Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rejection of scientific knowledge

Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 5:35:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There's a certain mentality that frustrates me beyond belief. It's this arrogant belief people have that they know more than scientists about...science. Evolution? Nope, those evolutionary biologists don't know anything. Geology? Haven't those geologists heard the earth is flat? Astronomy? Well they can't really know how far away those stars are. Etc, etc.

Scientists aren't infallible gods, and what is accepted in the scientific community isn't necessarily true. Hypotheses and theories, even laws, should never stop being tested. I'm not advocating people simply blindly listen to whatever scientists say. But for laymen who are not educated in a particular field or even in how science generally works to challenge scientifically tested knowledge is laughable. Rationally, we should accept scientific knowledge as the best explanation until we know enough about a certain field to prove this or that idea wrong.

For example, on several politically charged subjects, scientific findings are regularly disregarded...using old scientific findings. It doesn't matter that the scientific community thinks, they can't possibly know what they're doing. The layman and the politician think they know better.

Another example, same politically charged subjects: instead of accepting that the evidence does not validate their position, we accuse scientists of faking data, skewing results, etc. If these people understood the concept of peer-reviewed science and "entire career destroyed because you falsified information"...they'd be embarrassed at themselves for thinking such a thing.

Of course we have a few of these types here. I don't understand the mentality. What honestly makes these people think they can't be bothered to learn the subject because they already know more than its experts? I can understand philosophical rejection of anything but personal experience for EVERYTHING, not just what's convenient, even if I don't agree with it. But that's not what's going on here. Did some people just get too much love as a kid or something?

tl;dr
#$@%ing magnets, how do they work?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 6:11:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Welcome to the grand conspiracy that is, experts don't realise their fields are defunct. :P

But really it tends to be due to a lack of information more than anything. The rejection is secondary to that.
steelyray
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2010 8:50:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hi, new to Debate.org. I so agree with the original posting, and love the Feynman video. It's a sad reflection on our country that he seems to be better known in England than here in the States.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 8:50:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Indeed, the theory of evolution is true, the earth is round, and ere is large body of well-established science. Nonetheless, consensus science wrong often enough. In 19 the Steady State Theory of the universe was consensus, now it's the Big Bang. In 1970 the the consensus view was that homosexuality is a form of mental illness.

The recent book by Montford, "The Hockey Stick Illusion," goes into great detail on how climate scientists misunderstood statistical analysis, and the peer review process failed because other climate scientists did not understand it either. The result was that random data put into the software produced a Hockey Stick graph of temperature, which was dead wrong.

I've had occasion to look at some papers in the social sciences where social scientists essentially played with a statistical package until they got the answer they wanted, then quit. No one in the peer review process was knowledgeable enough to catch the errors. The Climategate scandal showed that climate crisis advocates also wanted to suppress dissenting papers and probably did. Peer review is broken.

I think we should urge scientists to revise the peer review process so that experts in statistics review papers using statistical methods. Beyond that, the best we can do is ask that scientific consensus be opposed strictly on scientific grounds, not based upon religious preconditions or other pervading beliefs.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 9:13:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 8:50:33 AM, RoyLatham wrote:

I think we should urge scientists to revise the peer review process so that experts in statistics review papers using statistical methods. Beyond that, the best we can do is ask that scientific consensus be opposed strictly on scientific grounds, not based upon religious preconditions or other pervading beliefs.

That seems fair to me.

It is reasonable to challenge one scientific theory with evidence supporting an alternative scientific theory.

Similarly, it is reasonable to challenge one religious doctrine with scriptures supporting an alternative religious doctrine.

Since scientists can't and don't try to produce evidence to prove that there is no "God", why do religious people try to use their scriptures to prove that the earth, man and all the creatures great and small were created 6,000 years ago?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 9:38:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 5:35:37 AM, Yvette wrote:
There's a certain mentality that frustrates me beyond belief. It's this arrogant belief people have that they know more than scientists about...science. Evolution? Nope, those evolutionary biologists don't know anything. Geology? Haven't those geologists heard the earth is flat? Astronomy? Well they can't really know how far away those stars are. Etc, etc.

Scientists aren't infallible gods, and what is accepted in the scientific community isn't necessarily true. Hypotheses and theories, even laws, should never stop being tested. I'm not advocating people simply blindly listen to whatever scientists say. But for laymen who are not educated in a particular field or even in how science generally works to challenge scientifically tested knowledge is laughable. Rationally, we should accept scientific knowledge as the best explanation until we know enough about a certain field to prove this or that idea wrong.

For example, on several politically charged subjects, scientific findings are regularly disregarded...using old scientific findings. It doesn't matter that the scientific community thinks, they can't possibly know what they're doing. The layman and the politician think they know better.

Another example, same politically charged subjects: instead of accepting that the evidence does not validate their position, we accuse scientists of faking data, skewing results, etc. If these people understood the concept of peer-reviewed science and "entire career destroyed because you falsified information"...they'd be embarrassed at themselves for thinking such a thing.

Of course we have a few of these types here. I don't understand the mentality. What honestly makes these people think they can't be bothered to learn the subject because they already know more than its experts? I can understand philosophical rejection of anything but personal experience for EVERYTHING, not just what's convenient, even if I don't agree with it. But that's not what's going on here. Did some people just get too much love as a kid or something?

tl;dr
#$@%ing magnets, how do they work?

I hate it when people put science and Christianity at odds. Even if evolution were true, it does not invalidate anything in the Christian faith. The Bible need not be scientifically accurate in all scenarios for it to be perfect for its purpose under Christianity: to do the most good for every soul. Indeed, explaining the Big Bang and modern science to the Israelites would have led to the science, and the story with it, being forgotten. The story is the point of the Genesis 1 account (God created everything and thus everything, in some sense, is derived from and belongs to God).

My objections all come from the realm of science. The scientific community, especially in America, has become orthodox in purporting Neo-Darwinism, and regularly goes after those who don't support it. Any attempt to raise questions about the actual science of evolution immediately results in scientific dismissal as an irrational creationist. I can see no other reason for a fanatic evolutionist to attack a fossilized footprint, in which there is a man's footprint inside the footprint of a dinosaur. Scientists don't normally try to destroy evidence that challenges their theories.

An example of an objection to the actual science of the issue:
Morphological evolution has never been shown to happen. I will grant for the sake of argument (e.g. there are problems with it, but not nearly so big as the former) speciation, but there is absolutely no evidence of morphological evolution. I first noticed the problem in my high school biology textbook (which was, thankfully, less biased than most). The section after genetics, they started talking about micro-evolution. They displayed graphs of polygenic traits changing in population in smooth bell curves i.e. as if they were continuous. But if genetics is at all accurate, this cannot be true; the variables must be discrete and not continuous. The polygenic traits still are bound by a set number of gene configurations. This is the problem with morphological evolution: it requires the manufacture of new DNA and entire new genes to produce, but no known process of mutation can do this (and certainly not to the organism's benefit). Most genes work (and must work) very precisely, or the animal dies/is crippled. Scientists have yet to show morphological evolution, even in fruit flies. This is one of ten or eleven /scientific/ objections to the process of evolution itself.

There is additionally the problem of the inception of life i.e. a single cell is many, many, many orders of magnitude more complex than any batch of organic chemicals lying around. Even if you get amino acids (which is impossible given what we now know would be the composition of a primordial atmosphere), it is still a far cry from proteins, and further still from the specific set of specialized proteins that are required for basic life functions. DNA itself poses another problem: DNA doesn't naturally bond, and certainly not in any specific order. These properties allow DNA to carry information, but also make any chemical formation nigh-impossible.

If anyone wants to debate me on the topic "Evolution is not a proven scientific fact," I'll be happy to issue a challenge.
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 12:22:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 9:38:38 AM, Valtarov wrote:
My objections all come from the realm of science. The scientific community, especially in America, has become orthodox in purporting Neo-Darwinism, and regularly goes after those who don't support it. Any attempt to raise questions about the actual science of evolution immediately results in scientific dismissal as an irrational creationist. I can see no other reason for a fanatic evolutionist to attack a fossilized footprint, in which there is a man's footprint inside the footprint of a dinosaur.

No no. This is a fundemental misunderstanding on your part.

Scientists will not discard you for questioning evolution, as long as you provide evidence to support your claims. Its that simple.

Time and again, the evidence that creationists, or people who question evolution have brought with them, are faulty. They just cannot stand up to scrutiny.

But the trully sad thing, is the dishonesty. When confronted with the problems regarding the evidence, what do these creationists do? They ignore it, and move onto the next argument or evidence. This is the main reason why, you will find so many christians using the same arguments that have already been debunked, to try to disprove evolution. Because these creationists refuse to admit that the evidence they provided was wrong.

Scientists don't normally try to destroy evidence that challenges their theories.

If by "Destroy", you mean disproving, then yes, actually, they do. This is the peer review process. It is brutal. Other scientists will look in every nook and cranny trying to find the smallest error within your paper. its why not everything that makes it to publication journals end up in classroom textbooks. If there is even a small discrepancy in your test results outside the error margin, scientists will question you on that, asking for an explanation.

As for the "Foot prints with dinosaurs" evidence.... No. Every single claim of that nature has either been fabricated, mistaken, or tampered with. If you can provide the specific discovery that you are talking about, then i can go into more detail.

However, if by Destroy, you mean "Lets burn these papers so that no one will ever see them", then no, that simply does not happen.

An example of an objection to the actual science of the issue:
Morphological evolution has never been shown to happen. I will grant for the sake of argument (e.g. there are problems with it, but not nearly so big as the former) speciation, but there is absolutely no evidence of morphological evolution.

I still dont understand what morphological evolution is. Are you talking about Common ancestry based on morphology, or what?

I first noticed the problem in my high school biology textbook (which was, thankfully, less biased than most). The section after genetics, they started talking about micro-evolution. They displayed graphs of polygenic traits changing in population in smooth bell curves i.e. as if they were continuous.

I dont understand why you would use graphs to represent polygenic inheritance. What do you mean by "Smooth bell curves"? i dont quite understand you.

But if genetics is at all accurate, this cannot be true; the variables must be discrete and not continuous. The polygenic traits still are bound by a set number of gene configurations.

Are you talking about a specific trait, or traits in general?

This is the problem with morphological evolution: it requires the manufacture of new DNA and entire new genes to produce, but no known process of mutation can do this (and certainly not to the organism's benefit).

Uh, no. Mutations can increase the number of base pairs within a sequence.

Insertion mutations are just as their name suggests. They insert strings of base pairs into genes. And thats not all. Deletion, point mutation, these mutations can all change and alter the gene to create an utterly new section of DNA.

Furthermore, again, no. Benefitial mutations have been observed.

Most genes work (and must work) very precisely, or the animal dies/is crippled. Scientists have yet to show morphological evolution, even in fruit flies. This is one of ten or eleven /scientific/ objections to the process of evolution itself.

Actually, yes, morphologically different fruit flies have been produced, and infact, scientists are able to selectively enhance or remove specific morphological traits. Your claim simply isnt true.

Better present the other 9 or 10 scientific objections to the process of evolution. Cause so far, all the ones youve presented have failed.

There is additionally the problem of the inception of life i.e. a single cell is many, many, many orders of magnitude more complex than any batch of organic chemicals lying around. Even if you get amino acids (which is impossible given what we now know would be the composition of a primordial atmosphere), it is still a far cry from proteins, and further still from the specific set of specialized proteins that are required for basic life functions. DNA itself poses another problem: DNA doesn't naturally bond, and certainly not in any specific order. These properties allow DNA to carry information, but also make any chemical formation nigh-impossible.
First, no. Peptides have already been shown to produce, naturally, and since proteins are polypeptides, as i said before in another topic, we are getting closer step by step. To say that it is impossible or even a far cry from protiens is an exaggeration.

As for DNA, again, not true. RNA, has already been produced in labs through "Natural" processes and are self replicating. And since we know of mechanisms that can transform RNA into DNA, and vice versa, this problem, like the one above, is pretty damn close to being solved.
If anyone wants to debate me on the topic "Evolution is not a proven scientific fact," I'll be happy to issue a challenge.

Id take you up on that challenge, as it would be a very very very very short debate. Evolution is a fact. The fact is, that your child will have different genes than you, and that is evolution. What you want to discuss, is whether or not evolution is a valid scientific theory. Dont use the word "Proven", as there is no such thing in science as "proof". Proof is a mathematical term.

Judging by your knowledge of evolution so far though, id say youre going to lose either way. :(
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 4:10:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Valtarov two main issues - do you contend that your oppositions are either factors unknown to biologists, molecular geneticists etc., or that they are hidden purposefully? One must be true for even you considering your position to be valid, and it's a large leap to take from the start.

Secondly, did you learn evolution from creation/Christian friendly websites/sources? Because it strongly appears you have. Learning is great yes, the Internet can be a useful tool, yes. Bias does however exist. Learn biology from non religious sources, that doesn't make them necessarily anti religious. Any argument you make against evo is likely to already be catalogued at talkorigins, try there before you post. :)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 4:26:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 1:10:23 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 6/23/2010 12:22:35 PM, tkubok wrote:

I haven't seen you around DDO in a minute... welcome back.

Thanks.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 4:28:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 4:10:08 PM, Puck wrote:
Secondly, did you learn evolution from creation/Christian friendly websites/sources? Because it strongly appears you have. Learning is great yes, the Internet can be a useful tool, yes. Bias does however exist. Learn biology from non religious sources, that doesn't make them necessarily anti religious. Any argument you make against evo is likely to already be catalogued at talkorigins, try there before you post. :)

Doesnt matter. Im sure, to him, non-christian sites are also biased in his view.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 4:49:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 6:13:46 AM, Puck wrote:


Thank you for this video, Puck - it was amazing :)
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 5:00:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2010 5:35:37 AM, Yvette wrote:
Rationally, we should accept scientific knowledge as the best explanation until we know enough about a certain field to prove this or that idea wrong.

That is your first mistake people aren't rational and I would agree with Scott Adam's that most of the problems in the world come from the simple idea that we expect others to behave rationally while we do not

Also every major scientific theory has had a lot of weight behind it and many of the ones we accept now were considered insane
Like that idea of gravitation or a round earth or tectonic plates or light as a wave all of these ideas I am sure had mounds of "evidence" behind them until someone came along that disagreed with the "evidence" even though everyone else said they were crazy for doing so
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 5:07:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 5:00:25 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 6/22/2010 5:35:37 AM, Yvette wrote:
Rationally, we should accept scientific knowledge as the best explanation until we know enough about a certain field to prove this or that idea wrong.

That is your first mistake people aren't rational and I would agree with Scott Adam's that most of the problems in the world come from the simple idea that we expect others to behave rationally while we do not

No it is your mistake to assume one persons opinion is the basis for scientific *consensus*. Look up peer review.

I am sure had mounds of "evidence" behind them until someone came along that disagreed with the "evidence" even though everyone else said they were crazy for doing so

Problem is your position doesn't have evidence, it has errors. Simply because the scientific method has in built in fluidity and knowledge is hierarchical - it does not mean that at any given time a position must be wrong simply because it is the current position.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 5:11:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am sure had mounds of "evidence" behind them until someone came along that disagreed with the "evidence" even though everyone else said they were crazy for doing so

Problem is your position doesn't have evidence, it has errors. Simply because the scientific method has in built in fluidity and knowledge is hierarchical - it does not mean that at any given time a position must be wrong simply because it is the current position.

First I would like to say that I am not advocating any particular position just pointing out something I think interesting
And I am not saying that just because it is the current position it is false I am just saying that many current positions had a lot of evidence that was later disproved
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 5:15:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 5:11:46 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I am sure had mounds of "evidence" behind them until someone came along that disagreed with the "evidence" even though everyone else said they were crazy for doing so

Problem is your position doesn't have evidence, it has errors. Simply because the scientific method has in built in fluidity and knowledge is hierarchical - it does not mean that at any given time a position must be wrong simply because it is the current position.

First I would like to say that I am not advocating any particular position just pointing out something I think interesting

Other posts say otherwise. :)

And I am not saying that just because it is the current position it is false I am just saying that many current positions had a lot of evidence that was later disproved

Then they wouldn't be the current position would they. :P More like they were the past position now held by the current position. Regardless it is a null point in regards to argumentation. Either you hold knowledge is gainable or you don't.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 5:15:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 5:00:25 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Also every major scientific theory has had a lot of weight behind it and many of the ones we accept now were considered insane
Like that idea of gravitation or a round earth or tectonic plates or light as a wave all of these ideas I am sure had mounds of "evidence" behind them until someone came along that disagreed with the "evidence" even though everyone else said they were crazy for doing so

Yes, and when these people challenged the accepted scientific theories at the time, they brought with them even more evidence and provided explanations that fit ALL the evidence better.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 5:18:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 5:15:19 PM, Puck wrote:
At 6/23/2010 5:11:46 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I am sure had mounds of "evidence" behind them until someone came along that disagreed with the "evidence" even though everyone else said they were crazy for doing so

Problem is your position doesn't have evidence, it has errors. Simply because the scientific method has in built in fluidity and knowledge is hierarchical - it does not mean that at any given time a position must be wrong simply because it is the current position.

First I would like to say that I am not advocating any particular position just pointing out something I think interesting

Other posts say otherwise. :)

How about in this specific post I am not advocating anything other than some insightful questioning
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 5:34:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 5:18:29 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 6/23/2010 5:15:19 PM, Puck wrote:
At 6/23/2010 5:11:46 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I am sure had mounds of "evidence" behind them until someone came along that disagreed with the "evidence" even though everyone else said they were crazy for doing so

Problem is your position doesn't have evidence, it has errors. Simply because the scientific method has in built in fluidity and knowledge is hierarchical - it does not mean that at any given time a position must be wrong simply because it is the current position.

First I would like to say that I am not advocating any particular position just pointing out something I think interesting

Other posts say otherwise. :)

How about in this specific post I am not advocating anything other than some insightful questioning

You want us to pretend we don't know your position on evolution? Especially when that was one of the things prompting the original post?

You are ENTIRELY right about new theories seeming insane and then people accepting them. Except, we all know you're thinking of creationism. So here's the problem.

Creationism, as I've explained before is not science. It's coming to a religious conclusion, then searching for explanations and evidence to fit the conclusion and attempting to discredit anything that contradicts the conclusion. You cannot honestly think that is a rational way to go about it? Why would scientists ever accept that sort of thing? And hey look, a persecution complex. Creationism isn't one brilliant guy trying to convince a world of idiots. Sorry. It isn't.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 5:51:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 5:34:50 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 6/23/2010 5:18:29 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 6/23/2010 5:15:19 PM, Puck wrote:
At 6/23/2010 5:11:46 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I am sure had mounds of "evidence" behind them until someone came along that disagreed with the "evidence" even though everyone else said they were crazy for doing so

Problem is your position doesn't have evidence, it has errors. Simply because the scientific method has in built in fluidity and knowledge is hierarchical - it does not mean that at any given time a position must be wrong simply because it is the current position.

First I would like to say that I am not advocating any particular position just pointing out something I think interesting

Other posts say otherwise. :)

How about in this specific post I am not advocating anything other than some insightful questioning

You want us to pretend we don't know your position on evolution? Especially when that was one of the things prompting the original post?

