this particular subject concerning oop art, then I have to agree that I have wasted my time.

You have not even stated which example out of all the examples mentioned in book that your expert source disputes, nor have you cited who your source is. . You have repeated the credential thing ad nauseam even though I already responded. How many credential do you need to research and gather documented cases of oop art?

Look here.

Well then I suggest you take the time out to actually research about the way some have been treated in academia who have dissented or fired or discriminated against just based on their personal views

Please cite specific cases.

I already sent links. Look again.

The visceral hatred and retaliation for anything that threatens or is a perceived threat to the theory is real.

Funny, I find such "visceral hatred" from so many folks who uphold an ancient religious text as the be all and end all of how humans oughta go about being just that.

The latest is the one concerns a NASA who got fired for merely bring it up ID in conversation. It seems someone over heard his conversation and felt offended and complained, and again this is one of many. These are not make believe. They are real actual cases.

Please present documentation for analysis

.

A good example of this is all the flack that many of these cosigners of the Dissent list have had to deal with. The case of Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez are also two of many more examples.
...
http://www.evolutionnews.org/GG-QA%20final.pdf

Link is dead for me.

http://trinitylawschool.wordpress.com/2 ... nt-design/

I can sue anyone for anything. That site does not present the ruling in the case.

You didn't ask for ruling you asked for information. If your interested then you have to put a little effort. I cant spoon feed you. If your not going to take the time needed to research then please dont waste my time.

As I said before members of the NCSE support many secular humanism organizations that boast of there own world atheist views, agendas and goals on their own websites. Can we say dual standard?

How can an organization that states its goals, and goes about accomplishing them, be employing a double standard?

You cant complain about other peoples agendas when you have your own. I dont think this is hard to understand.

Let me counter by showing you another document that presents a different perspective from a well respected biologist.

Dr. Richard Lewontin—Dr. Coyne’s mentor at Harvard—wrote Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

I see a bunch of complaining that science - the study of the natural world - has no means by which to study the supernatural world.

You see what you want to see and ignore stament like

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

Why should science be restricted or have a commitment to any one thing? This is not only philosophically bankrupt but is just untrue. I can cite peer review studies that demonstrate the therapeutic effects of prayer even absent the placebo effect, and not just any prayer but specifically to the Christian God.

Can we concede then that referencing ancients as regards to notions that were not present in their day is problematic?

You missed that part where I said that the notion of telic vs non telic origin was around long before the middle ages.

And you keep missing the part where I say we have no way of knowing of the men you mentioned would or would not have accepted theories and notions based on what we know today

.

Again why are you telling me? You are the one who asserted they would have thought differently.

I am, frankly, tiring of some theists continually pointing to great men of the past while trying to argue against that which we know today

.
If you are tired of the historical truth of the modern sciences, then dont blame theist. You have not presented anything that would lead anyone to change their views based on empirical evidence. I believe your trying to say that if they were alive today they would be atheist. Again you have nothing compelling to support that reasoning.

I will no longer entertain this part of our discussion, as it is apparent you will continue to imply these men, thiests all, nominally or not, would not change their minds if they encountered the evidence we have today

. Why should I? You offer absolutely no evidence to support your notion that they would be atheist. Were is all this evidence concerning macro evolution? Explain it in your own words.

Do you, THEMAYAN, accept that the record shows there's species alive today that are not in the fossil record - and that there's species in the fossil record that are not alive today?

No, there are many species alive today who are not only in the fossil record, but many that we even can trace back to the Cambrian era...

Let me rephrase...

Do you, THEMAYAN, accept that the record shows there's species alive today that are not in the fossil record?

And...

Do you, THEMAYAN, accept that the record shows there's species in the fossil record that are not alive today?

Blue green alge is the one of the first prokaryote organism to appear on the planet and even before the Cambrian radiation event, and its still the same now as it was then.

This says nothing about the changes we see in other lifeforms

.

