Aron Ra vs Bob Dutko

[YesYouNeedJesus]

You asked for my definition. I have given it. I never claimed it was anything other than opinion.

Interesting. You guys are pretty quick to dismiss anything anyone says about evolution if they are not a biologist. How do I find out whether or not the author of an article (about any other field of science) in a refereed journal is a scientist?

 

[australopithecus]

Interesting. You guys are pretty quick to dismiss anything anyone says about evolution if they are not a biologist.

Evolution is a field of biology, genius. See if you can connect the dots there.

How do I find out whether or not the author of an article (about any other field of science) in a refereed journal is a scientist?

Ask Jesus.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

No, you're just confused about what a scientist is. As Austra said, I'm not speaking for LoR, so I'll give you the definition of a scientist as accepted by... scientists.

A scientist is anyone who applies the scientific method in their pursuit of knowledge. The scientific method is defined as:

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

How is John C. Sanford not a scientist according to this definition?

Or from (what seems to be) Newton:

Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica"]Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Isaac Newton believed in special creation. Are you using Isaac Newton's definition of a scientist and denying that he was one at the same time?

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Interesting. You guys are pretty quick to dismiss anything anyone says about evolution if they are not a biologist.

Evolution is a field of biology, genius. See if you can connect the dots there.

Do I have your permission to ignore anything anyone on LoR says about evolution if they are not a biologist?

How do I find out whether or not the author of an article (about any other field of science) in a refereed journal is a scientist?

Ask Jesus.

Was Isaac Newton a scientist according to your definition of 'scientist'?

 

[australopithecus]

How is John C. Sanford not a scientist according to this definition?

You ignored this bit:

I will make one concession though: You could equally well argue that they are scientists when they're not being creationists, meaning they're inconsistent. That would make them bad scientists to the point of not being noteworthy, so it boils down to the same point.

Isaac Newton believed in special creation. Are you using Isaac Newton's definition of a scientist and denying that he was one at the same time?

Newton was unaware of the concept of evolution by natural selection. Your analogy is deeply flawed. Go back in time, give Newton the evidence, then see what he thinks. Until then...

 

[australopithecus]

Do I have your permission to ignore anything anyone on LoR says about evolution if they are not a biologist?

If they make claims unsupported by evidence, yeah, sure. Fill your boots. Your opinion isn't worth much either way so it's no loss.

Was Isaac Newton a scientist according to your definition of 'scientist'?

See my previous post.

 

[Inferno]

Do I have your permission to ignore anything anyone on LoR says about evolution if they are not a biologist?

As Austra said, if they don't provide evidence then you SHOULD dismiss it.
But your "if they are not a biologist" is flawed. Having a Ph.D. in biology does not make you a scientist, but adhering to the scientific method does. If you want to argue about a "scientist with credentials" then it's a whole different discussion.

 

[australopithecus]

Do I have your permission to ignore anything anyone on LoR says about evolution if they are not a biologist?

As Austra said, if they don't provide evidence then you SHOULD dismiss it.
But your "if they are not a biologist" is flawed. Having a Ph.D. in biology does not make you a scientist, but adhering to the scientific method does. If you want to argue about a "scientist with credentials" then it's a whole different discussion.

My contention is purely the constant appeals to authority. I couldn't less what Lawrence Kraus thinks about evolution, he's a physicist. If Bob and Will are content with logical fallacies in lieu of evidence then that's on their head. Not ours.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Isaac Newton believed in special creation. Are you using Isaac Newton's definition of a scientist and denying that he was one at the same time?

Newton was unaware of the concept of evolution by natural selection. Your analogy is deeply flawed. Go back in time, give Newton the evidence, then see what he thinks. Until then...

What evidence!?! Evolutionists think that if they invent a theory that's possible, that means it happened that way. Neo-darwinism is just the flavor of the year. If we were having this talk in the 19th century, your definition of scientist would be anyone who does not support "special creation" over evidence of spontaneous generation. Evolution is just the spontaneous generation of our day.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Do I have your permission to ignore anything anyone on LoR says about evolution if they are not a biologist?

If they make claims unsupported by evidence, yeah, sure. Fill your boots. Your opinion isn't worth much either way so it's no loss.

Wait a minute. Lawrence Krauss agreed that dinosaur soft tissue has been found and you didn't care because he's not a biologist. His claim was based on the evidence that he's seen. You seem to have a double standard here.

 

[australopithecus]

His claim was based on the evidence that he's seen. You seem to have a double standard here.

Kindly post the evidence he gave to support his claim.

 

[australopithecus]

What evidence!?!

The evidence you've proven consistently you don't understand.

Evolutionists think that if they invent a theory that's possible, that means it happened that way.

What size is your tin foil hat?

Neo-darwinism is just the flavor of the year. If we were having this talk in the 19th century, your definition of scientist would be anyone who does not support "special creation" over evidence of spontaneous generation.

We're not having this conversation in the 19th century.

Evolution is just the spontaneous generation of our day.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the subject, though we already know know you don't.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Here they are (answers in RED):

Well at least you attempted to answer some of the questions. After dealing with BobEnyart for a week and seeing how much he dodges questions, I guess I would not expect to much more from one of his employees. YesYouNeedJesus, you do realize that everything I quoted in that thread is also questions you have failed to answer.

YesYouNeedJesus, can you tell us why the T. rex and all the other non-avian dinosaurs are found below the K-Pg Boundary and why there are no non-avian dinosaurs above it? I do not know that to be true and if true, I cannot tell you why.

Well I can tell you this is true. I could also tell you why creationists cannot explain this, which is because the geology of any given area is not a result of a worldwide flood.

How does that fit into your understanding of geology?

Well, looky here. Another question you failed to answer.

YesYouNeedJesus, did you even know that 14C can be created from radioactive elements in the ground and that it does not always have to come from the atmosphere? This is an interesting theory, but doesn't really work. 6 problems listed below.

I saw your six problems and all I have to say to those is citation please. All I saw was you claiming there to be a problem, no actual science behind any of those claims.

If you truly believe that we have original biological material from these fossils, than why settle for protein when you can just go for the DNA that should be in it? Great question. DNA has now been discovered and I still believe we have original biological material. Have you changed your mind?

Seeing as how original biological material does not always equal soft tissue (stop mincing your terms), as I explained to BobEnyart several times, yes, we have discovered original biological material in some fossils. In addition, heavy elements of the body can remain in fossils for the simple fact that they are to hard to fossilize or degrade. Furthermore, I pointed out this same thing to you almost a year ago. Thus, finding original biological material is nothing special; we have been finding it for years in all sorts of different fossils.

Can you define evolution in its biological context? Yes sir.

Well, please define it for us. We all saw BobEnyart attempt and accept evolution by definition, and this should be easy since I gave the biological definition and cited sources you should trust.

he_who_is_nobody, I predict that you will ask me for evidence that DNA has been discovered in dinosaur fossils. I cannot provide you with that at the moment, so please tell me what you would think if DNA was discovered.

As I stated before, this would change our ideas of fossilization, but I would also say that like with all the discoveries of soft tissue (which support the bird-dinosaur clade), the DNA found would support the bird-dinosaur clade. One of the questions you are still ignoring deals with his very issue.

However, I should just say claims made without evidence can (and will be) dismissed without evidence.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I will make one concession though: You could equally well argue that they are scientists when they're not being creationists, meaning they're inconsistent. That would make them bad scientists to the point of not being noteworthy, so it boils down to the same point.

Morton's Demon.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

YesYouNeedJesus, can you tell us why the T. rex and all the other non-avian dinosaurs are found below the K-Pg Boundary and why there are no non-avian dinosaurs above it? I do not know that to be true and if true, I cannot tell you why.

I'm thinking that YYNJ might be trying to use the K-Pg boundary as the actual flood event (something that would be indicative of a global flood event). But we know that a higher percentage of iridium found at this point suggests that an asteroid is responsible for a mass extinction event that was likely the demise of the "non-avian" dinosaurs.

"Alvarez, LW, Alvarez, W, Asaro, F, and Michel, HV (1980). "Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction". Science 208 (4448): 1095-1108."

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I'm thinking that YYNJ might be trying to use the K-Pg boundary as the actual flood event (something that would be indicative of a global flood event). But we know that a higher percentage of iridium found at this point suggests that an asteroid is responsible for a mass extinction event that was likely the demise of the "non-avian" dinosaurs.

Furthermore, the way that the K-Pg boundary was formed in no way is evidence of rapid deposition, which is what we see when floods happen. The K-Pg boundary is best discovered in areas that had slow moving water, such as lakes and swamps, and other slow depositional environments.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Not since he substituted doing science for faith based nonsense. FYI, I don't represent LoR either.

So he's not doing science at Cornell? http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/cals/hort/people/sanford.cfm

...

How exactly does one go from being a scientist to not being a scientist?

For an example of such and why, read about Kurt Wise.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

For example, the 3,000 scientists and professors (most of whom hold a Ph.D. in some field of science) who reject secular Darwinism to varying degrees who have been identified by Dr. Jerry Bergman and named online would all agree with the definition you posted above, as would the Intelligent Design movement, and as would the more than 100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that "intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution." I discuss this in response to Lawrence Krauss claiming falsely that all scientists are Darwinists.

I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with your view of what is "scientific". What is the model of ID and what types of data support it?

Isaac Newton believed in special creation. Are you using Isaac Newton's definition of a scientist and denying that he was one at the same time?

Isaac Newton taught that forces acted instantly across any distance, he was also an alchemist.
This argument about "was X a scientist" means absolutely didly squat to me. Because why would it matter if X was a scientist or not? I will tell you why, because you are committing the fallacy of appeal to authority, it means that You don't know the subject "but look at here at X, he/she is Super-duper knows about this things and say Z" therefore Z is right.
I'm just very upset about people that pretend to be scientist, making absurd claims about fields they know absolutely nothing about and that clearly haven't followed any scientific process or have respect for it and yet expect to be taken serious. If you are not a scientist, tried to follow the proper scientific methods and reached the wrong conclusion, I can respect that because at least you would have done your best to actually try and know things instead of pretending that you already know things.
There are 2 qualities that I find to be important in a scientist, neutral and honest.
Being biased makes you a very bad scientist, but being dishonest disqualifies you entirely (if you are going to make shit up why not invent that you can make dragons by mixing water, gold and the tears of orphan cats?), and the so called Creationist "Scientist" are both biased and dishonest.
A good scientist should be able to create good models from observation, it should be able to infer things from those models that go beyond what was already seen on previous observations and check them against the real world. It should be able to collect data, process data, relate that data to the model and take conclusions.
The vast majority of ID papers (if not all of what I have seen so far), there isn't an effort to have a model (all they do is put into big brackets what suits them), they don't make (and cannot make) any inferences (you are stagnated to what is already known, until someone does proper science that they can't deny, and they are forced to put a new item a.k.a. excuse in the big brackets) , data is window dressing, they don't collect data themselves (they cherry pick them from someone else) , the process is clumsy and the conclusion does not follow.
I.D. papers are an amalgamation of "X author says Z and Y says W" without any practical content, a papers like that could only at best say something about the models that wasn't previously expected (like a new prediction of a strange phenomenon, or a limitation); but I.D. papers not only don't say anything new about the model, they instead make conclusion about the real world without any experiment.
If Newton tried to do the same shit that "Creationists Scientists" do, he would not be called a scientist.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

His claim was based on the evidence that he's seen. You seem to have a double standard here.

Kindly post the evidence he gave to support his claim.

He didn't give evidence. He's intelligent and I would assume that he came to his conclusion based on evidence and not blind faith. But maybe you think less of him than I do?

 

[Darkprophet232]

He's intelligent and I would assume that he came to his conclusion based on evidence and not blind faith.

(Emphasis mine)

Oh this is just too damn funny to not highlight.