شبكة الإلحاد العربيُ - من أين يأتي الملاحدة بهذه التخاريف

اقتباس:

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Suidakra (المشاركة 226585)

.:BangHead:
ميكانيكا الكم هدمت السببية وجمع النقيضين.
تم تفسير منشأ الحياة بشكل طبيعي من قبل علماء في جامعة هارفارد.
تم رصد الأفكار وتصوير الأحلام في الدماغ.
تم دحض الضبط الدقيق.
العلماء تمكنوا من خلق حياة.
الخلقوين هم فقط من يعترضون علي التطور.
لأن هذه التخاريف منتشرة في منتدياتكم انا اريد اعرف المصدر وبحوث على قول الذي تنقلون منه هذه الأشياء :18::18:

1. السببية هناك مشكلة في العربية حيث لا تفريق بين cause and reason
https://www.il7ad.org/vb/picture.php...&pictureid=419
ببساطة العلاقة صارت احتمالية ولا يصلح سببية كما في العربية
السببية قانون تقريبي صالح فقط في مستوي قياسنا للزمان والمكان

http://www.differencebetween.net/lan...se-and-reason/

Fermion ممكن ان بتواجد في اكثر من مكان في نفس الوقت
boson ممكن ان يتواجد اكثر من واحد في نفس المكان ونفس الوقت...
٢،٣ نعم وهناك مواضيع في المنتدي عن ذلك

٤.تم دحض الضبط الدقيق.
الضبط الدقيق علوم زائفة: مغالطات الخلقين عن المبدأ الأنساني

اقتباس:

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Skeptic (المشاركة 1437)

تحياتي للجميع،
أحب أضافة مقالة في مجلة العلوم، 17 مايو 1985، وهي عبارة عن أحصاء للأبحاث التي قدمها مدعوا التصميم الذكي، او الخلق:
Evidence for Scientific Creationism?
creationism the benefit of the doubt, and reasoning
that perhaps many manuscripts on the scientific underpinning
of creationism never reach the printed page-for
whatever reason-Scott and Cole turned their attention to
submissions to journals. In a survey of 68 scientific,
technical, and educational journals, which received a total
of 135,000 submitted manuscripts over a 3-year period,
only 18 addressed scientific creationism (3). Of these 12
went to one journal on science education; a second science
education publication received one more. Three submissions
went to one anthropology journal, and two further
manuscripts were sent to an anthropology journal and a
biology journal. At the time of writing, all manuscripts had
been rejected by journal editors, with the exception of
three that were still under review at one of the education
journals. The American Zoologist, which has a very open
policy on submission of abstracts, received not a single
presentation on empirical evidence for scientific creationism
during the 3-year study period.
Part of the survey included reasons for rejection of
papers. According to reviewers' comments, papers on
scientific creationism suffered from several faults, including
the following: poor presentation ("ramblings . . . ";
"no coherent arguments . . . "; "high-school theme quality
. . . "; "tendentious essay not suitable for publication
anywhere"; "more like a long letter than a referenced
article") and failure to follow accepted scientific canons
("no systematic treatment . . . "; "does not define
terms... "; "flawed arguments... "; "failure to acknowledge
and use extensive literature on particular questions
. . . "). Scott and Cole note that "From the reviewers'
comments, it appears as if laymen rather than professional
scientists are submitting the few articles that have
surfaced during the last three years."
Scott and Cole ask: "why don't the professional scientists
among the creationists publish empirical, experimental,
or theoretical evidence for scientific creationism?" The
answer, they suggest, is to be Sound in a comparison of the
scholarship evident in creation science sources with that in
orthodox scientific journals. There is, they say, a difference
in the application of logic. For instance, creationists
view the issue as having only two alternatives: evolution or
the biblical literalist view of creation. Given this dichotomy,
"arguments against evolution are arguments for creation."
Another example is in the use of extrapolation,
often done selectively: "All scientists extrapolate to some
degree from observations to conclusions, but creationist
extrapolations regularly border on the extreme." One
claim in this respect is that the earth must be young
because, if erosion of landmasses observed today had
operated for billions of years, then all the continents would
long ago have been washed away, a suggestion that simultaneously
ignores a large segment of continental geology
and the simplest implications of plate tectonics.
Creationists often complain that the scientific establishment
conspires to prevent the publication of evidence for
creationism, a posture that does not impress Scott and
Cole: " . . . when only 18 articles are submitted to 68
journals in three years, and those articles are submitted
apparently by persons not skilled in established scientific
methodology and theory, it is inappropriate to invoke
censorship. To be published, one must first submit, and
scientific creationists are apparently not submitting manuscripts."

كما نري، بالرغم من نهيقهم ليل نهار عن التصميم الذكي في الأعلام، لم يقوموا بنشر بحث علمي واحد....
تحياتي

الباقي سوف ارد علية

https://www.il7ad.org/vb/picture.php...&pictureid=198