Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    One must read the whole bio at the following link before deciding what is true and not true about Berlinski

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

    If Wikipedia has got some things wrong, and you know better, then you are free to correct the Wikipedia entry. I notice some things are waiting clarification, but what is lacking hardly makes any difference.

    If Berlinksi is not persuaded by the Evolutionists into believing their theory, what fills the void for him? Berlinski does not claim to fully support the idea of Intelligent Design and having an association with its proponents does not alter the situation regarding Berlinski's position on the subject. One could say that Berlinski is not persuaded by Evolution theory, or ID, but that the theory of Evolution has no greater position than ID. ID is a more recent explanation than Evolution theory and ID has come about by recent scientific discoveries.

    DNA is used to support the idea of Evolution and ID, yet DNA is such a large complex molecule that with all the acquired knowledge of it, only a tiny fraction of what it all means is understood. Maybe we have to wait till a lot more is found out about DNA to see which way the scales will tip before we reach a conclusion.
    Berlinski has a PHD in philosophy. Big friggin deal. He's just another WLC. That makes this claim of yours obsolete. David Berlinski, a molecular biologist, mathematician, philosopher and atheist

    Also, who gives a crap what Berlinski thinks. He's NOT a biologist, nor is he worth listening to if you care about the FACTS. Something you have proven you aren't interested in.

    Also , here is a nice debunking of Berlinski. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....ligent-design/
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Berlinski has a PHD in philosophy. Big friggin deal. He's just another WLC. That makes this claim of yours obsolete. David Berlinski, a molecular biologist, mathematician, philosopher and atheist

    Also, who gives a crap what Berlinski thinks. He's NOT a biologist, nor is he worth listening to if you care about the FACTS. Something you have proven you aren't interested in.

    Also , here is a nice debunking of Berlinski. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....ligent-design/
    David Berlinski spews out nothing but empty rhetoric. He appeals to the ignorance of anti-scientific religious fundamentalists. I've been thinking of starting a thread called "The Empty Rhetoric of David Berlinski" but haven't gotten around to it yet. In the meantime, here's a good example of how easy it is to refute his empty claims:

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Another refutation of Belinski's empty rhetoric ...

    http://trotskyschildren.blogspot.com...evolution.html
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Another refutation of Belinski's empty rhetoric ...

    http://trotskyschildren.blogspot.com...evolution.html
    Another refutation that might be, but have you read the article? The article can be torn apart by Creationists, or even scientists, who do not believe in Evolution.

    Presenting such an article or video because they happen to attempt to debunk Berlinski's comments, is not presenting the facts concerning Evolution or not (as the case may be). This is another case of; attack the person and ignore the facts such as the man's career and achievements. Was all the Wikipedia write-up read?


    To clarify what I said in a previous post, because the following words were picked on. I said; "The beak modification is due to to selective breeding, which is caused by climatic changes and change in food supply." The word "selective" was used in the Evolutionary sense and not in the human intervention sense and that should have been obvious.

    The fact is, that finches with the ability to crack nuts declined as the nut availability declined. That only left more finches with beaks that could not crush nuts, but thrived on the smaller seeds. It was nature that was "selective" in its breeding. A different word instead of the word "selective" might have been used, but the result is the same. As the smaller beaked finches survived, that meant more of the same finches mated producing more finches of the same kind. It was shown that the converse was true once nuts became available again and the larger beaked finch population grew. This yo-yo effect caused by the food supply still continues. This is not a fact that conclusively proves Evolution.

    The other fact that I commented on which has a bearing on natural selectivity is that finches of the same type preferred to mate. In the video we are shown what we might call a "stupid" finch for not recognizing a dead and stuffed finch with which it was trying to mate. The fact is; that does not show that finches with different beaks could not mate. Was the inability of finches with different beaks to bread proven to be impossible by the research?
    Last edited by David M; 09-02-2014 at 02:07 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Another refutation that might be, but have you read the article? The article can be torn apart by Creationists, or even scientists, who do not believe in Evolution.
    Oh really? Please post the link to those "refutations." Merely claiming the article "can be torn apart" is nothing but empty rhetoric.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •