Stephen Meyer

[Esquilax]

Can some one just answer -_-

How?

No, I'm serious: how is anyone supposed to answer you when you couch your questions in the vaguest possible language? What debate? What book? What claims has Meyer made that you think might even pose a threat to the theory of evolution?

What, are you expecting us to go out and research every individual component of your questions for you? You come here and dump your contentions here using the least amount of effort possible and then get snippy at everyone else for not doing the research you yourself have refused to do in every thread you've made here?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Clearly this OP's threads aren't worth opening. I won't be doing so any more.

[Minimalist]

http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/st...n-follies/

Stephen Meyer’s Fumbling Bumbling Amateur Cambrian Follies

In a nutshell, it is (as Bertrand Russell put it) 
”The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt”.

The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, “intelligent design” creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don’t like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for “quote-mining”: taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.

Just another creationist shithead. As I suspect the OP to be.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

3. do u think he could prove that evolution is false ?

No one can prove that evolution is false, for the simple reason that it isn't.

Biological evolution is a brute fact, not subject to sensible argument. Attempting to prove that evolution is false is exactly the same as attempting to prove that trees don't produce wood, or that lead isn't heavier than water. It has been observed in the field and demonstrated in the lab time and time again that populations of organisms change over time and that the changes accumulate and produce new species. Evolution is as real as a fist in the face.

That being said, it is possible and reasonable to question some of the theories of evolution. That is to say, while we know that evolution occurs beyond all possible doubt, it is a legitimate scientific inquiry to continue the investigation as to how evolution occurs.

Science, bitches.

Boru

[king krish]

I have some ques about this scientist
1.could any onetprove that he was wrong in the debate?
2. His book about darwin .. Could any one prove that it include fulse information or any thing like that ??
3. do u think he could prove that evolution is false ?

OK, some details here.

1) Don't know what debate.

2) I'm certainly not gonna waste good money on shit. And I don't throw away valuable lifetime for reading shit.

3) Where's his nobel price? I he could prove something false that is regarded as true for the last 150 years, he would already have it.

1-i meant any debate
could any one prove that he is wrong in any debate ???
2- the book "darwin doubt" could any one prove that it is include any wrong information ???

[Alex K]

1-i meant any debate
could any one prove that he is wrong in any debate ???
2- the book "darwin doubt" could any one prove that it is include any wrong information ???

Have you read the review by a competent paleontologist in the link I've posted? Meyer is a clueless hack who plays a scientist to fool believers.

[robvalue]

Why are you so desperate to disprove scientific theories may I ask?

[Faith No More]

Why are you so desperate to disprove scientific theories may I ask?

He's just doing his due dilligence as a skiptic.

[Mudhammam]

I don't equate ID scientists with creationist shitheads, necessarily, though I think their argument is just as philosophically empty-minded. On the one hand, however, there does seem to be a legitimate objection to be made that Darwinism is a theory formed during the Victorian age when natural selection was believed to construct complex organisms from relatively simple forms, and molecular biology seems to contest that anything able to eat, shit, and reproduce is a far cry from simple, not to mention involves processes that make it difficult to conceive how natural selection could act. I respect such thinkers for the objections they raise because Darwinism is not fully understood as a process on the molecular level (where it is understood complex mechanisms are already in place), but regarding the answers such critics provide, well yes, it stinks of creatardism.

[Alex K]

Pickup,

the criticism they do offer concerning complexity is, according to real evolutionary biologists, amateurish. How do you gather that the IDers have something valid to criticize that isn't already better addressed by the pros?