Erv’s response is no surprise. Same ol’ same ol’. …

Comment on Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’? by Roger Seheult.

Erv’s response is no surprise. Same ol’ same ol’. But it is worthy (one-more time) of response.

Erv said, “5% of the scientific data support his statements, and 95% do not.”

Dr. Taylor, of the 95% of the scientific data please tell me under what category of evidence does it fall:

Level I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.
Level II-1: Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization.
Level II-2: Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group.
Level II-3: Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled trials might also be regarded as this type of evidence.
Level III: Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees.

I would suggest that most if not all of the “scientific data” that supports evolution falls under level III and maybe II-3. I am not aware of any properly designed randomized controlled trials in evolution. However, since you must be more trained than I you can send me the link to them in google scholar.

Now for my next trick, I will list for you all of the medical recommendations in the last 20 years that were based on better evidence (level II) that have been shown to be completely wrong by evidence level I.

Based on this I should be more confident withholding estrogen replacement therapy in post menopausal women (leel I evidence) than in believing the theory of evolution (level ?). The level of evidence is just not there.

Roger Seheult Also Commented

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
There are too many of them. Where do I start.
Mary Schweitzer’s T-rex.

That’s just off the top….
wait another one –
Walter Veith….
wait more….

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
Ad hominum attack means that no other better arguments were available at the time of writing. I win.

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
Excellent reply Sean. Especially this part: “In fact, the majority of modern mainstream scientists today think that this old biblical notion has indeed been very clearly falsified. Clearly then, it is a testable and potentially falsifiable hypothesis. It is therefore a valid scientific statement. The only question now is, has it in fact been clearly falsified?”

That about sums it up and again nullifies the argument that the T.E.’s (theistic evolutionists) want to have: Religion versus Science. It can’t be framed that way. It’s view-point versus view-point. Both are falsifiable.

Recent Comments by Roger Seheult

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Ervin Taylor:

I literally have not logged on to this website in years. It looks like the same arguments are going back and forth which means that if you haven’t been able to solve them by now, you aren’t going to convence each other of your points. What is really amazing to me and anyone intersted in the topic, however, is the tone of the comments, which usually reveal the maturity of the writer especially if they include absolutes:

“vast majority of scientifically-informed Adventists will thank Dr.Kent ”

“this misnamed web site”

“Dr. Kent has done a masterful job”

These are usually tip-offs to a lot. Also, it makes me wonder that if Sean Pitman is so ill-informed, and he operates on such a mis-leading web site, why does the good Dr. Taylor waste his time coming to this website, reading the material and then commenting on it? In fact I can bet that Dr. Taylor has spent more time on this web site then I have in the last year – and that speaks volumes about what Dr. Taylor really thinks of this website – perhaps the good Dr. Kent as well.

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
Again, the question is begged: Why would they work so hard to change the university rather than just leave and go where universities already believe the way you do? Dare I say that there lies a larger conspiracy that transcends LSU and that may be going on at your local SDA instituation? Again, why the push over a generation to change a whole university and to denude it of its fundamentals?

Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Most of the blogs that are critical of this site aren’t interested in what this site is really out to do. They simply want to demonize it ergo Alinsky’s rule of indetify, demonize, and marginalize. Hence their cherry picking from the comments for their own purposes.

Thanks for the recap though.

LSU propaganda
Lydian Belknap:

This is only my opinion and none of anyone on this site.

You said: “The thing that concerns me a great deal at this point is the idea that there is no scientific information to support “Intelligent Design.” At least that is the statement I’ve heard numerous times on this site”

If you want to learn more I think you would really be interested in this man and his videos if you have not already. I get no money for referring him to you. He got me interested in this topic and energized me to do so.

Watch his life story and his videos noted below:

Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
It is Academic that is being tautological

Sean using the argument that ID papers are not allowed in by the peer review process because of the conclusions that they draw and Academic is trying to prove him wrong by citing evidence upheld by the very peer review process.

Academic said:
“And I don’t believe that there’s a single paper that refutes the possibility. ”

You are right, academic, there is not one but three I could find in a brief search: