Cognitive dissonance in Kentucky

Well if they want to give tax breaks to people who deny science, then I guess they will get what they deserve. Especially if they allow those people to use the money to promote their own religion, something that is expressly forbidden by the constitution. Some one needs to point this out when they go begging for federal dollars to bail them out of the mess they made by breaking federal laws.

And someone should also make sure the Farce Park pays their water bills.

Minimize cognition, and you minimize cognitive dissonance.

See, Ken Ham is working on the problem of cognitive dissonance.

Glen Davidson

Not just in Kentucky, but many states have elected some of the dumbest people into the legislature in modern history. All these people can do is posture. Old Hambo's con game has received millions of dollars of support from the state. Small business owners in Kentucky should be furious.

A creationist would sum it this way.
the editorial is truly trying to manipulate things for a anti-creationist, anti-global warming criticism, stance.
The state is not denying science. It simply is reflecting, in a very minor way, different conclusions of the tax paying public.
Saying its dENYING SCIENCE to believe in creationism is just not persuasive to the majority. they somebody they respect/like who is a creationist or a evolutionist. Neither is DENYING SCIENCE.

Its not losing tax money by these tax outs. In fact its ghained money by the creationist investment.
Questioning global warming based on scientific reasons is not denying science. its just old fashioned questioning conclusions based on science.
I think its fable that man can affect the globe's weather in whole or part based on our trivial puffs of smoke.
I don't see how and i don't see change and never will.
i suspect its the upper classes wanting to make a greener, cleaner, world for their second house. i mean they are more willing to believe the dire claims.

The denying science claim is to be a strange and wrong reaction to the rising creationist movement.
I welcome it because the more attention there is to the issues the more people listen and will be persuaded to the right side.
Its still a funny thing though. it discredits them to accuse everyone of denying science because of denying a few conclusions in a few subjects touching on the inviable ancient origins of this and that.
Finally it is a attack on Christian doctrines for many.
I guess they know what they are doing.

Robert Byers said: A creationist would sum it this way. the editorial is truly trying to manipulate things for a anti-creationist, anti-global warming criticism, stance. The state is not denying science. It simply is reflecting, in a very minor way, different conclusions of the tax paying public. Saying its dENYING SCIENCE to believe in creationism is just not persuasive to the majority. they somebody they respect/like who is a creationist or a evolutionist. Neither is DENYING SCIENCE. Its not losing tax money by these tax outs. In fact its ghained money by the creationist investment. Questioning global warming based on scientific reasons is not denying science. its just old fashioned questioning conclusions based on science. I think its fable that man can affect the globe's weather in whole or part based on our trivial puffs of smoke. I don't see how and i don't see change and never will. i suspect its the upper classes wanting to make a greener, cleaner, world for their second house. i mean they are more willing to believe the dire claims. The denying science claim is to be a strange and wrong reaction to the rising creationist movement. I welcome it because the more attention there is to the issues the more people listen and will be persuaded to the right side. Its still a funny thing though. it discredits them to accuse everyone of denying science because of denying a few conclusions in a few subjects touching on the inviable ancient origins of this and that. Finally it is a attack on Christian doctrines for many. I guess they know what they are doing.

Test.

Test too.

I sometimes have tried to engage Byers in the subject of DNA and heredity but he's always ignored that. His view of nature is that species can make dramatic changes to morphology in no time at all, like for instance wolves suddenly turning into thylacines. He has noe explanation for how that could happen, and won't be bothered with quesitions about DNA and heredity. He just "think" and the answer pops out of what he uses for a brain.

Robert Byers said: Its not losing tax money by these tax outs.

Kentucky and other states in the region tend to go for the "race to the bottom" model of economic development, even putting creationism aside.

Right wing governors brag that local residents will accept low pay, local residents will accept poor working conditions, local residents will accept a polluted environment, and local residents will accept poor public services. They compete for businesses most eager to hire low paid, badly treated labor, and most obsessed with avoiding any local taxation and any respect for the local environment.

They literally claim that this model will "increase jobs" and "decrease unemployment", but they typically don't even achieve low unemployment. (And if they do, a region with crap wages and low unemployment is often just a region qualified people are fleeing. If half the population of your town is on social security and most of the rest work for minimum wage at the chicken slaughterhouse or local Family Dollar store, and no-one is actively seeking work, you might have superficially low unemployment, butit might just mean that anybody smart enough to do better than that left town. But as I said, a lot of the "race to the bottom" states don't even have low unemployment.)

This is a bad model on two levels. On one level, it's just a bad model because it's not rational. It isn't how you build a local economy. Badly paid workers don't have money to spend. Right off the bat businesses that want an affluent local customer base aren't attracted. You're only attracting businesses that want to do low cost assembly, put as little as possible into your local economy, and sell elsewhere.

It isn't "pro-business". It's pro- a certain type of business, typically the least desirable business citizen, at the expense of other types of business. Ham is a great example. He'll pay crap wages and crap benefits, and has already stated that he plans to discriminate in hiring for those crap jobs. His project provides no significant benefit to local residents. Even if it weren't an embarrassment that will likely drive down quality tourism, it's at best a low rent amusement park. And taxpayers of KY are subsidizing this. I'm no fan of government subsidizing for profit businesses anyway. But if you do, at least subsidize a valuable business.

The second "problem" is that in a global economy a US jurisdiction can't ever reach the bottom. You can't compete with Bangladesh or China for lowest level manufacturing. The only thing dumber than wanting to "develop" your economy by promoting low education, low wages, bad work conditions, polluted local environment, poor local health services, poor public infrastructure, local government with no revenue, and corruption, is wanting to do that, but being unable to do it as well as Cambodia.

Contrary to stereotypes, KY has some better traditions than this. But as the comments to the original show, there is a lot of local brainwash as well.

Climate "scientists" for hire don't fool judge.

American's United has an update to the ark story.

Road To Nowhere?: Ky. Officials Ramp Up Support For ‘Ark Park’
https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/road-to-nowhere-ky-officials-ramp-up-support-for-ark-park

$10 million for road improvements, $18 million for tax incentives. And new films of the glorious ark being built. Notice please the skylights and air conditioning units on Ham's exact replica of the ark!

Robert Byers said: A creationist would sum it this way. the editorial is truly trying to manipulate things for a anti-creationist, anti-global warming criticism, stance. The state is not denying science. It simply is reflecting, in a very minor way, different conclusions of the tax paying public. Saying its dENYING SCIENCE to believe in creationism is just not persuasive to the majority. they somebody they respect/like who is a creationist or a evolutionist. Neither is DENYING SCIENCE.

Pssst... Eric. Being a native speaker doesn't help.

Eric Finn said: Dear Robert Byers, I do not visit this site very often nowadays, but I have noticed that you are one of the opponents to the general trends promoted at this site. The problem for me in your writings appears to be that I am not a native speaker in English language. Let’s take an example.

Robert Byers said: A creationist would sum it this way. the editorial is truly trying to manipulate things for a anti-creationist, anti-global warming criticism, stance. The state is not denying science. It simply is reflecting, in a very minor way, different conclusions of the tax paying public. Saying its dENYING SCIENCE to believe in creationism is just not persuasive to the majority. they somebody they respect/like who is a creationist or a evolutionist. Neither is DENYING SCIENCE.

Occasional spelling mistakes do not distract me, but the grammar in the bolded part (my emphasis) of the quote appears quite confusing. I presume you tried to say something important, since you used capital letters. I failed to find any recognisable logic in that part of your post. Would you be willing to consider the non-native speakers in the audience in your future posts ? Regards Eric Finn

Robert Byers said: i said that announcing that those who disagree with evolution/global warming are by definition DENYING SCIENCE is NOT persuasive to the vast majority of people. One reason being EVERYBODY knows somebody who is a creationist or evolutionist and they like them or respect thier intelligence. In short they accept they get things wrong about certain conclusions in science contentions WITHOUT saying they deny SCIENCE as tool for knowledge. Yet its a fad lately to try to define creationist/warming denialists as such. It won't work and in fact discredits a little.

i said that announcing that those who disagree with evolution/global warming are by definition DENYING SCIENCE is NOT persuasive to the vast majority of people.

One reason being EVERYBODY knows somebody who is a creationist or evolutionist and they like them or respect thier intelligence.

In short they accept they get things wrong about certain conclusions in science contentions WITHOUT saying they deny SCIENCE as tool for knowledge. Yet its a fad lately to try to define creationist/warming denialists as such. It won’t work and in fact discredits a little.

harold said: Robert Byers said -

i said that announcing that those who disagree with evolution/global warming are by definition DENYING SCIENCE is NOT persuasive to the vast majority of people.

Note that this has nothing to do with whether or not evolution and climate change denial actually are science denial, but it is a relevant point in this context. In fact denial of these well established scientific facts IS by definition science denial. Furthermore, although a decent sized minority of the population denies both, it is a minority. But in a sense Byers is making the subtle point that there exist people who, while not denying evolution and climate change themselves, are unaware of how extreme a form of science denial this would be. I think he is partly right. In short, there are the outright deniers (a loud minority), there are those of us who realize how absurd the denial is (at least another very large minority if not a majority), but there are also those who don't deny but underestimate how much evidence the deniers are denying, so to speak. The latter group may at times not be active enough in rejecting denial.

One reason being EVERYBODY knows somebody who is a creationist or evolutionist and they like them or respect thier intelligence.

The main driver of science denial is bias, not intelligence. I would say overall it is easier for less intelligent people to be science deniers, but yes, there are many highly intelligent science deniers. There are also many people who aren't very gifted who don't deny science. The evidence is the evidence, and when it's presented well, the threshold of academic ability required to understand it is not very high. Denial is the result of bias-driven selective ignorance. After all, people who can't understand something rarely say "I can't understand it so it can't be true". That attitude occasionally occurs, but shows emotional problems. It is very, very common for people to accept that, say, mathematicians or oncologists or experts in Latin grammar, can be correct about things that they don't personally understand. So denial really comes more from bias than from ignorance or stupidity. Those can probably assist in maintaining bias, but they aren't the direct cause.

In short they accept they get things wrong about certain conclusions in science contentions WITHOUT saying they deny SCIENCE as tool for knowledge. Yet its a fad lately to try to define creationist/warming denialists as such. It won’t work and in fact discredits a little.

Here Byers is wrong and in fact reveals an anxiety. He knows that when it is explained that creationism is science denial, this does have a strong effect on many people. It doesn't discredit science to point out that biased, political denial is denial.

Robert Byers said: I think if more of the public heard creationism etc they would be persuaded in droves.

Gods you're half-witted, Byers.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: I think if more of the public heard creationism etc they would be persuaded in droves.

So what exactly is your explanation for the period 1800-1900? During that time, probably literally everyone living in the west was familiar with creationism. Yet scientists during this period started rejecting young earth creationism in droves. Its also worth noting that all these creation-familiar scientists started rejecting the "young earth" part of YECism before Darwin had even written the OOS. So you can't chalk that up to Darwinism (unless you think Darwin had a time machine).

eric said:

Robert Byers said: I think if more of the public heard creationism etc they would be persuaded in droves.

So what exactly is your explanation for the period 1800-1900? During that time, probably literally everyone living in the west was familiar with creationism. Yet scientists during this period started rejecting young earth creationism in droves. Its also worth noting that all these creation-familiar scientists started rejecting the "young earth" part of YECism before Darwin had even written the OOS. So you can't chalk that up to Darwinism (unless you think Darwin had a time machine).

Robert Byers said: Evolution never persuaded evangelical protestants or any bible believing people.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: Evolution never persuaded evangelical protestants or any bible believing people.

That's a lie, Robert Byers.

Around the start of the 20th century some evangelical scholars had ideas accommodating evolution, such as B. B. Warfield who saw it as a natural law expressing God's will. -- Wikipedia

Kentucky is an odd place to try to understand for those of us living outside the US. My good friend Brandon from Maryland,(or as he informs me, 'Merrilind'), says that my feeling is also felt by most US citizens; I cannot commenton on that. I can however point out that if you are frustrated by Byers then simply derail his attempts at derailment. Confront this 'liar for Jesus' with questions he cannot deal with, ideas that frustrate him to the point of Christian anger.
Are Catholics true christians?, or Lutherans, or all the assorted sub-species of this 'Kind'i.e.'true christians'?
Who the hell will actually get to heaven, to twiddle their thumbs for eternity, in your, and your like minded lunkhead's company?
Why does Ham use modern machinery to build his Ark?
Can Ham's Ark float?
Will you visit the Ark and be spellbound in slackjawed yokal amazement at a manmade structure, when looking through a store bought cheap telescope exposes wonders far more wonderful than your tedious, tiny ark, or some bush ignited in a desert?
This article is about the frustration rational people feel at the futility of the Kentuckian government's obvious religious biases. This bias, like evolution, is irrefutable, and as such massive denial is employed to cover it up.

Robert Byers said: Yet you are still saying that rejecting evolution/warming is science denial. Its not a motive to deny science. So its not science denial as a methodology or/and authority. Its denying conclusions in certain subjects. The denial is founded on solid ground. Its just the others who say it isn't. If you want to say BY NOW no one can deny evolution/warming and so are rejecting SCIENCE well thats just a opinion. The evolutionists are not saying what you say. They present to the public that any denial of thier conclusions on evolution/warming is a dismissal of the scientific world in figuring things out. Its not. Its rejection of conclusions and the rejection is well contended for.

Let us keep in mind that the rejection is not only a rejection of the methodology of science, for it does not offer an alternative methodology. If the best that one can offer is that science is "only an opinion", then anyone's opinion is just as good, and that is the way to anarchy.

And that is politics, not knowledge. One can have a political revolution based on the old regime being rotten without offering an alternative. But no intellectual revolution works that way. Not science, but also not art nor history nor law nor philosophy nor theology nor ...

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Yet you are still saying that rejecting evolution/warming is science denial. Its not a motive to deny science. So its not science denial as a methodology or/and authority. Its denying conclusions in certain subjects. The denial is founded on solid ground. Its just the others who say it isn't. If you want to say BY NOW no one can deny evolution/warming and so are rejecting SCIENCE well thats just a opinion. The evolutionists are not saying what you say. They present to the public that any denial of thier conclusions on evolution/warming is a dismissal of the scientific world in figuring things out. Its not. Its rejection of conclusions and the rejection is well contended for.

Robert, you have said yourself, on this web site, numerous times, that biologists aren't "doing science", in your opinion. You not only reject the conclusions of Science, you reject the methodology of Science, you reject the very process of Science. Michael Behe himself said, in court, that the definition, the very process, the methodology of Science must be changed must be fundamentally changed to allow for the consideration of supernatural actions. A US Congressman has publicly declared that all of Science are "lies, straight from the pit of hell". Ken Ham and AIG flatly reject and explicitly deny the very process of Science, even before they get to the conclusions of Science. They start with the conclusion that everything in the Bible is literal truth, and they explicitly and proudly reject any evidence that contradicts that explicit presupposition. That is completely backwards from how Science is defined and actually works in practice. It is the exact opposite of Science. So, no Robert. You are wrong. Creationists and Creationism and you yourself explicitly and categorically reject both the conclusions of Science, and the very process of Science itself. It's not, "just an opinion". To explicitly reject and deny the process and legitimacy of Science, is, by definition, "Science Denial". It doesn't matter if that label makes you and other Creationists feel bad. It is simply the truth. If that reality, if that truth makes you feel bad, then stop denying Science.

Robert Byers said: In our assertions of ideas we include the witness of scripture.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Yet you are still saying that rejecting evolution/warming is science denial. Its not a motive to deny science. So its not science denial as a methodology or/and authority. Its denying conclusions in certain subjects. The denial is founded on solid ground. Its just the others who say it isn't. If you want to say BY NOW no one can deny evolution/warming and so are rejecting SCIENCE well thats just a opinion. The evolutionists are not saying what you say. They present to the public that any denial of thier conclusions on evolution/warming is a dismissal of the scientific world in figuring things out. Its not. Its rejection of conclusions and the rejection is well contended for.

Robert, you have said yourself, on this web site, numerous times, that biologists aren't "doing science", in your opinion. You not only reject the conclusions of Science, you reject the methodology of Science, you reject the very process of Science. Michael Behe himself said, in court, that the definition, the very process, the methodology of Science must be changed must be fundamentally changed to allow for the consideration of supernatural actions. A US Congressman has publicly declared that all of Science are "lies, straight from the pit of hell". Ken Ham and AIG flatly reject and explicitly deny the very process of Science, even before they get to the conclusions of Science. They start with the conclusion that everything in the Bible is literal truth, and they explicitly and proudly reject any evidence that contradicts that explicit presupposition. That is completely backwards from how Science is defined and actually works in practice. It is the exact opposite of Science. So, no Robert. You are wrong. Creationists and Creationism and you yourself explicitly and categorically reject both the conclusions of Science, and the very process of Science itself. It's not, "just an opinion". To explicitly reject and deny the process and legitimacy of Science, is, by definition, "Science Denial". It doesn't matter if that label makes you and other Creationists feel bad. It is simply the truth. If that reality, if that truth makes you feel bad, then stop denying Science.

NO. I said evolutionary conclusions are not based on biological scientific evidence. nothing to do with biology or biologists. Its evolutionary biologists i refer too.

Organized creationism does excellent science using scientific methodology in our criticisms of the other side.

In our assertions of ideas we include the witness of scripture.

if your sides science was accurate you would be able the brush us aside.

Yet you don't do that successfully.

YEC/ID embraces science and in fact we would say we do better at it where we focus.

We do not deny science or scientific methodology.

Denying the supernatural is in fact not doing accurate methodology since a option has already been ruled out. To God its not SUPER natural but natural.

I will happily accept the reality of the supernatural as soon as there is even a teeny tiny bit of empirical evidence for it.

But as far as I know, there is no such evidence.

Got any, Robert Byers?

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: In our assertions of ideas we include the witness of scripture.

But "the witness of scripture" is not true, Robert Byers. Scripture is nothing but superstitious fantasy. In reality, there are no gods, no demigods, no miracles. etc. Your "witness" is a false witness. You cannot rely on it for scientific truth.

Scott F said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: In our assertions of ideas we include the witness of scripture.

But "the witness of scripture" is not true, Robert Byers. Scripture is nothing but superstitious fantasy. In reality, there are no gods, no demigods, no miracles. etc. Your "witness" is a false witness. You cannot rely on it for scientific truth.

If fact, as far as Science is concerned, it is irrelevant whether Scripture is "true" or "false". The scientific question is whether it is measurable and repeatable. If it isn't measurable and repeatable, then it isn't Evidence, and so it isn't Science. For example, Darwin's "OOS" isn't "true", in the most basic sense. It's chock full of holes. Yet, it is Science. It is a distillation of observation, measurement, evidence, and reasoning. Science doesn't deal with "Truth". Science deals with what can be demonstrated. Isaac Newton's greatest work wasn't "true" either. It was simply better than any other explanation that had come before it. It was useful. Einstein's greatest work most likely isn't "true" either. But, it is useful. We just don't know enough yet to know what will replace it. But, we know that something will replace it. Scripture is neither "true" nor "false", in a Scientific sense. Scripture is simply useless as far as Science is concerned.

phhht said: "True" in this context means, to me, supported by empirical evidence. If there is good, sound empirical evidence for the existence of a thing - for example, like apples, zebras, cosmic background radiation, electromagnetism, or the Higgs boson - then we may truthfully say that the thing in question exists. If there is no such evidence - like, for example, vampires, superheroes, gods, demigods, or miracles - then we may truthfully say that no such thing exists.

Scott F said: Trying to measure "Truth" using "Evidence".

booby,

Your denial of science denial is denied.

“True” in this context means, to me, supported by empirical evidence. If there is good, sound empirical evidence for the existence of a thing - for example, like apples, zebras, cosmic background radiation, electromagnetism, or the Higgs boson - then we may truthfully say that the thing in question exists. If there is no such evidence - like, for example, vampires, superheroes, gods, demigods, or miracles - then we may truthfully say that no such thing exists.

harold said:

“True” in this context means, to me, supported by empirical evidence. If there is good, sound empirical evidence for the existence of a thing - for example, like apples, zebras, cosmic background radiation, electromagnetism, or the Higgs boson - then we may truthfully say that the thing in question exists. If there is no such evidence - like, for example, vampires, superheroes, gods, demigods, or miracles - then we may truthfully say that no such thing exists.

There's a spectrum of likelihood that propositions are correct. Mathematical proofs and strongly supported scientific facts are essentially certain to be true, and contradictions of them, like creationism, are by definition false. Things for which definitive evidence does not exist may or may not be true. A strong scientific hypothesis that is supported by initial evidence, but lacking definitive support, is very likely to be true, but may still be overturned. The existence of vampires is extremely unlikely, to the point that I feel very comfortable saying that I don't believe in ghosts or vampires. However, even in math itself there are propositions which may or may not be true.

Scott F said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: In our assertions of ideas we include the witness of scripture.

But "the witness of scripture" is not true, Robert Byers. Scripture is nothing but superstitious fantasy. In reality, there are no gods, no demigods, no miracles. etc. Your "witness" is a false witness. You cannot rely on it for scientific truth.

If fact, as far as Science is concerned, it is irrelevant whether Scripture is "true" or "false". The scientific question is whether it is measurable and repeatable. If it isn't measurable and repeatable, then it isn't Evidence, and so it isn't Science. For example, Darwin's "OOS" isn't "true", in the most basic sense. It's chock full of holes. Yet, it is Science. It is a distillation of observation, measurement, evidence, and reasoning. Science doesn't deal with "Truth". Science deals with what can be demonstrated. Isaac Newton's greatest work wasn't "true" either. It was simply better than any other explanation that had come before it. It was useful. Einstein's greatest work most likely isn't "true" either. But, it is useful. We just don't know enough yet to know what will replace it. But, we know that something will replace it. Scripture is neither "true" nor "false", in a Scientific sense. Scripture is simply useless as far as Science is concerned.

harold said:

“True” in this context means, to me, supported by empirical evidence. If there is good, sound empirical evidence for the existence of a thing - for example, like apples, zebras, cosmic background radiation, electromagnetism, or the Higgs boson - then we may truthfully say that the thing in question exists. If there is no such evidence - like, for example, vampires, superheroes, gods, demigods, or miracles - then we may truthfully say that no such thing exists.

There's a spectrum of likelihood that propositions are correct. Mathematical proofs and strongly supported scientific facts are essentially certain to be true, and contradictions of them, like creationism, are by definition false. Things for which definitive evidence does not exist may or may not be true. A strong scientific hypothesis that is supported by initial evidence, but lacking definitive support, is very likely to be true, but may still be overturned. The existence of vampires is extremely unlikely, to the point that I feel very comfortable saying that I don't believe in ghosts or vampires. However, even in math itself there are propositions which may or may not be true.

Robert Byers said: We are confident in the witness but your side can try.

Robert, name a "biological process" that you think WOULD have a bearing on the truth or falsehood of evolution.

It seems to me that you simply rule out every "biological process", like "comparative genetics, anatomy, biogeography, fossils/geology, everything..." that is evidence of evolution. And if anyone brings up any other "biological process", you'll simply declare that, no, that's not a "biological process" either. So what do you think "biological processes" are? Anything that can't be attributed to evolution in any way?

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: We are confident in the witness but your side can try.

Great! Tell me how I can scientifically test the alleged truth of the alleged resurrection of christ. In order to do that, you must present a series of steps that I can do myself to confirm or disprove your assertions that, for example, your demigod rose from the dead. You must say how I can test 1) that your demigod was dead in the first place, and 2) that he actually returned to life. Good luck, Robert Byers! You will need it. But I'm betting you cannot do it. I'm betting you will run away with tears in your eyes, like a little girl, before you even attempt it.

Just Bob said: Robert, name a "biological process" that you think WOULD have a bearing on the truth or falsehood of evolution. It seems to me that you simply rule out every "biological process", like "comparative genetics, anatomy, biogeography, fossils/geology, everything..." that is evidence of evolution. And if anyone brings up any other "biological process", you'll simply declare that, no, that's not a "biological process" either. So what do you think "biological processes" are? Anything that can't be attributed to evolution in any way?

phhht said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: We are confident in the witness but your side can try.

Great! Tell me how I can scientifically test the alleged truth of the alleged resurrection of christ. In order to do that, you must present a series of steps that I can do myself to confirm or disprove your assertions that, for example, your demigod rose from the dead. You must say how I can test 1) that your demigod was dead in the first place, and 2) that he actually returned to life. Good luck, Robert Byers! You will need it. But I'm betting you cannot do it. I'm betting you will run away with tears in your eyes, like a little girl, before you even attempt it.

Well, Byers? Are you running away in tears?

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: Robert, name a "biological process" that you think WOULD have a bearing on the truth or falsehood of evolution. It seems to me that you simply rule out every "biological process", like "comparative genetics, anatomy, biogeography, fossils/geology, everything..." that is evidence of evolution. And if anyone brings up any other "biological process", you'll simply declare that, no, that's not a "biological process" either. So what do you think "biological processes" are? Anything that can't be attributed to evolution in any way?

Its going way off thread and I don't want to get blamed. I'll just say I'm surprised you think hard and fast results, like your list, are processes in motion and so in evidence. They are fixed data. The processes linking them from start to finish is invisible. Your side has a problem demonstrating processes that are not witnessed. in fact evolutionism is based on figuring out these because they were not noticeable. Darwin being the big first. A creationist can always have another option for the raw facts of the LIST. Anyways its not evidence of biological processes but instead biological results where process is presumed or invoked or imagined. YES even if evolution was true this list STILL would not be bio sci evidence. Origin subjects are difficult ones compared to other subjects that invoke scientific methodology.

Robert, some viruses and maybe even bacteria (IANABiologist), HIV for instance, can evolve to become resistant to different drugs or your body's own immune defenses, right within your own body. You're alive, and the evolving micro-organisms are alive. Now, think hard, why isn't that evolution happening during "biological processes"?

Actually, it's evolution OF "biological processes."

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: Robert, name a "biological process" that you think WOULD have a bearing on the truth or falsehood of evolution. It seems to me that you simply rule out every "biological process", like "comparative genetics, anatomy, biogeography, fossils/geology, everything..." that is evidence of evolution. And if anyone brings up any other "biological process", you'll simply declare that, no, that's not a "biological process" either. So what do you think "biological processes" are? Anything that can't be attributed to evolution in any way?

Its going way off thread and I don't want to get blamed. I'll just say I'm surprised you think hard and fast results, like your list, are processes in motion and so in evidence. They are fixed data. The processes linking them from start to finish is invisible. Your side has a problem demonstrating processes that are not witnessed. in fact evolutionism is based on figuring out these because they were not noticeable. Darwin being the big first. A creationist can always have another option for the raw facts of the LIST. Anyways its not evidence of biological processes but instead biological results where process is presumed or invoked or imagined. YES even if evolution was true this list STILL would not be bio sci evidence. Origin subjects are difficult ones compared to other subjects that invoke scientific methodology.

This has been Robert's schtick all along: If it is alive, it is "biological". If it is *not* alive, it is not "biological". Period. Even if it once was alive, it is no longer "biological". It's just dead meat. Comparing two or more things that are alive is not "biological". Analyzing a part that has been removed from a live organism is not "biological". Robert's not sure about plant seeds, but (IIRC) he has expressed skepticism that seeds are "biological", because they are definitely not "alive". IIRC, it pretty much mirrors the concept of élan vital, or, "he knows it when he sees it." Thus, if you can't demonstrate "evolution" with the lifespan and with the body of a single "live" individual organism, if an individual person cannot observe it without getting bored, it isn't "biological".

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: Robert, name a "biological process" that you think WOULD have a bearing on the truth or falsehood of evolution. It seems to me that you simply rule out every "biological process", like "comparative genetics, anatomy, biogeography, fossils/geology, everything..." that is evidence of evolution. And if anyone brings up any other "biological process", you'll simply declare that, no, that's not a "biological process" either. So what do you think "biological processes" are? Anything that can't be attributed to evolution in any way?

Its going way off thread and I don't want to get blamed. I'll just say I'm surprised you think hard and fast results, like your list, are processes in motion and so in evidence. They are fixed data. The processes linking them from start to finish is invisible. Your side has a problem demonstrating processes that are not witnessed. in fact evolutionism is based on figuring out these because they were not noticeable. Darwin being the big first. A creationist can always have another option for the raw facts of the LIST. Anyways its not evidence of biological processes but instead biological results where process is presumed or invoked or imagined. YES even if evolution was true this list STILL would not be bio sci evidence. Origin subjects are difficult ones compared to other subjects that invoke scientific methodology.

This has been Robert's schtick all along: If it is alive, it is "biological". If it is *not* alive, it is not "biological". Period. Even if it once was alive, it is no longer "biological". It's just dead meat. Comparing two or more things that are alive is not "biological". Analyzing a part that has been removed from a live organism is not "biological". Robert's not sure about plant seeds, but (IIRC) he has expressed skepticism that seeds are "biological", because they are definitely not "alive". IIRC, it pretty much mirrors the concept of élan vital, or, "he knows it when he sees it." Thus, if you can't demonstrate "evolution" with the lifespan and with the body of a single "live" individual organism, if an individual person cannot observe it without getting bored, it isn't "biological".

I think I know the word schtick if its the one they use in showbiz. Its not about being dead. Its about finish results. A creature could be alive but one does not see its ancestors it evolved from. So the biological process is not examined/testable but only presumed or guessed at. We are talking about biological processes and not results. Only to explain the results. Yet evolutionists don't show the evidence for the processes bvut only show the results and hypothesis about how that happened. Fine. BUT then they use the results and say they are bio sci evidence for the processes. They are not. They are data points only. Comparing things is not demonstrating process. If evolution was true it would be damn hard to show bio sci evidence. Yet if not true the error of thinking evolution was true would be hidden in the error of THINKING one is proving evolution is true by using data points. Many times on this blog they make trees about descent whose only evidence for it is the presumption its true. Thats bot bio sci evidence. Why do theyt think it is? Creationism can provide other option(s).

Just Bob said: Robert, some viruses and maybe even bacteria (IANABiologist), HIV for instance, can evolve to become resistant to different drugs or your body's own immune defenses, right within your own body. You're alive, and the evolving micro-organisms are alive. Now, think hard, why isn't that evolution happening during "biological processes"? Actually, it's evolution OF "biological processes."

Just Bob asked: ...what do you think "biological processes" are?

How about it, Robert? If you demand that evolutionists have to only consider "biological processes", and you don't think that any of the things we think of as biological processes are really biological processes, then it's only fair to tell us what things ARE "biological processes". With, as gnome says, examples.

If you can't or won't do that, then you're just playing childish word games

Just Bob said: How about it, Robert? If you demand that evolutionists have to only consider "biological processes", and you don't think that any of the things we think of as biological processes are really biological processes, then it's only fair to tell us what things ARE "biological processes". With, as gnome says, examples. If you can't or won't do that, then you're just playing childish word games

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: How about it, Robert? If you demand that evolutionists have to only consider "biological processes", and you don't think that any of the things we think of as biological processes are really biological processes, then it's only fair to tell us what things ARE "biological processes". With, as gnome says, examples. If you can't or won't do that, then you're just playing childish word games

... brain goo...

Robert Byers said: It is your great problem and why you can prove evolution....

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: How about it, Robert? If you demand that evolutionists have to only consider "biological processes", and you don't think that any of the things we think of as biological processes are really biological processes, then it's only fair to tell us what things ARE "biological processes". With, as gnome says, examples. If you can't or won't do that, then you're just playing childish word games

its telling that you guys run from this. It is your great problem and why you can prove evolution. In our living bodies we have processes working. Our blood moving, digestion, immune, brain goo, skin reparing itself. All these can be observed, interfgered with or helped along. these are biological processes on a biological entity. A living being. Evolutionism tries to figure out the origins of the Beings. it says it shows how biological processes did the trick. It says it has biological evidence for this. Yet they do not. They just use biological results and speculate on processes from start to finish. Its a long rant about bio data points but no bio evidence in actual process. Indeed its very hard to show it whatever is true. Its all comparative in the end. no processes are shown to have been working but only hypothesis on working. So if a creationist says there is no bio sci evidence for evolution and this means actual biology or living process/mechanism then its up to evolutionists to prove us wrong. Just show the evidence. they can't. So they show comparative data and announce that as bio sci evidence. Yet its only finished products of biology processes.

Robert Byers said: In our living bodies we have processes working. Our blood moving, digestion, immune, brain goo, skin reparing itself. All these can be observed, interfgered with or helped along. these are biological processes on a biological entity. A living being.

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: In our living bodies we have processes working. Our blood moving, digestion, immune, brain goo, skin reparing itself. All these can be observed, interfgered with or helped along. these are biological processes on a biological entity. A living being.

Thanks, Robert. We're making progress. Can you now tell us whether genomics and DNA analysis involve the investigation of “biological processes”?

Heck, if DNA is atomic, then it ought to be elementary, too? Or am I confused?

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: How about it, Robert? If you demand that evolutionists have to only consider "biological processes", and you don't think that any of the things we think of as biological processes are really biological processes, then it's only fair to tell us what things ARE "biological processes". With, as gnome says, examples. If you can't or won't do that, then you're just playing childish word games

its telling that you guys run from this.

It is your great problem and why you can prove evolution. In our living bodies we have processes working. Our blood moving, digestion, immune, brain goo, skin reparing itself. All these can be observed, interfgered with or helped along.

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: How about it, Robert? If you demand that evolutionists have to only consider "biological processes", and you don't think that any of the things we think of as biological processes are really biological processes, then it's only fair to tell us what things ARE "biological processes". With, as gnome says, examples. If you can't or won't do that, then you're just playing childish word games

its telling that you guys run from this.

Nobody is running from anything. You have said that you won't accept any evidence that you don't like, therefore God. THe rest of us think that you have no clue what you are talking about.

It is your great problem and why you can prove evolution. In our living bodies we have processes working. Our blood moving, digestion, immune, brain goo, skin reparing itself. All these can be observed, interfgered with or helped along.

And what methods of observation would you accept? You keep burbling on about "biological methods", but you never state what methods you are talking about.

Robert Byers said: Using bio data points is not bio evidence for bio processes.

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: How about it, Robert? If you demand that evolutionists have to only consider "biological processes", and you don't think that any of the things we think of as biological processes are really biological processes, then it's only fair to tell us what things ARE "biological processes". With, as gnome says, examples. If you can't or won't do that, then you're just playing childish word games

its telling that you guys run from this.

Nobody is running from anything. You have said that you won't accept any evidence that you don't like, therefore God. THe rest of us think that you have no clue what you are talking about.

It is your great problem and why you can prove evolution. In our living bodies we have processes working. Our blood moving, digestion, immune, brain goo, skin reparing itself. All these can be observed, interfgered with or helped along.

And what methods of observation would you accept? You keep burbling on about "biological methods", but you never state what methods you are talking about.

Hey i gave you actual biological processes.

Robert, where do you get that "none of that stuff counts as bio processes so it's not evidence of evolution" idea? Is that a claim of AIG or ICR or DI or some such? Or maybe a particular book by a creationist?

Or is Robert Byers the lone voice crying in the wilderness who has discovered this Devastating Truth that Utterly Demolishes Evolution?

Since other creationists, either organizations or individuals, don't seem to be proclaiming right and left that all the biology that biologists call 'biology' is not really biology... why do you think that is? Haven't you explained it to them?

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: How about it, Robert? If you demand that evolutionists have to only consider "biological processes", and you don't think that any of the things we think of as biological processes are really biological processes, then it's only fair to tell us what things ARE "biological processes". With, as gnome says, examples. If you can't or won't do that, then you're just playing childish word games

its telling that you guys run from this.

Nobody is running from anything. You have said that you won't accept any evidence that you don't like, therefore God. THe rest of us think that you have no clue what you are talking about.

It is your great problem and why you can prove evolution. In our living bodies we have processes working. Our blood moving, digestion, immune, brain goo, skin reparing itself. All these can be observed, interfgered with or helped along.

And what methods of observation would you accept? You keep burbling on about "biological methods", but you never state what methods you are talking about.

Hey i gave you actual biological processes.

And I asked you what methods of observing those "actual biological processes" you would accept. How do we measure those processes? Be specific.

Robert Byers said: [ emphasis added ] In our living bodies we have processes working. Our blood moving, digestion, immune, brain goo, skin reparing itself. All these can be observed, interfgered with or helped along. these are biological processes on a biological entity. A living being.

Your side has a problem demonstrating processes that are not witnessed.

A creature could be alive but one does not see its ancestors it evolved from. So the biological process is not examined/testable but only presumed or guessed at.

Comparing things is not demonstrating process.

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Using bio data points is not bio evidence for bio processes.

If you measure and record a person's weight and height on each birthday (bio data points), that is not "bio evidence" that the person is growing (a bio process). If you measure and record a healthy person's body temperature at annual physical exams (bio data points), then an elevated body temperature (another bio data point) is not "bio evidence" of a possible infection (a bio process); and the return of that person's body temperature to the healthy, pre-elevation level (one more bio data point) is not "bio evidence" of the success of that person's immune system (a bio process). When that person was examined by a doctor, a throat swab was obtained and cultured (a bio process). The results indicated the bacterial or viral cause of the infection (when compared to previously collected "bio data points"), but this was not "bio evidence" used to select an effective treatment (which enabled another "bio process"). A person's health history is a collection of "bio data points" derived from measurements of "bio processes". When a person dies, those "bio data points" are not "bio evidence" for anything about that person's life or that the person even lived (bio processes). Comments, Robert?

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: How about it, Robert? If you demand that evolutionists have to only consider "biological processes", and you don't think that any of the things we think of as biological processes are really biological processes, then it's only fair to tell us what things ARE "biological processes". With, as gnome says, examples. If you can't or won't do that, then you're just playing childish word games

its telling that you guys run from this.

Nobody is running from anything. You have said that you won't accept any evidence that you don't like, therefore God. THe rest of us think that you have no clue what you are talking about.

It is your great problem and why you can prove evolution. In our living bodies we have processes working. Our blood moving, digestion, immune, brain goo, skin reparing itself. All these can be observed, interfgered with or helped along.

And what methods of observation would you accept? You keep burbling on about "biological methods", but you never state what methods you are talking about.

Hey i gave you actual biological processes.

And I asked you what methods of observing those "actual biological processes" you would accept. How do we measure those processes? Be specific.

Just Bob said: Since other creationists, either organizations or individuals, don't seem to be proclaiming right and left that all the biology that biologists call 'biology' is not really biology... why do you think that is? Haven't you explained it to them?

Scott F said:

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: How about it, Robert? If you demand that evolutionists have to only consider "biological processes", and you don't think that any of the things we think of as biological processes are really biological processes, then it's only fair to tell us what things ARE "biological processes". With, as gnome says, examples. If you can't or won't do that, then you're just playing childish word games

its telling that you guys run from this.

Nobody is running from anything. You have said that you won't accept any evidence that you don't like, therefore God. THe rest of us think that you have no clue what you are talking about.

It is your great problem and why you can prove evolution. In our living bodies we have processes working. Our blood moving, digestion, immune, brain goo, skin reparing itself. All these can be observed, interfgered with or helped along.

And what methods of observation would you accept? You keep burbling on about "biological methods", but you never state what methods you are talking about.

Hey i gave you actual biological processes.

And I asked you what methods of observing those "actual biological processes" you would accept. How do we measure those processes? Be specific.

Robert Byers said: [ emphasis added ] In our living bodies we have processes working. Our blood moving, digestion, immune, brain goo, skin reparing itself. All these can be observed, interfgered with or helped along. these are biological processes on a biological entity. A living being.

Your side has a problem demonstrating processes that are not witnessed.

A creature could be alive but one does not see its ancestors it evolved from. So the biological process is not examined/testable but only presumed or guessed at.

Comparing things is not demonstrating process.

We've been around this block with Robert several times before. I have come to the conclusion that Robert's method of "measurement" is the "Eyeball, Mark 1, 2 each". If you cannot visually "see" it happening in real time, in a real live individual, it never happened, it isn't a "bo process", it isn't "biology", and isn't evidence of anything. "Data points" aren't a living being, and you can't "see" the "bio process" that connects those points. "Measurements" aren't a living "bio process". Opening up a dead bird and examining its entrails is not "biology", because it is now dead. Robert has in the past stated that if it's dead, it is no longer a "bio process". Cells, and cellular processes are not "bio processes" either, because you can't see them. Changes from one generation to the next is not a "bio process" either, because you can't "see" it happening. You can't "see" how an individual inherited traits from its parents, and so ancestry is not a "bio process" either. Same with genes and DNA. I suspect that Robert cannot articulate how to "measure" a "bio process", because he has no idea what that means. To him, it's simply "obvious". If you can see it, if you (or your pastor) can "witness" to having seen it, then it's real. If you can't "see" it, it isn't real. I don't know if Robert is radically different from other Creationists. FL, to my knowledge, has never commented on, agreed with, or disagreed with anything that Robert has ever said. But I don't believe that Robert's views are that far off from (what appears to be) the Creationist mainstream in this regard. If a Creationist can't see or touch something with their own senses, or they can't find it in the Bible (or a Bible inspired web site), then it didn't happen. I find it odd that I've never seen any report of a Creationist disagreeing with any other Creationist, even when their statements contradict each other. The Scientists that I've read about do it all the time. But seldom, if ever, Creationists.

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: How about it, Robert? If you demand that evolutionists have to only consider "biological processes", and you don't think that any of the things we think of as biological processes are really biological processes, then it's only fair to tell us what things ARE "biological processes". With, as gnome says, examples. If you can't or won't do that, then you're just playing childish word games

its telling that you guys run from this.

Nobody is running from anything. You have said that you won't accept any evidence that you don't like, therefore God. THe rest of us think that you have no clue what you are talking about.

It is your great problem and why you can prove evolution. In our living bodies we have processes working. Our blood moving, digestion, immune, brain goo, skin reparing itself. All these can be observed, interfgered with or helped along.

And what methods of observation would you accept? You keep burbling on about "biological methods", but you never state what methods you are talking about.

Hey i gave you actual biological processes.

And I asked you what methods of observing those "actual biological processes" you would accept. How do we measure those processes? Be specific.

The specific examples explain how they are observed. they are today. I gave you actual examples of actual biological processes. Real movements of biology. not pictures of moments in results after bio processes as found in fossils.

Robert, do you realize how truly bizarre it is for you, who is not a biologist or scientist of any kind, to be telling biologists that what they call biology is not biology? Maybe you don't like the conclusions they draw, or their lack of involving God, or their choice of pizza toppings. But they're biologists. They get to define their field of study. What they say is biology, is biology.

Your stance is as weird as my telling a transmission repair technician that the actions of fluids under pressure can't be considered a part of transmissionology, and that anything he discovers about the behaviors of such fluids, even in transmissions, doesn't really tell us anything about transmissions.

Robert Byers said:

gnome de net said: If you measure and record a person's weight and height on each birthday (bio data points), that is not "bio evidence" that the person is growing (a bio process). If you measure and record a healthy person's body temperature at annual physical exams (bio data points), then an elevated body temperature (another bio data point) is not "bio evidence" of a possible infection (a bio process); and the return of that person's body temperature to the healthy, pre-elevation level (one more bio data point) is not "bio evidence" of the success of that person's immune system (a bio process). When that person was examined by a doctor, a throat swab was obtained and cultured (a bio process). The results indicated the bacterial or viral cause of the infection (when compared to previously collected "bio data points"), but this was not "bio evidence" used to select an effective treatment (which enabled another "bio process"). A person's health history is a collection of "bio data points" derived from measurements of "bio processes". When a person dies, those "bio data points" are not "bio evidence" for anything about that person's life or that the person even lived (bio processes). Comments, Robert?

NO! good points. Height/weight are data points. Yet they never demonstrate the REAL processes that bring growth/and so change to the next years height/weight measurement. Proving the kid grew did not prove how in anyway. Why do you think it did?

Robert Byers said: Using bio data points is not bio evidence for bio processes.

[Biologists] said they proved evolution by investigating biology. in reality they did no biology but only mere observating[sic] of biology data points.

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: Since other creationists, either organizations or individuals, don't seem to be proclaiming right and left that all the biology that biologists call 'biology' is not really biology... why do you think that is? Haven't you explained it to them?

The great Henry Morris ...

Robert Byers said: A dead bird, recently, is not the same as a living bird. its no lomnger got biological processes, like immune/digestion/eyes/brain etc going on. yet its parts are all there to be disected by some kids in a high school lab. Yet they are not examing bio processes. None are any longer going on. they are only examining bio data points.

Likewise examining the origin of the bio processes or bio data points IS not done by examining data points in fossils or comparing them or dna. I think I'm right here.

gnome de net said: If biologists have failed to support the Theory of Evolution, what about the yet-to-be-named scientists and their "bio data points"? Do they and their data support it? More importantly: will you accept any evidence that supports the ToE?

W. H. Heydt said:

gnome de net said: If biologists have failed to support the Theory of Evolution, what about the yet-to-be-named scientists and their "bio data points"? Do they and their data support it? More importantly: will you accept any evidence that supports the ToE?

No, he won't because, in his view, if the ToE is even provisionally correct, his entire belief system is invalidated and his faith is destroyed. Instead, he will continue to cling to his faith no matter what evidence is presented, no matter how well the ToE is nailed down as the best explanation for the diversity of life we have. He is threatened to his core by the very idea that he may be wrong in what he believes. As a result, he will reject ALL evidence, even if it is evidence that he can see for himself.

gnome de net said:

W. H. Heydt said:

gnome de net said: If biologists have failed to support the Theory of Evolution, what about the yet-to-be-named scientists and their "bio data points"? Do they and their data support it? More importantly: will you accept any evidence that supports the ToE?

No, he won't because, in his view, if the ToE is even provisionally correct, his entire belief system is invalidated and his faith is destroyed. Instead, he will continue to cling to his faith no matter what evidence is presented, no matter how well the ToE is nailed down as the best explanation for the diversity of life we have. He is threatened to his core by the very idea that he may be wrong in what he believes. As a result, he will reject ALL evidence, even if it is evidence that he can see for himself.

Please don't paint Robert Byers into a corner; he can do that all by himself, thank you very much. :)

Just Bob said: Robert, do you realize how truly bizarre it is for you, who is not a biologist or scientist of any kind, to be telling biologists that what they call biology is not biology? Maybe you don't like the conclusions they draw, or their lack of involving God, or their choice of pizza toppings. But they're biologists. They get to define their field of study. What they say is biology, is biology. Your stance is as weird as my telling a transmission repair technician that the actions of fluids under pressure can't be considered a part of transmissionology, and that anything he discovers about the behaviors of such fluids, even in transmissions, doesn't really tell us anything about transmissions.

So now evolutionary biologists aren't biologists - just like medical doctors aren't doctors and auto mechanics aren't mechanics.

gnome de net said:

W. H. Heydt said:

gnome de net said: If biologists have failed to support the Theory of Evolution, what about the yet-to-be-named scientists and their "bio data points"? Do they and their data support it? More importantly: will you accept any evidence that supports the ToE?

No, he won't because, in his view, if the ToE is even provisionally correct, his entire belief system is invalidated and his faith is destroyed. Instead, he will continue to cling to his faith no matter what evidence is presented, no matter how well the ToE is nailed down as the best explanation for the diversity of life we have. He is threatened to his core by the very idea that he may be wrong in what he believes. As a result, he will reject ALL evidence, even if it is evidence that he can see for himself.

Please don't paint Robert Byers into a corner; he can do that all by himself, thank you very much. :)

eric said:

Robert Byers said: A dead bird, recently, is not the same as a living bird. its no lomnger got biological processes, like immune/digestion/eyes/brain etc going on. yet its parts are all there to be disected by some kids in a high school lab. Yet they are not examing bio processes. None are any longer going on. they are only examining bio data points.

There are a lot of biological processes going on in dead birds! Firstly because not every metabolic reaction stops at the same instant, and second because a lot of the microorganisms in that bird will continue to thrive.

Likewise examining the origin of the bio processes or bio data points IS not done by examining data points in fossils or comparing them or dna. I think I'm right here.

The idea that some layperson is going to redefine what counts as a scientific discipline is pretty absurd. But that hardly matters, because the label does not carry the importance of the study. You can call "examining the origin of the bio processes or bio data points by examining data points in fossils" as "qwyjibo" instead of "biology" if it makes you feel better, scientists will then continue to do, use, and value qwyjibo. We'd start teaching qwyjibo in schools. And so on. "Biology" is just a label; the activities you're complaining about would have scientific value even if the label were changed.

Robert Byers said: It is a[n] intellectual flaw to think evolution is based on biological scientific evidence.

Robert Byers said:

gnome de net said:

W. H. Heydt said:

gnome de net said: If biologists have failed to support the Theory of Evolution, what about the yet-to-be-named scientists and their "bio data points"? Do they and their data support it? More importantly: will you accept any evidence that supports the ToE?

No, he won't because, in his view, if the ToE is even provisionally correct, his entire belief system is invalidated and his faith is destroyed. Instead, he will continue to cling to his faith no matter what evidence is presented, no matter how well the ToE is nailed down as the best explanation for the diversity of life we have. He is threatened to his core by the very idea that he may be wrong in what he believes. As a result, he will reject ALL evidence, even if it is evidence that he can see for himself.

Please don't paint Robert Byers into a corner; he can do that all by himself, thank you very much. :)

I see no biological processes being evidenced by mere bio data points. I don't see it from you. I gave examples of real bio processes. Things to study and figure out and so on.

First off, evolution is a part of biology, but even it were not, it would still be science. Creationism, on the other hand, will never be science until Robert can tell us how his god thinks.

Living systems are hierarchical and processes occur at many levels. Robert seems to think biology is restricted to the level of the individual. Multicellular individuals like us are really a population of cells - the processes going within our bodies are repeated within populations of individuals - territorial defense, predator defense, reproduction, etc. plus some other social behaviors. Populations are parts of metapopulations, species, and clades with the processes inherent to each. They are also parts of communities and ecosystems with processes there as well. All of these are dependent on being alive and interacting with both living and non-living environments.

Evolution is a fundamental part of biology and is easily studied on living populations as well as dead ones. All biology no matter what Robert thinks.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

gnome de net said:

W. H. Heydt said:

gnome de net said: If biologists have failed to support the Theory of Evolution, what about the yet-to-be-named scientists and their "bio data points"? Do they and their data support it? More importantly: will you accept any evidence that supports the ToE?

No, he won't because, in his view, if the ToE is even provisionally correct, his entire belief system is invalidated and his faith is destroyed. Instead, he will continue to cling to his faith no matter what evidence is presented, no matter how well the ToE is nailed down as the best explanation for the diversity of life we have. He is threatened to his core by the very idea that he may be wrong in what he believes. As a result, he will reject ALL evidence, even if it is evidence that he can see for himself.

Please don't paint Robert Byers into a corner; he can do that all by himself, thank you very much. :)

I see no biological processes being evidenced by mere bio data points. I don't see it from you. I gave examples of real bio processes. Things to study and figure out and so on.

You keep saying that. *How* do you propose to "study and figure out" biology? You say that what actual Scientists do isn't Science, that what Biologists do isn't Biology. How do *you* propose to "study and figure out" living organisms? Be specific. ( BTW, I have your answer written down on a post-it here. Go ahead. Prove me right. )

Michael Fugate said:...reproduction...

Michael Fugate said: First off, evolution is a part of biology, but even it were not, it would still be science. Creationism, on the other hand, will never be science until Robert can tell us how his god thinks.

Michael Fugate said: First off, evolution is a part of biology, but even it were not, it would still be science. Creationism, on the other hand, will never be science until Robert can tell us how his god thinks. Living systems are hierarchical and processes occur at many levels. Robert seems to think biology is restricted to the level of the individual. Multicellular individuals like us are really a population of cells - the processes going within our bodies are repeated within populations of individuals - territorial defense, predator defense, reproduction, etc. plus some other social behaviors. Populations are parts of metapopulations, species, and clades with the processes inherent to each. They are also parts of communities and ecosystems with processes there as well. All of these are dependent on being alive and interacting with both living and non-living environments. Evolution is a fundamental part of biology and is easily studied on living populations as well as dead ones. All biology no matter what Robert thinks.

Robert Byers said:

Michael Fugate said: First off, evolution is a part of biology, but even it were not, it would still be science. Creationism, on the other hand, will never be science until Robert can tell us how his god thinks. Living systems are hierarchical and processes occur at many levels. Robert seems to think biology is restricted to the level of the individual. Multicellular individuals like us are really a population of cells - the processes going within our bodies are repeated within populations of individuals - territorial defense, predator defense, reproduction, etc. plus some other social behaviors. Populations are parts of metapopulations, species, and clades with the processes inherent to each. They are also parts of communities and ecosystems with processes there as well. All of these are dependent on being alive and interacting with both living and non-living environments. Evolution is a fundamental part of biology and is easily studied on living populations as well as dead ones. All biology no matter what Robert thinks.

The evidence for conclusions on the evolution of biology is not based on biological scientific evidence. You didn't show any! Biological processes are not easily studied on dead creatures. There are no processes going on because of the DEAD issue. Evolution is based on comparative subjects, body, geology strata,etc and i never have seen any bio sci presented and didn't see it ONCE AGAIN. There is the minor stuff of micro evolution within species. Chump change.

Robert Byers said: The evidence for conclusions on the evolution of biology is not based on biological scientific evidence.

Robert Byers said:

Michael Fugate said: First off, evolution is a part of biology, but even it were not, it would still be science. Creationism, on the other hand, will never be science until Robert can tell us how his god thinks. Living systems are hierarchical and processes occur at many levels. Robert seems to think biology is restricted to the level of the individual. Multicellular individuals like us are really a population of cells - the processes going within our bodies are repeated within populations of individuals - territorial defense, predator defense, reproduction, etc. plus some other social behaviors. Populations are parts of metapopulations, species, and clades with the processes inherent to each. They are also parts of communities and ecosystems with processes there as well. All of these are dependent on being alive and interacting with both living and non-living environments. Evolution is a fundamental part of biology and is easily studied on living populations as well as dead ones. All biology no matter what Robert thinks.

The evidence for conclusions on the evolution of biology is not based on biological scientific evidence. You didn't show any!

"...because of the DEAD issue."

Damn, I couldn't make that stuff up if I tried.

Thank you for the clarification !

Robert Byers said: Biological processes are not easily studied on dead creatures. There are no processes going on because of the DEAD issue.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Biological processes are not easily studied on dead creatures. There are no processes going on because of the DEAD issue.

Evidently Robert subscribes to the old idea that if you dig up a dead body and find that the hair and nails have grown since you buried it, you have a zombie/ghoul/vampire on your hands. Its the only explanation. But more to the point, he seems to think it's impossible to study how a car works while the engine is off.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Biological processes are not easily studied on dead creatures. There are no processes going on because of the DEAD issue.

Evidently Robert subscribes to the old idea that if you dig up a dead body and find that the hair and nails have grown since you buried it, you have a zombie/ghoul/vampire on your hands. Its the only explanation. But more to the point, he seems to think it's impossible to study how a car works while the engine is off.

Robert Byers said: Evolution is based on comparative subjects, body, geology strata,etc and i never have seen any bio sci presented...

Robert Byers on trial for murder (it could happen):

booby: Your honor, I object to the DNA evidence.

Judge: On what grounds?

booby: On accounta the dead issue.

Judge: Excuse me.

booby; you know, cause ona counta the cells bein dead and all. And cause genetics is atomic and unproven.

Judge: Denied. Guilty as charged.

Robert Byers said:

Michael Fugate said: First off, evolution is a part of biology, but even it were not, it would still be science. Creationism, on the other hand, will never be science until Robert can tell us how his god thinks. Living systems are hierarchical and processes occur at many levels. Robert seems to think biology is restricted to the level of the individual. Multicellular individuals like us are really a population of cells - the processes going within our bodies are repeated within populations of individuals - territorial defense, predator defense, reproduction, etc. plus some other social behaviors. Populations are parts of metapopulations, species, and clades with the processes inherent to each. They are also parts of communities and ecosystems with processes there as well. All of these are dependent on being alive and interacting with both living and non-living environments. Evolution is a fundamental part of biology and is easily studied on living populations as well as dead ones. All biology no matter what Robert thinks.

The evidence for conclusions on the evolution of biology is not based on biological scientific evidence. You didn't show any! Biological processes are not easily studied on dead creatures. There are no processes going on because of the DEAD issue. Evolution is based on comparative subjects, body, geology strata,etc and i never have seen any bio sci presented and didn't see it ONCE AGAIN. There is the minor stuff of micro evolution within species. Chump change.

Michael Fugate said: I assume you and every other creationist is on board with reproduction being true and with loci and alleles from parents are given to offspring being true, correct?

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Biological processes are not easily studied on dead creatures. There are no processes going on because of the DEAD issue.

Evidently Robert subscribes to the old idea that if you dig up a dead body and find that the hair and nails have grown since you buried it, you have a zombie/ghoul/vampire on your hands. Its the only explanation. But more to the point, he seems to think it's impossible to study how a car works while the engine is off.

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said:

Michael Fugate said: First off, evolution is a part of biology, but even it were not, it would still be science. Creationism, on the other hand, will never be science until Robert can tell us how his god thinks. Living systems are hierarchical and processes occur at many levels. Robert seems to think biology is restricted to the level of the individual. Multicellular individuals like us are really a population of cells - the processes going within our bodies are repeated within populations of individuals - territorial defense, predator defense, reproduction, etc. plus some other social behaviors. Populations are parts of metapopulations, species, and clades with the processes inherent to each. They are also parts of communities and ecosystems with processes there as well. All of these are dependent on being alive and interacting with both living and non-living environments. Evolution is a fundamental part of biology and is easily studied on living populations as well as dead ones. All biology no matter what Robert thinks.

The evidence for conclusions on the evolution of biology is not based on biological scientific evidence. You didn't show any!

Maybe if you would tell us what you think constitutes "biological scientific evidence", we would be able to show you some. Be specific. Give examples. Tell us what methods you would accept. I don't just mean what you think biologists should be measuring, I mean how they should be doing it. Either that, or just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about and go away.

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Biological processes are not easily studied on dead creatures. There are no processes going on because of the DEAD issue.

Evidently Robert subscribes to the old idea that if you dig up a dead body and find that the hair and nails have grown since you buried it, you have a zombie/ghoul/vampire on your hands. Its the only explanation. But more to the point, he seems to think it's impossible to study how a car works while the engine is off.

Actually i saw a joke in a car repair shop. THE mechanic asks the heart surgeon why he only gets 25 thousand while the heart surgeon gets 250 thousand a year when they both are working on a engine. The surgeon replied BECAUSE he must work on the engine while its still running. He deals with a living thing. Not the mechanic. Same as in the investigative nature of biological origins.

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Biological processes are not easily studied on dead creatures. There are no processes going on because of the DEAD issue.

Evidently Robert subscribes to the old idea that if you dig up a dead body and find that the hair and nails have grown since you buried it, you have a zombie/ghoul/vampire on your hands. Its the only explanation. But more to the point, he seems to think it's impossible to study how a car works while the engine is off.

Actually i saw a joke in a car repair shop. THE mechanic asks the heart surgeon why he only gets 25 thousand while the heart surgeon gets 250 thousand a year when they both are working on a engine. The surgeon replied BECAUSE he must work on the engine while its still running. He deals with a living thing. Not the mechanic. Same as in the investigative nature of biological origins.

And if you know anything about auto mechanics at all, you know that mechanics often work on running engines. Many things can't be adjusted, balanced, calibrated, etc. unless it's running. But I guess in Byersland, a mechanic is not practicing auto mechanics unless the car is running. So all that other work they do on non-running engines isn't really auto mechanics, and it's not fair that they charge you for it. Just like biologists aren't really doing biology unless the critter is alive. Right, Robert?

Robert Byers said: Its up to your side to prove evo bio is a bio sci investigation.

I make a good and clear case that bio processes are not the same thing as the result of processes.

so using the results as evidence for the processes is not using the processes. So don't claim you did use the processes. you just used bio data points. So its not biological processes that evolutionism bases its evidence on. Its not biology.

Robert Byers said:

Malcolm said:

Robert Byers said:

Michael Fugate said: First off, evolution is a part of biology, but even it were not, it would still be science. Creationism, on the other hand, will never be science until Robert can tell us how his god thinks. Living systems are hierarchical and processes occur at many levels. Robert seems to think biology is restricted to the level of the individual. Multicellular individuals like us are really a population of cells - the processes going within our bodies are repeated within populations of individuals - territorial defense, predator defense, reproduction, etc. plus some other social behaviors. Populations are parts of metapopulations, species, and clades with the processes inherent to each. They are also parts of communities and ecosystems with processes there as well. All of these are dependent on being alive and interacting with both living and non-living environments. Evolution is a fundamental part of biology and is easily studied on living populations as well as dead ones. All biology no matter what Robert thinks.

The evidence for conclusions on the evolution of biology is not based on biological scientific evidence. You didn't show any!

Maybe if you would tell us what you think constitutes "biological scientific evidence", we would be able to show you some. Be specific. Give examples. Tell us what methods you would accept. I don't just mean what you think biologists should be measuring, I mean how they should be doing it. Either that, or just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about and go away.

Its up to your side to prove evo bio is a bio sci investigation.

I make a good and clear case that bio processes are not the same thing as the result of processes.

Is a population of living organisms as alive as a population of cells making up a multicellular organism?

Robert is speciation a process involving populations of living organisms?

I am not going to allow any more comments from Mr. Byers. Please stop baiting him.

Matt Young said: I am not going to allow any more comments from Mr. Byers. Please stop baiting him.

You present a quandary. How does one defend science by denying its guiding principles ? Claiming someone is a science denier borders on being an oxymoron : science is based on questioning assumptions. Questioning assumptions is then exercising scientific inquiry - not denying it.

oldephartte said: You present a quandary. How does one defend science by denying its guiding principles ? Claiming someone is a science denier borders on being an oxymoron : science is based on questioning assumptions. Questioning assumptions is then exercising scientific inquiry - not denying it.

oldephartte said: You present a quandary. How does one defend science by denying its guiding principles ? Claiming someone is a science denier borders on being an oxymoron : science is based on questioning assumptions. Questioning assumptions is then exercising scientific inquiry - not denying it.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

oldephartte said: You present a quandary. How does one defend science by denying its guiding principles ? Claiming someone is a science denier borders on being an oxymoron : science is based on questioning assumptions. Questioning assumptions is then exercising scientific inquiry - not denying it.

Is questioning gravity part of science? How about questioning that the earth is (roughly) spherical? You might want to consider that questioning assumptions is science when the questioning is legitimately based on actual evidence. Otherwise, the simplest ignoramus who just says "no" to any and all claims is one of the most scientific persons. Science is a whole lot more than denial. Glen Davidson

Some good resources oldephartte - Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boundary's "Philosophy of Pseudoscience" and Massimo's "Nonsense on Stilts".