Are you telling me that you can see changes in other life forms on a macro scale or are you inferring that because we see micro change that therefore we can infer macro change? Is this your position. If not tell me how you are able to see macro change. Please give example for analysis.

As for creatures that went extinct and are not alive today. So what. That proves nothing. Every year species go extinct. Is this really your litmus test?

"No, I do not believe there are species in the fossil record that are not alive today."

Surely you can admit that I try my best to respond honestly, and that I am willing to document or clarify my assertions when challenged. If I fail to convince, that's another deal.

Fair enough but you have not really offered anything empirical.

Because I contend the ToE is the most reasonable and logical conclusion to be had. Can I prove, empirically, that man evolved from a single-celled organism? No. I contend that based on the evidence, such is the most reasonable and logical conclusion to draw.

Please cite the evidence that has convinced you for analysis.

I will not be beholden to debate in a manner you deem fit. If you feel anything I post is not within the rules of this site, you're perfectly free to report such. Please note, the rules of this site allow for reasonable and logical conclusions to be presented, but of course do not require that anyone accept such conclusions.

I dont think having an orderly debate is unreasonable.

I can dig it. So we see that we can't always provide empirical evidence, as much as we'd like to, but that we can present arguments based on the reasonable and logical.

Just as you may contend ID is the most reasonably and logical conclusion. In presenting your case though, I contend you've failed to show such - but of course that's merely my opinion. I debate mostly for the observer's sake, and rely on them considering me doing the most reasoning and logicing when they go to siding with either one of us.

You have not asked me to provide evidence for ID. The best way to deal with this is for you to provide what you consider evidence and I will counter with the evidence from and ID perspective.

Empirical science requires testable, repeatable and falsifyable evidence, and if it cant do this then a sound theory which meets its prediction criteria must be presented. If the theory consistently fails at meeting its predictably requirements then is it really isn't a theory at all. At least not on a scientific sense.

For the "hard sciences", yes. The ToE is a "soft science" that relies on sound thinking. Not that I'm any good at it

All science depends on evidence. The term sound is a very subjective term and thats why science requires evidence.

Life, as in even the most simplest living cell, (as if there is such a thing as a simple living cell cell) is much more enigmatic than the concept of macro evolution which if there was sufficient empirical evidence would actually be feasible.

"Enigmatic" is in the eye of the enigmaticer.

That may be true but in this case everyone on both sides who understand the subject agree.

I do not. I consider life rather inevitable, given the conditions.

Based on what scientific rational. Are you aware with the logistical nightmares involved from going to non living matter to living matter?

I must say yes - if you'll agree that by "poof" I mean that life came about through otherwise mundane means.

I have never heard anyone in OOL/ origin of life refere to this hypothetical process as mundane, but then to each his own.

Mundane, of course, being subjective. I consider the combining of chemicals rather mundane, as it happens all the time.

Yes but how many times do you see life coming from these frequent chemical reactions?

Even if you say that it was a result of chemical evolution, still at some point spontaneous generation had to have occurred where non living matter became living matter.

Are all the chemicals on this planet alive?

No and thats the problem

So we see chemicals can combine to form life

.
OK show me. When have you chemicals combing to form life.

They also went extinct millions of years before the radiation event, and for an event to happen on this scale in as little as 3-10 million years is almost unthinkable.

But awhile back there, you said "no" when I asked if you accepted that the fossil record contains species that are not alive today.

I think you misunderstood. I only responded to the way the question was ask. You made the extrapolation that it menat something else in your own mind. Let me make this clear. The fossils record contains both extinct and extant animals. I.e everything that has ever lived or is alive today can be found in the fossil record. I hope that makes it clear for you.

Major animals also show up abruptly even long after the Cambrian event.

So we see that there are species alive today that are not fully reflected in the fossil record - IOW, they appear after other life.

Please rephrase the question. Im not sure what you're trying to say.

The mantra is that its just the theory evolving. Neo Darwinism has been continually falsified since the modern synthesis began all the way up until today, and the modern synthesis itself was developed because classical Darwinism could'nt even meet the standards of 1930's science. The strength of a theory is how well it meets its prediction criteria and I can cite many failed predictions.

You seem to be discounting the many accurate predictions

Why dont you give me an example analysis for once.

Given enough change, an animal will no longer be able to mate with its precedents. Ever see a goat and a donkey getting it on?

Thanks for example. After this post I wil try to respond to this example. These post are getting to long and not really relevant to ToE.

[THEMAYAN]

Clownboat I have been asked the same question over and over and have repeatedly said this over and over. I repeat, as for the details, no one knows.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 383:

For sure. We don't just rely on the opinion cause there they said it, we rely on it based on their experience somewhat, but mostly their argument

Well this is where you and I differ. Anyone can present a rhetorical argument. You also seem to have some skill at this. I am much more interested in the observable evidence and the fact that you have asked me to present citations for things like soft tissue and other subjects that are common knowledge to those who research this subject indicates that you are not as familiar with the arguments as you might think.

And the observable evidence I submitted was an accredited scholar, whereas I've yet to see you present the credentials of this Cremo guy.

>snip moot point<

Why would you find them more credible? Is it just because of the title or have you actually researched the organization?

As an amateur, I've come to expect the NCSE to produce quality work.

You can expect anything you like but that wasn't the question.

Let's break 'er down then...

Why would you find them more credible?

As an amateur, I've come to expect the NCSE to produce quality work.

and...

Is it just because of the title or have you actually researched the organization?

I have followed the organization as an amateur, insofar as I encounter their various views and notions in my day to day life, as well as to the particulars of my amateur studies.

Fair enough but the point was in response to your wedge doc citation. I merly pointed out that the NCSE is not as unbiased as you might expect

I try not to use the term "bias", as it is so full of negative connotations. I prefer "disagree" or "came to their conclusions, but danged if they foul it up".

Then there's the issue of being biased towards a methodology that produces consistent results, as opposed to the one consistent result of IDers, which renders down to "god did it".

Remember it was you who accused me of being a conspiracy theorist.

I retracted such a charge and 'pologize about it. My point about this whole "consipiracy" argument is the negative connotations of such a term, when both sides are ostensibly "conspiring".

I would also add that to propose that a theory should not be taught critically as all other theories are taught is a sure science stopper. In fact the DI has gone on record as saying that they wish neo Darwinism was taught in even greater depth including the weakness of the theory which is published in peer review journals all the time.

I don't doubt the DI would love to introduce their nonscientific "criticisms". The fact of the matter is that the ToE is a settled theory, with only disagreement over the particulars.

Why should kids not hear about this?

Because "God did it" is an unacceptable answer in terms of scientific inquiry.

What is everyone afraid of?

Not providing children an adequate education.

Is it that they may find out that theory is not as strong as it is?

I propose it's because many would use their positions of authority to proselytize, as opposed to actually teaching.

But then again you are entitled to your conspiracy theories.

My position should be known to you by known. That you keep bringing it up indicates an inability to incorporate new information into your thinking.

Barbera Forrest of the NCSE also accused the DI of trying to sneak in a trojan horse under the guise of science.

And that's exactly what they're trying to do.

When she was asked about her own world views and affiliations she said "but I'm not the one trying to use a religious argument. This is a nonsensical statement because on one hand she claims a trojan horse, and on the other she says that they are trying to use a religious argument.

Inside that horse is the religious argument.

If you think that critical thinking is akin to imposing religion then I would have to regard that as paranoia.

The problem is that there's no critical thinking involved in "God did it".

No she lied about someone and made false accusations.

I reject this attempt to besmirch the character of someone who made statements and retracted.

I dont support psuedo science and neither does the DI, The whole argument that ID theorist do not get published in peer review is over.

Please present an example for analysis.

This was the excuse given for many years and now that ID are indeed getting their articles published in peer review the goal post has changed.

Best I can tell, the IDers put up their own goalpost.

Have you ever heard of an org set up to promote Newtonian physics?

I'm just not seeing a lot of religious organizations trying to overturn this paradigm.

Maybe the reason why no one including religious orgs are trying to overturn this paradigm is because it is a valid and solid theory. It can be tested in real time and meets all the credential of empirical falsify-able science.

As is the ToE, every year 'round flu shot time.

Have you ever heard of an organization that will sue a school district for teaching general relativity from a critical perspective because thats exactly what the NCSE has done?

Please provide supporting documentation.

I should have written the sentence....Have you ever heard of an organization that will sue a school district for teaching general relativity from a critical perspective because thats exactly what the NCSE has done with neo Darwinism.

I've never heard of it, but I've also never heard of folks carryin' on about how the ToGR relates to the ToE.

Are you saying you'd like ID or creationism taught alongside the ToGR?

Scott and other members of the NCSE have made a lot of money on speaking engagements and she has won awards for defending and promoting neo Darwinism.

Have the proponents of ID or creationism not done the same?

No not even close. I believe the fee for a top and well known ID spokesman is around a thousand dollars. Eugenie wouldn't even waste her time for that chump change.

So then, receiving a thousand dollars is NOT receiving a thousand dollars?

The point is that if someone wins awards for promoting a theory why would it only be neo Darwinism and why would a sound theory need to be promoted? It should be able to stand on its own two feet.

No one is stopping you from setting up any awards you wish.

Are they to support each and every summit, no matter how related, that comes along?

If you have a group of some of the top evolutionary biologist in the world who represent many other scientist around the globe and these men are calling for the modern synthesis to be updated because they have discovered that it is outdated and that we should have a theory on par with 21 century standards as apposed to 1930-50's standards then I think that if they care about the advancement of science then the answer is yes.

What qualifications do you hold that would have your opinion valued over those who run a given organization?

The NCSE doesn't call me up when I hop on a debate site, should I be upset with 'em about that?

I at least give them credit for admitting that the emperor really needs some new clothes.

An emperor needing new clothes would fit with what we know about the world around us - styles change.

I can see you have never heard the story.

And I can see you don't understand why I said what I did.

The reason why the NCSE did not support the proposition of an extended synthesis is because they think it is a threat to neo Darwinism which is the theory that they have been defending for as many years as the organization has been around.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard

This is my opinion based on my experience.

Noted. Rejected as lacking sufficient supporting data for the conclusion drawn.

You will not find every opinion cited in a journal. Ican cite testimony of Susan Mazur who was told by Scott that the reason why they did not support this proposal was because it incorporated self organization models and that they were afraid that some would confuse self organization with ID.

How often do you rely on hearsay testimony when you form your opinions?

...
In my opinion, a piss poor answer, and by the way, you will not see that opinion cited in any journal either.

I propose a possible reason is the opinion is not sufficiently supported.

There is vigorous debate regarding how far we should extend the various notions within the ToE, but little debate, outside of religious groups, that it occurs

Fair enough but the fact remains that if you do not have a cohesive theory then all you have is an assortment of ideas and educated guesses.

The ToE as a whole is sound. Various notions within are up for grabs. Change occurs, that is settled science.

If you think that this theory is not being challenged even by other evolutionist then I urge you to go to google scholar and type in (challenges to neo Darwinism) or (challenges to the modern synthesis)

I'm fully aware there's many folks challenging the ToE. I'm unaware of any such that make a compelling case for overturning such a sound, well support theory.

Keep in mind that the biologist who are most critical of the modern synthesis are the same evolutionary biologist who actual specialize in evolutionary theory. The vast majority of biologist can still do their work without ever having heard of the modern synthesis.

One can be critical of the modern synthesis and still accept the ToE.

I think you have it wrong. It is the NSCE who has brought up the litigation. In fact the NCSE proudly boast there docket sheet on their website.

I guess ya kinda have me there, what with so many Christians willing to violate the Constitution and just teach ID anyway. At least someone is willing to push back these forces.

For more on that subject, see video I posted entitled (Will the real theory of evolution Please Stand up?)

I'm not searching. You'll either link me to it or ya won't.

If copy and pasting the title on to your browser is to hard, then sure here are the links
Its posted on my youtube channel.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I'm not spending time trying to find what data you consider pertinent in those links.

Please present your case here, in your words (with link and references to the time in a particular video) and I'll be glad to respond.

I do not. I consider life rather inevitable, given the conditions.

Based on what scientific rational. Are you aware with the logistical nightmares involved from going to non living matter to living matter?

Have all the constituent chemicals that make up you always been alive?

Yes but how many times do you see life coming from these frequent chemical reactions?

About 6 billion times in the case of humans, if global population stats are to be trusted.

OK show me. When have you chemicals combing to form life.

Okay, see ya get this sperm here, composed of chemicals, and ya get this egg over there, composed of chemicals, and ya add some more chemicals, and eventually ya end up with a creature.

I think you misunderstood. I only responded to the way the question was ask. You made the extrapolation that it menat something else in your own mind. Let me make this clear. The fossils record contains both extinct and extant animals. I.e everything that has ever lived or is alive today can be found in the fossil record. I hope that makes it clear for you.

Can THEMAYAN produce a fossil nylonase bacteria?

Major animals also show up abruptly even long after the Cambrian event.

So we see that there are species alive today that are not fully reflected in the fossil record - IOW, they appear after other life.

Please rephrase the question. Im not sure what you're trying to say.

My point is, is that we see new animals appear later in the fossil record.

Thanks for example. After this post I wil try to respond to this example. These post are getting to long and not really relevant to ToE.

I respect what you're getting at there, but feel we both have framed our posts within the confines of the OP. If not directly, then indirectly on the issue of why there is such dissent.

[THEMAYAN]

response to joeytheknothead

So let me get this right. You believe that kids should not learn about the weakness of the theory as documented in science journals because to you that would equate to "God did it"

OK I find this odd, but I guess we have to agree to disagree..

As for me asking if you ever saw chemical reactions producing living things,
I think your confusing sexual reproduction with abiogenesis. Or your just trying to be a wise cracker, but then again maybe you misunderstood. You are also inferring that because people exist that this means that this proves abiogenesis is true. Its akin to saying I can prove God exist because look at all the 6 billion people he made. I don't want to waste anymore time on this. Your going to have to figure this out on your own.


Lets deal with what you cited as evidence.....

Given enough change, an animal will no longer be able to mate with its precedents. Ever see a goat and a donkey getting it on?

Let me give you a chance to rephrase your response. Maybe you misspelled a word or are not familiar with the meaning of the word (precedent), and I'm not sure what you mean by a goat and a donkey getting it on, unless of course you are insinuating that goats got separated from one another, and one group slowly turned into a donkey's over time or visa versa, which if this is what you mean, then this is the first time I have ever heard it put that way. As for your (given enough time and mating) comment
I think I know what your trying to say, but again let me give you a chance to use another word. I'll give you a chance to clarify. This would be a good place to start if your trying to say what I think you mean.

[TheJackelantern]

BTw.. Gentry's samples were taken from uranium mines. Basically caught lying about his samples origins. Problem is, we can actually track where such samples were taken and establish that they were uranium halos. So the halo's were not what he claimed to be as they were actually uranium halos.. Just so people know how his paper didn't make it past the peer review process. There is another consequence not talked about in regards to suggesting rapid radioactive decay, or that Earth is 6,000 years old. And this major problem be suggesting or claiming decay rates exceedingly faster than what is known, it would mean a highly radioactive Earth.. You are talking about shrinking the time it takes decay uranium from billions of years to 6,000 years. This is effectively increasing the rate of decay and increasing how much earth radiates..I'm not going to do the math, but it would be insane to say the least. Most likely concluding Earths total atomic decay by now. That means we wouldn't be here, and never could be here. Hence once can ask, how much mass would be lost each day? And how would humans be living in such a highly radioactive environment?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 386:

So let me get this right. You believe that kids should not learn about the weakness of the theory as documented in science journals because to you that would equate to "God did it"

I believe that we should not open our science classrooms to that which ain't science. My concern is that ID proponents have a manufactured controversy, and seek to use such to slip non-scientific notions into the classrooms.

OK I find this odd, but I guess we have to agree to disagree..

Or we can agree that until ID proponents can produce legitimate scientific analysis, they should remain away from our classrooms.

As for me asking if you ever saw chemical reactions producing living things, I think your confusing sexual reproduction with abiogenesis.

Chemicals coming together to produce life in either case.

Or your just trying to be a wise cracker, but then again maybe you misunderstood.

I'm not trying to be a wise cracker, but I understand why some might think so. I've been as serious with you as I can be, and still enjoy our conversation.

Any chance it could be you doing the misunderstanding?

You are also inferring that because people exist that this means that this proves abiogenesis is true.

Not so much true, as the most reasonable and logical conclusion. If I made such a postive statement as you present, I plow it under.

Its akin to saying I can prove God exist because look at all the 6 billion people he made.

Or, can you more rightly say you consider your position the most reasonable and logical conclusion to be had?

I don't want to waste anymore time on this. Your going to have to figure this out on your own.

And here I thought I was helping you figure it out

Given enough change, an animal will no longer be able to mate with its precedents. Ever see a goat and a donkey getting it on?

Let me give you a chance to rephrase your response. Maybe you misspelled a word or are not familiar with the meaning of the word (precedent)...

Whoops, antecedent, ancestor, those that came before. This ain't the first time my use of 'precedent' has been pointed out to me. I still like it; it's accurate, if not commonly used in such a situation.

Rephrased:

Given enough change, the offspring of a given species of animal will no longer be able to reproduce with that prior species. An example here would be such as horse / donkey hybrids, where two species are still able to mate, but with limited reproductive success (offspring are often infertile). We see here genetic drift occurring, where if allowed to continue, there will be total genetic isolation such than no offspring will even be viable, much less infertile.

Combine this with say the apple fly, where once one species infested hawthorn, and one group then began infesting apples. Now they are separated as to morphology, diet, and reproductive timing (due to new diets?). I contend that these two examples alone offer sufficient warrant to conclude, reasonably and logically, that new species do emerge.

From there I contend it's reasonable and logical to conclude such "small" changes would lead to "big" changes - entirely new critters, where folks'd hafta be told the one species there ever even knew that other'n, much less was having sex with it.

(tag edit)

[THEMAYAN]

RESPONSE TO THE JACKELANTERN

BTw.. Gentry's samples were taken from uranium mines. Basically caught lying about his samples origins. Problem is, we can actually track where such samples were taken and establish that they were uranium halos. So the halo's were not what he claimed to be as they were actually uranium halos.. Just so people know how his paper didn't make it past the peer review process. There is another consequence not talked about in regards to suggesting rapid radioactive decay, or that Earth is 6,000 years old. And this major problem be suggesting or claiming decay rates exceedingly faster than what is known, it would mean a highly radioactive Earth.. You are talking about shrinking the time it takes decay uranium from billions of years to 6,000 years. This is effectively increasing the rate of decay and increasing how much earth radiates..I'm not going to do the math, but it would be insane to say the least. Most likely concluding Earths total atomic decay by now. That means we wouldn't be here, and never could be here. Hence once can ask, how much mass would be lost each day? And how would humans be living in such a highly radioactive environment?

