Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Scientists often scoff at each other's ideas, even in a mean-spirited way on occasion. But that doesn't necessarily mean they think the other guy is an idiot. My daughter is reading a debate between Gould and Morris right now in which they are ridiculing each other, but are also talking about they think the other guy should be nominated for a nobel prize. Each of these guys knows very well that the other guy actually understands the situation.

"there was no proof that directed evolution was impossible. A meaningless and unnecessary statement."
This is at the core of why evolution is real science and creationism is not. Evolution is falsifiable, but not falsified.
Moreover, numerous creationists assert like Curtis, that evolution is refuted by 1 and/or 2 laws of thermodynamics, probability, information theory, string theory, fossil record - and a number of other things. These statements are contrary to fact. Evolution is not refuted by any known scientific principle.

"You pointed out some things I could have said better and you were correct. I'm just trying to return the favor."
I appreciate that. The whole "scoffing" thing needs better explication than I have offered in either the previous post or this one.

The comment about "real scientists" is only superficially like the similar one made by Christians against their brothers. I thought I made this clear. If you look up bios on the creationists' own websites, you find that many of them have degrees from diploma mills, or degrees that are not in science. Many have published very few scientific papers.

YECs aren't alone. There used to be a list of "100 scientists who do not accept evolution" that was put out by the discovery institute. The list is up close to 1000 now, I think. But you look at the list and it includes vets, medical doctors, engineers, etc. I don't have a problem with vets and doctors or even engineers. Some few of them really ARE scientists - but one is not a scientist by virtue of simply having a degree in one of those areas or even practicing it.

Here's a video on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=channel_page



Again, I am not arguing that evolution is refuted by any known scientific principle. I am familiar with the creationist "logic". I've been checking in with them since Henry Morris got into it with both feet. I read all of his books. I'm always curious as to what they will conjure up next and once in a great while, it's kinda fun to deconstruct. Henry was a civil engineer. I have no beef with civil engineers. That was my major for a while and I worked for a municipality, as an engineering aide, while I was going to school. But Henry was in way over his head. And, I've been a fan of the late Stephen J. for a long time whether punctuated equilibria proves to be of any value or not. I emphasize I am not arguing with any of the points you offer up in defense of your statement. I am arguing with the statement. The lack of proof, of anything, is not proof... of anything. Why make such a statement? You, in fact, rejected a similar statement by your antagonist previous to your own. The most a lack of proof could help, in a pursuit of fact, would be to provide a little encouragement that at least you hadn't been proven wrong yet. You're wasting your time arguing evolution versus creation with me. I couldn't be more scientifically oriented. Even as a child, religious indoctrination was never attempted on me. My father saw to that.

Of course there are actual scientists in other branches. I never implied there weren't. In my branch, there are theorists, experimentalists, practitioners and even managers who all have the same degree. I consider the theorist and to some extent the experimentalist the scientist. I don't assign any more importance to one line than the others. When I became a manager, I ceased to be an experimentalist and became a manager with some knowledge of what he was managing. It's simply a matter of nomenclature. Take your pick. I prefer fresh ground dark roast coffee brewed in a French press. Maybe you prefer medium roast from a dripper. Maybe you don't like coffee. I have no argument there but I will argue that lack of proof is not proof. Using a flawed argument against a flawed argument leads to nothing but heightened tensions which leads to a squabble. Even among enlightened scientists, a squabble is not scientific.

But hey! Hope you had a happy solstice.

When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman