Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A scientific dissent from Darwinism.

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:18:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

Dude, there are 10-12 million scientists worldwide. That is literally 0.00005% of the scientific community. Anyone who has taken a basic statistics class can tell you that this number is not even negligible, it is for all intents and purposes non-existent.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:22:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

HAHA! I just opened this document. Dude the people who made this were recently sued by a group of academics who's names were included, yet they did not sign it. This document is essentially fake.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:31:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:18:02 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

Dude, there are 10-12 million scientists worldwide. That is literally 0.00005% of the scientific community. Anyone who has taken a basic statistics class can tell you that this number is not even negligible, it is for all intents and purposes non-existent.

The majority of scientists used to believe Newtonian physics, until Einstein proved them wrong. The majority of scientists used to believe a lot of silly things. So your argument fails. These are real scientists, with degrees in molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry and other fields of research. Regardless of the numbers, you can't simply dismiss them. Most breakthroughs in science came from one, or a few, people who dared to challenge conventional thinking. Evolution's days are numbered. The more we discover, the more it looks like this theory is on some thin ice.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:32:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:22:49 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

HAHA! I just opened this document. Dude the people who made this were recently sued by a group of academics who's names were included, yet they did not sign it. This document is essentially fake.

Can you prove that?
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:37:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.

Then where are all the Atheists who deny Evolution? If there was any scientific doubt, it would not originate from the religious fundamentalists.
Aithlin
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:43:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

(1) What's yer opinion on Project Steve?

(2) Does it worry you that a significant proportion of the signatories are scientists in fields that bear little relevance to evolutionary biology, such as:

Astrophysics, Mathematical Physics, Radiology, Electrical Engineering, Meterology, Industrial Hygiene, Materials Science etc.

even Philosophy, which is not really relevant in regard to "Scientific Dissent"?
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:47:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:31:01 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

The majority of scientists used to believe Newtonian physics, until Einstein proved them wrong.

Newtonian Physics is not "wrong". It works in the context it was made for: normal, everyday objects. All Einstein proved was that normal, everyday assumptions don't hold when dealing with celestial bodies and extreme velocities.

The majority of scientists used to believe a lot of silly things.

Science admits when it's wrong. Religion does not. Win for Science.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:48:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:31:01 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:18:02 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

Dude, there are 10-12 million scientists worldwide. That is literally 0.00005% of the scientific community. Anyone who has taken a basic statistics class can tell you that this number is not even negligible, it is for all intents and purposes non-existent.

The majority of scientists used to believe Newtonian physics, until Einstein proved them wrong. The majority of scientists used to believe a lot of silly things. So your argument fails. These are real scientists, with degrees in molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry and other fields of research. Regardless of the numbers, you can't simply dismiss them. Most breakthroughs in science came from one, or a few, people who dared to challenge conventional thinking. Evolution's days are numbered. The more we discover, the more it looks like this theory is on some thin ice.

Newtonian physics hold true for all things that he postulated. It broke down when applied to nuclear physics, because the theories of one field dont always carry into another.

And yes we can and should simply dismiss them. Had you taken any basic science, you would what the scientific method says about such small numbers. They MUST be disregarded entirely in the final result.

I can find you doctors who would prescribe drinking camel piss to cure AIDS. I can find you historians that claim that people six thousand years ago were twenty feet tall and lived multiple thousands of years. My point is that every single academic field has its share of religious nutjobs, and the must be disregarded, especially when they make up 0.00005% of that field.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:52:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:32:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:22:49 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

HAHA! I just opened this document. Dude the people who made this were recently sued by a group of academics who's names were included, yet they did not sign it. This document is essentially fake.

Can you prove that?

Yea, tomorrow. It is 1:00 am where I live, and I need to get up early so that I can submit my resignation from the biological study I am working due to a career change from biological science.

Hint: That means I am a scientist, which means what I say about my field of expertise is infinitely more valuable that what you say about the same field.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:56:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:52:27 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:32:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:22:49 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

HAHA! I just opened this document. Dude the people who made this were recently sued by a group of academics who's names were included, yet they did not sign it. This document is essentially fake.

Can you prove that?

Yea, tomorrow. It is 1:00 am where I live, and I need to get up early so that I can submit my resignation from the biological study I am working due to a career change from biological science.

Hint: That means I am a scientist, which means what I say about my field of expertise is infinitely more valuable that what you say about the same field.

And most doctors over prescribe antibiotics, which is why we have deadly diseases that are resistant or immune to them. Numbers do not make right. Any idiot knows this. Except you, I guess.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 12:04:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The following is a list of books, written by scientists.

Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman.

Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'."
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 12:54:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
When I see claims such as this, my first thought is that it is not truly what is being claimed, and that is always the correct impression:

http://rationalwiki.org...

Just more dishonesty from the creationist camp. It is actually shameful...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 4:23:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:31:01 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:18:02 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

Dude, there are 10-12 million scientists worldwide. That is literally 0.00005% of the scientific community. Anyone who has taken a basic statistics class can tell you that this number is not even negligible, it is for all intents and purposes non-existent.

The majority of scientists used to believe Newtonian physics, until Einstein proved them wrong. The majority of scientists used to believe a lot of silly things. So your argument fails. These are real scientists, with degrees in molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry and other fields of research. Regardless of the numbers, you can't simply dismiss them. Most breakthroughs in science came from one, or a few, people who dared to challenge conventional thinking. Evolution's days are numbered. The more we discover, the more it looks like this theory is on some thin ice.

That's right, the problem is, the majority of scientists used to believe in the Bible accounts for the biodiversity, until darwin proved them wrong. But there's still a few scientists that are too arrogant to accept they were wrong lol.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 4:28:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 12:04:54 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
The following is a list of books, written by scientists.

Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman.

Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'."

You see, scientists can not say "evolution is not true" as you would say. Any person that says something like that, is really not a scientist, because the natural phenomena that is evolution is beyond any scientific doubt, true. What scientists may (and probably do) say, is that Darwin was not correct in everything he claimed. But even R.Dawkins accepts this. No current scientist believes evolution happens exactly as Darwin said. That's why there's something called "neodarwinism".
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:33:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

I think the other people in this thread have talked about the dishonesty of this list: The fact that it do not include many biologists; the question itself is rather vague and airy; the question involves being skeptical, rather than "not thinking it's true". That it is a considerablly smaller list than the number of Scientists called Steve (or derivitives), there have been claims of fraud, etc.

In terms of the numbers there are far higher percentage of Americans that Believe Elvis is alive, than scientists who object to Evolution from the evidence of your list.

What I find hillarious, is that to you; and to the discovery institute "scientific dissent" involves someone signing a peice of paper, rather than having a significant amount of peer reviewed research and study that throws significant doubt on the underpinnings essential to the principles of evolution.

There is plenty of "status quo" changing research in the field of evolution that overturn established theories about the origins of various life, features or functions; almost on a daily basis, so you cannot argue that the process is stacked against you.

There is no such clear, peer reviewed study and research that stands up to scrutiny that would qualify as any significant "scientific dissent".
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 8:22:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:33:48 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

There is no such clear, peer reviewed study and research that stands up to scrutiny that would qualify as any significant "scientific dissent".

Right, so we should reject Copernicus until he's got the approval of the Ptolemaic view.

Not how real science works, lads. Darwin is to science what Castro was to democracy.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 8:31:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 8:22:41 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:33:48 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

There is no such clear, peer reviewed study and research that stands up to scrutiny that would qualify as any significant "scientific dissent".

Right, so we should reject Copernicus until he's got the approval of the Ptolemaic view.

That's pretty much what happened. The idea won out because it was better, had more evidence, and made more sense. It overturned the Ptolemaic view by convincing the Ptolemaic's that it was better.

Science now is more complex; and requires more research, not idiotic lists to be convincing.

However, I find it interesting that you use an example where Religious Zealotry and dogma prevented people from accepting an accurate scientific model of the world because they didn't like it on religious grounds....
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 9:20:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:33:48 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

I think the other people in this thread have talked about the dishonesty of this list: The fact that it do not include many biologists; the question itself is rather vague and airy; the question involves being skeptical, rather than "not thinking it's true". That it is a considerablly smaller list than the number of Scientists called Steve (or derivitives), there have been claims of fraud, etc.

In terms of the numbers there are far higher percentage of Americans that Believe Elvis is alive, than scientists who object to Evolution from the evidence of your list.


What I find hillarious, is that to you; and to the discovery institute "scientific dissent" involves someone signing a peice of paper, rather than having a significant amount of peer reviewed research and study that throws significant doubt on the underpinnings essential to the principles of evolution.

There is plenty of "status quo" changing research in the field of evolution that overturn established theories about the origins of various life, features or functions; almost on a daily basis, so you cannot argue that the process is stacked against you.

There is no such clear, peer reviewed study and research that stands up to scrutiny that would qualify as any significant "scientific dissent".

Scientific agreement on evolution is not as high as most people think. Many scientists would say that they disagree with it, if they didn't run the risk of losing tenure, or even their jobs. Science, at least evolutionary science, is highly politicized. They will not tolerate any views that differ from their own. They actually persecute those who have the nerve to disagree with them. And they don't even have to mention Creationism. The simple fact that they disagree is enough to ruin them.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 9:32:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 8:31:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 8:22:41 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:33:48 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

There is no such clear, peer reviewed study and research that stands up to scrutiny that would qualify as any significant "scientific dissent".

Right, so we should reject Copernicus until he's got the approval of the Ptolemaic view.

That's pretty much what happened. The idea won out because it was better, had more evidence, and made more sense. It overturned the Ptolemaic view by convincing the Ptolemaic's that it was better.


Yeah, ok, but I'm not talking about why an idea 'won out'. That's sociology. I'm talking about science. Copernicus was right because he figured out how the heavenly bodies move, not because he convinced anybody.

Science now is more complex; and requires more research, not idiotic lists to be convincing.


Ummm, you have random mutations and the good ones get selected. That's more complex? Hardly. And I haven't read the lists, I'm just talking about this idea that science is a matter of how many scientists agree with something. That's sociology, not science. Scientists can all be wrong, it's happened plenty of times before.

However, I find it interesting that you use an example where Religious Zealotry and dogma prevented people from accepting an accurate scientific model of the world because they didn't like it on religious grounds....

Nah, I think you're probably subscribing to another bit of evolutionary mythology. Both the Ptolemaics and Copernicus were religious. As was Galileo, btw, who was originally supported by the pope. Copernicus, despite urging by his closest friends, resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing"as he confessed"to risk the scorn "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses." Scorn for rejecting the consensus science of his day, that's what he feared. Sound familiar?

Darwin is crap science. You have the opportunity to be on the right side of history on this one. Cool, huh? Only we'll probably be dead by the time the establishment comes around, that's the way it usually works.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 9:37:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 9:20:45 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:33:48 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

I think the other people in this thread have talked about the dishonesty of this list: The fact that it do not include many biologists; the question itself is rather vague and airy; the question involves being skeptical, rather than "not thinking it's true". That it is a considerablly smaller list than the number of Scientists called Steve (or derivitives), there have been claims of fraud, etc.

In terms of the numbers there are far higher percentage of Americans that Believe Elvis is alive, than scientists who object to Evolution from the evidence of your list.


What I find hillarious, is that to you; and to the discovery institute "scientific dissent" involves someone signing a peice of paper, rather than having a significant amount of peer reviewed research and study that throws significant doubt on the underpinnings essential to the principles of evolution.

There is plenty of "status quo" changing research in the field of evolution that overturn established theories about the origins of various life, features or functions; almost on a daily basis, so you cannot argue that the process is stacked against you.

There is no such clear, peer reviewed study and research that stands up to scrutiny that would qualify as any significant "scientific dissent".

Scientific agreement on evolution is not as high as most people think. Many scientists would say that they disagree with it, if they didn't run the risk of losing tenure, or even their jobs.

Well, but they're not real scientists, you see. So that's why all the real scientists accept evolution. And if that sounds like circular logic it's only because you're a stupid religious nut.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 9:54:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 9:32:46 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/20/2014 8:31:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 8:22:41 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:33:48 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

There is no such clear, peer reviewed study and research that stands up to scrutiny that would qualify as any significant "scientific dissent".

Right, so we should reject Copernicus until he's got the approval of the Ptolemaic view.

That's pretty much what happened. The idea won out because it was better, had more evidence, and made more sense. It overturned the Ptolemaic view by convincing the Ptolemaic's that it was better.


Yeah, ok, but I'm not talking about why an idea 'won out'. That's sociology. I'm talking about science. Copernicus was right because he figured out how the heavenly bodies move, not because he convinced anybody.

Exactly. He didn't set up law suits. He didn't try and use politics to force his point of view to be taught as truth, he didn't set up lists of people who were skeptical of ptolomy. He did the science; something that no one objecting to evolution ever seems to do.

Science now is more complex; and requires more research, not idiotic lists to be convincing.


Ummm, you have random mutations and the good ones get selected. That's more complex? Hardly. And I haven't read the lists, I'm just talking about this idea that science is a matter of how many scientists agree with something.

Molecular biology and understanding the details of biology and taxonomy at its base level is not simple. Hence why it's only been 60 years since the structure of DNa was discovered and only a decade since we've started performing large scale genome sequencing.

Hell, if it was that simple you guys should have been able to disprove it in peer reviewed research by now!

That's sociology, not science. Scientists can all be wrong, it's happened plenty of times before.

Just because people can be wrong doesn't mean they are. Numbers like this certainly make a compelling case; It is certainly more compelling than when there are only a few people believe it.

However, I find it interesting that you use an example where Religious Zealotry and dogma prevented people from accepting an accurate scientific model of the world because they didn't like it on religious grounds....

Nah, I think you're probably subscribing to another bit of evolutionary mythology. Both the Ptolemaics and Copernicus were religious. As was Galileo, btw, who was originally supported by the pope. Copernicus, despite urging by his closest friends, resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing"as he confessed"to risk the scorn "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses." Scorn for rejecting the consensus science of his day, that's what he feared. Sound familiar?

And yet he overturned it.


Darwin is crap science. You have the opportunity to be on the right side of history on this one. Cool, huh? Only we'll probably be dead by the time the establishment comes around, that's the way it usually works.

Crap science. Pity you guys never back that up with research and anything more than straw man and misunderstanding :)
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 9:56:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anybody who could thoroughly debunk evolution would win a Nobel Prize, not get fired. People lose their science positions because they choose not to believe in evolution based upon piss poor evidence (religious books and dogma)-- which is actually NO evidence. Fortunately, this does not happen very much because almost all good researchers are scientists. A scientist cannot reject a scientific fact without superior evidence. Our understanding of evolution has stood the test of time and is still going strong in spite of the shameful efforts of creationists to confuse the layperson.

"You are entitled to your own opinions; you are not entitled to your own facts." Rejecting evolution is not about mere disagreement; it is about being out of touch with reality, out of touch with reason, and out of touch with intellectual integrity.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:01:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 9:37:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/20/2014 9:20:45 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:33:48 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:08:25 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Some people would like you to believe that evolution is a slam dunk, and anyone who disagrees with it is a religious wacko. I can assure you that this is not the case.
There is a list with over 700 signatures and growing. These are scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Take a look at the list and the degrees these scientists have. Then try telling me that people who disagree with Darwin are a bunch of religious, scientific illiterates.

http://www.discovery.org...

I think the other people in this thread have talked about the dishonesty of this list: The fact that it do not include many biologists; the question itself is rather vague and airy; the question involves being skeptical, rather than "not thinking it's true". That it is a considerablly smaller list than the number of Scientists called Steve (or derivitives), there have been claims of fraud, etc.

In terms of the numbers there are far higher percentage of Americans that Believe Elvis is alive, than scientists who object to Evolution from the evidence of your list.


What I find hillarious, is that to you; and to the discovery institute "scientific dissent" involves someone signing a peice of paper, rather than having a significant amount of peer reviewed research and study that throws significant doubt on the underpinnings essential to the principles of evolution.

There is plenty of "status quo" changing research in the field of evolution that overturn established theories about the origins of various life, features or functions; almost on a daily basis, so you cannot argue that the process is stacked against you.

There is no such clear, peer reviewed study and research that stands up to scrutiny that would qualify as any significant "scientific dissent".

Scientific agreement on evolution is not as high as most people think. Many scientists would say that they disagree with it, if they didn't run the risk of losing tenure, or even their jobs.

Well, but they're not real scientists, you see. So that's why all the real scientists accept evolution. And if that sounds like circular logic it's only because you're a stupid religious nut.

Even if I wasn't religious I would still disagree with the theory of evolution. You're attempt to paint me as a delusional religious nut is laughable. I look at the evidence for evolution and I don't believe that it is credible. Apparently your only defense is to say that someone is not a real scientist. This is not the case. You are an idiot,
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:07:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Darwinism is not science, it's a hypothesis in which people make a carreer of claiming to have evidence that the hypothesis is true in spite of the fact that the hypothesis cannot be tested and therefore cannot be considered to be a valid theory. Science is observation of nature. Observing skeletons and speciation (which is never more than the likes of communities of lizards becoming so distanced that they can no longer interbeeed, but they still are lizards and never turn into anything other than the lizards they started out as) is not observing evolution. Believing in a hypothesis and claiming observations prove the hypothesis while it has never been shown true by observable testing is foolishness.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:20:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 9:54:50 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 9:32:46 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/20/2014 8:31:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 8:22:41 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:33:48 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

There is no such clear, peer reviewed study and research that stands up to scrutiny that would qualify as any significant "scientific dissent".

Right, so we should reject Copernicus until he's got the approval of the Ptolemaic view.

That's pretty much what happened. The idea won out because it was better, had more evidence, and made more sense. It overturned the Ptolemaic view by convincing the Ptolemaic's that it was better.


Yeah, ok, but I'm not talking about why an idea 'won out'. That's sociology. I'm talking about science. Copernicus was right because he figured out how the heavenly bodies move, not because he convinced anybody.

Exactly. He didn't set up law suits. He didn't try and use politics to force his point of view to be taught as truth, he didn't set up lists of people who were skeptical of ptolomy. He did the science; something that no one objecting to evolution ever seems to do.

Are you kidding me? You haven't heard of the Dover trial? This borders on delusional dude, if you don't see who is doing the intimidating.


Science now is more complex; and requires more research, not idiotic lists to be convincing.


Ummm, you have random mutations and the good ones get selected. That's more complex? Hardly. And I haven't read the lists, I'm just talking about this idea that science is a matter of how many scientists agree with something.

Molecular biology and understanding the details of biology and taxonomy at its base level is not simple. Hence why it's only been 60 years since the structure of DNa was discovered and only a decade since we've started performing large scale genome sequencing.

So what? What does this have to do with the the fact that the theory you subscribe to is mutation and selection and nothing more?


Hell, if it was that simple you guys should have been able to disprove it in peer reviewed research by now!


I can't disprove that there's a monster under your bed, either. I know, he slips into the closet every time I come into the room, right? As I've said, your guys can't reproduce evolution, so there's really nothing to disprove here. We can play speculation games all day, but I can't analyze experiments that don't exist.

That's sociology, not science. Scientists can all be wrong, it's happened plenty of times before.

Just because people can be wrong doesn't mean they are. Numbers like this certainly make a compelling case;

No, they don't. Not in science. Seriously, you either understand what science is, or you don't. It's like taking a vote on 2+2, it's just utterly irrelevant. If you understand what math is.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:22:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:01:21 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
...

Well, but they're not real scientists, you see. So that's why all the real scientists accept evolution. And if that sounds like circular logic it's only because you're a stupid religious nut.

Even if I wasn't religious I would still disagree with the theory of evolution. You're attempt to paint me as a delusional religious nut is laughable. I look at the evidence for evolution and I don't believe that it is credible. Apparently your only defense is to say that someone is not a real scientist. This is not the case. You are an idiot,

I was being sarcastic. I think I'm on your side.
This space for rent.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:37:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:22:20 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:01:21 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
...

Well, but they're not real scientists, you see. So that's why all the real scientists accept evolution. And if that sounds like circular logic it's only because you're a stupid religious nut.

Even if I wasn't religious I would still disagree with the theory of evolution. You're attempt to paint me as a delusional religious nut is laughable. I look at the evidence for evolution and I don't believe that it is credible. Apparently your only defense is to say that someone is not a real scientist. This is not the case. You are an idiot,

I was being sarcastic. I think I'm on your side.

Oh. My bad. I'm blaming it on hunger. I think I have a Snickers somewhere...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:40:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:20:29 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/20/2014 9:54:50 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 9:32:46 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/20/2014 8:31:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 8:22:41 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:33:48 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

There is no such clear, peer reviewed study and research that stands up to scrutiny that would qualify as any significant "scientific dissent".

Right, so we should reject Copernicus until he's got the approval of the Ptolemaic view.

That's pretty much what happened. The idea won out because it was better, had more evidence, and made more sense. It overturned the Ptolemaic view by convincing the Ptolemaic's that it was better.


Yeah, ok, but I'm not talking about why an idea 'won out'. That's sociology. I'm talking about science. Copernicus was right because he figured out how the heavenly bodies move, not because he convinced anybody.

Exactly. He didn't set up law suits. He didn't try and use politics to force his point of view to be taught as truth, he didn't set up lists of people who were skeptical of ptolomy. He did the science; something that no one objecting to evolution ever seems to do.

Are you kidding me? You haven't heard of the Dover trial? This borders on delusional dude, if you don't see who is doing the intimidating.

The Dover trial when someone tried to force untested, unprovable pseudoscience as a substitute for real science where a number of the ID proponents turned out to be lying, and the primary scientist admitted that astrology falls under the definition of science?

This is not intimidation. This is Id being retarded.


Science now is more complex; and requires more research, not idiotic lists to be convincing.


Ummm, you have random mutations and the good ones get selected. That's more complex? Hardly. And I haven't read the lists, I'm just talking about this idea that science is a matter of how many scientists agree with something.

Molecular biology and understanding the details of biology and taxonomy at its base level is not simple. Hence why it's only been 60 years since the structure of DNa was discovered and only a decade since we've started performing large scale genome sequencing.

So what? What does this have to do with the the fact that the theory you subscribe to is mutation and selection and nothing more?

That's like saying the universe is basically made of few types of particle and nothing more.

It's the application of those basic things that make it complex.


Hell, if it was that simple you guys should have been able to disprove it in peer reviewed research by now!


I can't disprove that there's a monster under your bed, either. I know, he slips into the closet every time I come into the room, right? As I've said, your guys can't reproduce evolution, so there's really nothing to disprove here. We can play speculation games all day, but I can't analyze experiments that don't exist.

We're not talking about creationism where all those things are true. We're talking about a theory that makes predictions and has processes that have specific consequences that can be tested and measured.

When you make your trivial statements about how it's all untrue; how dating doesn't work and how CytC is not evidence for evolution without any detailed justification other than a bland sentence and not even acknowledging what the detailed reasons that these are used for evidence.

If you were right in ANY of the things you claim are true when you try and make excuses for the evidence that shows you're wrong; you could demonstrate it in a paper. This is why creation science doesn't do that; you guys have the money, you just know exactly what those tests will show.

That's sociology, not science. Scientists can all be wrong, it's happened plenty of times before.

Just because people can be wrong doesn't mean they are. Numbers like this certainly make a compelling case;

No, they don't. Not in science. Seriously, you either understand what science is, or you don't. It's like taking a vote on 2+2, it's just utterly irrelevant. If you understand what math is.

Your defending an argument about how a large number of scientists show evolution is in trouble by saying that how many agree is irrelevant.

I sort of agree. Which is why when you compare research that shows evolution is true and research that shows its false, you get a much clearer picture.

But even if something is true there will be a majority who believe it and a few who don't. That isn't how science works; but theories that are true normally have a majority of people who support it and some that don't. If you don't want to look at the numbers, fine, look at the data for and against.

All you have is the science saying one thing and a bunch of people who want to litigate and politic against the science rather than actually do the science..
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 12:07:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:07:20 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
Darwinism is not science, it's a hypothesis in which people make a carreer of claiming to have evidence that the hypothesis is true in spite of the fact that the hypothesis cannot be tested and therefore cannot be considered to be a valid theory.

Wrong, it is a theory, it has made dozens of predictions, and there are innumerable tests of the theory which go on today.

It is science in that it provides an explanation that explains a wide range of facts, makes many predictions (many are significant, and most of which so far have been validated as true).

So no; what you are saying here is flat out false.

Science is observation of nature. Observing skeletons and speciation (which is never more than the likes of communities of lizards becoming so distanced that they can no longer interbeeed, but they still are lizards and never turn into anything other than the lizards they started out as) is not observing evolution. Believing in a hypothesis and claiming observations prove the hypothesis while it has never been shown true by observable testing is foolishness.

It has been shown by observable testing, because things that happen in the past have consequences on what happens now.