Please cite peer review source.
I dont know where your getting this boloney from. His samples were taken from many different places and if you have proof that he lied, then present it. You say that his work never made it past peer review yet yesterday you cited his peer review article and called it "good science" You then changed your tune and sent me a link to an article on talks origin whose writer couldn't even get his critique published in any reputable peer review journal.
Gentry even challenged his critics to falsify his claims by setting up a workable test. No one excepted his challenge. Below are even more peer review articles on this subject that you now claim did not make it past peer review.

Gentry, Robert V. 1968. Fossil Alpha Recoil Analysis of Variant Radioactive Halos. Science 160, pp. 1228-1230.
Gentry. Robert V. 1971. Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radio Activity. Science 173, pp. 727-31.
Gentry, Robert V. 1973. Radioactive Halos. Ann. Rev. Nuc. Sci, 23, pp. 347-362.
Gentry, Robert V. 1974. Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Science 184, pp. 64-66.
Gentry, Robert V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin’s Comments on "Spectacle Haloes." Nature 258, p. 269.
Gentry, Robert V. 1979. Time: Measured Responses. Eos 60, p. 474.
Gentry, Robert V. 1984. Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Proceedings of the Sixty Third Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Volume 1. Part 3. pp. 38-65.
Gentry, Robert V. et al.. 1973. Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohaloes. Nature 244, pp. 282-283.
Gentry, Robert V. et al.. 1974. "Spectacle" Array of 210Po Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma. Nature 252, p. 564.
Gentry, Robert V. et al.. 1976. Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification. Science 194, pp. 315-318.

Umm......If you really looked on the profile you will noticed that it didn't have a profile because it lack information. Other words Some chemicals listed in this database or not pure chemical compounds, rather they are mixtures/solutions of chemicals. It is not uncommon for wide range of molar ratios of a mixture to be lumped together as "synonyms" of the same "chemical". In some instances chemicals that are very similar from a health & safety and/or regulatory standpoint also may have been lumped together.
CAS Number: 15735-67-8
Synonyms/Related:
214Po
Polonium 214
Polonium, isotope of mass 214
Polonium-214
None of this disproves evolution and now to meat of the subject ......Gentry is dead wrong on his deceptive studies that he claims about Polonium 214 and you can read about this at this link:

I google this statement above and found that you copied it from some unanimous person named Hexine who posted this in a forum as a response to someone else on feb 2008. http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evoluti ... 8B9T0V9R67

You then cited http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/polfac.htm as the source but you were wrong.

The link took me to a self professed amateur. He did not name what field of science he was an amateur in, but nonetheless he proposes based on his studies that Gentry was mistaken. A google scholar search showed his name did not show up in any scholarly data bank and furthermore, he did not write the statment above. Again it was written by this person Helix and which actually makes no sense and who seems to think the subject is about chemical compounds. I have no idea what he means by profile and you have not explained it. Why do you send me this stuff?

[TheJackelantern]

This is pretty odd. Now your trying to refute your own citations that just an hour ago or so you said was real science.

Umm the reason for posting those citations was only to show that creationists have gotten papers published. And yes, we can refute the papers cited..Who said I can't? I don't think you understood why I posted them..

Furthermore none of the links you provided were peer reviewed in any reputable Journal and in fact one was from a self admitted amateur. Aren't you tired of shooting yourself in the foot? Maybe you should think about what you post before you do.

Umm sorry, but the only person shooting himself in the foot is yourself here. I don't even think you have won a single battle here, or nor have you even remotely come close to disproving TOE..

Unbelievable man. Go run to talks origin again. I would caution you to actually read your citations first, but since I have told you this before, I dont think it would really even matter. I seriously doubt whether you actually understand Gentry's work, or the implications of it. You dont even understand that neo Darwinism referes to the modern synthesis

Sorry, Noe-Darwinism is just coined term. Just like calling people evolutionists to make it sound like a religion ect.. These terms are pretty much only used by Creationists to whom are an actual existent group.. And btw, your only rebuttal to the information given is an argument on the citations..

One of the biggest problems with his papers is that Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be given off by uranium.. All his samples had uranium in them and all his supposed halos were mostly uranium halos. The interesting ones rested in cracks where the decay product of radon Po-218 could have migrated into. All his examples that show possible P-218 halos involved these cracks.. But the key thing is to note is that P0-218 is a decay product of radon. Find this here:

http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/devprot4.html
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/experiments/ex1.html
http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/ ... /chain.htm

Also it appears that he's not very well educated in geology..It's noted that many of his samples were indeed taken from places you find things such as rocks with uranium.

http://ncse.com/cej/8/1/gentrys-tiny-my ... by-geology

If you really looked on the profile you will noticed that it didn't have a profile because it lack information. Other words Some chemicals listed in this database or not pure chemical compounds, rather they are mixtures/solutions of chemicals. It is not uncommon for wide range of molar ratios of a mixture to be lumped together as "synonyms" of the same "chemical". In some instances chemicals that are very similar from a health & safety and/or regulatory standpoint also may have been lumped together.
CAS Number: 15735-67-8
Synonyms/Related:

214Po
Polonium 214
Polonium, isotope of mass 214
Polonium-214

What does this have to do with Gentry's paper?[/quote]

Well read above and you might understand Hence, there are a lot of problems with his paper.. :/

And what does this have to do with you on one hand saying that this is real science, and now you say........

When someone attempts to do real science, it doesn't mean they have done it right. :/ Should I point out cases of non-creationist work that have been disproved? Also, out side of his paper, he uses it as a means to make the assumption that Earth was magically created, and that decay rates were magically a billion times faster... Hence the trickster GOD?

Again none of your links are peer review. Furthermore Thomas A. Baillieul who wrote the paper criticizing Gentry could not even get his criticisms published in a reputable scientific journal.

That's because he's citing other sources.. He doesn't actually need to. It's already shown the Gentry lied about where he got his samples from. Nor did his paper describe the methodology and details involving his sample collecting..

Explain to me in your own words why Gentry is being deceptive or why he is wrong? Are you capable of doing that.

His paper identifies radiohalos, but does not explain them, nor does to provide any actual detailed information.. There are many problems with his paper, but most of his deception is his use of his paper as a tool to suggest Earth was magically created in an instant ect. This to which his paper can not and does not support. This quote being a key note as to why:

There is a major misconception, and not just by Gentry, about the distinction between the formation of the host mineral and the formation of the Po halos. The formation of the minerals, like biotite, is irrelevant to Po halo formation since the Po was emplaced after the formation of the mineral was complete, maybe by millions of years. So it does not matter whether the biotite formed from the normal sequence of mineral formation from a magma (Faraday), or was deposited by hydrothermal processes, or grew in the solid matrrix of the host rock due to metamorphism (Silver Crater, Fission). The Po could have been deposited a some later time when the uranium-rich fluid started to flow.

Lastly, he conducted no experiments to show his claims outside his paper, or provide a peer reviewed journal of his claims outside of his paper's findings..

Your a trip man.

His paper doesn't say anything about GOD DONE IT.. He does outside the confines of the paper. Hence taking it and then dishonestly using it as some sort of evidence of magical creation.. He just assumes GOD DONE IT. As if no other natural process could account for the halos..That's where most his dishonesty comes in if we ignore the fact he tried to deny where he actually got his samples from.. And nor did he explain how decay rates could magically be a billion times faster.. These halos provides no statistical information to support it.


Giving this, we will have to wait for further studies on the subject by the scientific community.. And as far as I can tell, his paper hasn't yet passed the peer review process. Can you cite where he has ruled out all other processes cited to which could naturally account for the Halo's? Well, nope.. So what does that tell you about his honesty outside the limits of the paper?