You are ENTIRELY right about new theories seeming insane and then people accepting them. Except, we all know you're thinking of creationism. So here's the problem.

Creationism, as I've explained before is not science. It's coming to a religious conclusion, then searching for explanations and evidence to fit the conclusion and attempting to discredit anything that contradicts the conclusion. You cannot honestly think that is a rational way to go about it? Why would scientists ever accept that sort of thing? And hey look, a persecution complex. Creationism isn't one brilliant guy trying to convince a world of idiots. Sorry. It isn't.

I will admit that yes I am a Young Earth Creationist but in this case I was not trying to convince anybody of anything I was just pointing out something I found to be interesting
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 6:25:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@Valtarov You were looking for someone to accept a challenge on an evolution debate. I'd be happy to oblige, if the resolution is worded reasonably. No scientific theory is ever "proven" in the sense that mathematical theories are proven. Perhaps you would like to affirm "The theory of evolution is not scientifically sound" or "The theory of evolution is not established science" or something along those lines. I suggest three rounds, 8000 characters, one month voting.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2010 6:33:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
People reject scientific knowledge but have no problem in using the knowledge gained for their own benefit.

1. Nuclear Medicine-saves lives. If creationists know something about radiometric decay then get to work, tell the world! We need to know. But they don't do this simply because their position on radiometric decay is bogus and has no use in medicine.

2. Name one company in the world that uses hydraulic sorting and flood mythology to find oil, or anything else for that matter, in the earth. Flood geology is a failure and has been from the start.

3. Young Earth Creationism is science denial. Creationists may have contributed to various fields in science, but creationism in its modern form (ICR, AIG, etc) has done nothing but make money for creationists. Where else can one without a degree in science make millions by denying science? Pseudo scientific endeavors of course. YECs are no better than fortune tellers, and "abductee counselors". The big difference is that YECs declare their position to be the infallible word of God.

The theory of evolution is the periodic table of biology. The strength of the theory lies in its continued success in the face of modern science. 150 years old and it still works for us. If the theory of evolution was wrong, then genetics would have blown it out of the water decades ago. Scientists would stop using it. Genetics turned out to be amazing evidence in support of evolution and the modern synthesis show this very well.

As for a debate, I welcome debates with YECs on this site. And if we have a YEC who wishes to deliver the killing blow to the theory of evolution, then by all means share it with the world! I will not hold my breath. 9 out 10 arguments used by YECs are from the 1920's and before. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Evolution has something that the YECs can only dream of - a theory that works and can be applied.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 12:53:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Meanwhile...science delves into areas that it is incompetent to comment. If asked to a scientist why the universe exists he or she will say there is no reason. Now there is no scientific process, instrument, process, formula etc. capable of approaching the question why, it only is able to address how. All of the whys truly remain unanswered. The angle of incidence equals the angle of refraction - a physics given, but why? No answer really, because "givens" don't have an answer as to why. And yet those who rely on science will make assertions about the whys all the time, and in the majority of the instances where they do not have a shred of evidence to assert the answer they will still say that there is no why.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 7:36:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Imm,
Scientists should avoid such statements when speaking the capacity of science. Saying, "no reason" is not sufficient and is outside the scope of science. I see this in the theism/atheism debates a lot.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 8:58:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 4:10:08 PM, Puck wrote:
Valtarov two main issues - do you contend that your oppositions are either factors unknown to biologists, molecular geneticists etc., or that they are hidden purposefully? One must be true for even you considering your position to be valid, and it's a large leap to take from the start.

Secondly, did you learn evolution from creation/Christian friendly websites/sources? Because it strongly appears you have. Learning is great yes, the Internet can be a useful tool, yes. Bias does however exist. Learn biology from non religious sources, that doesn't make them necessarily anti religious. Any argument you make against evo is likely to already be catalogued at talkorigins, try there before you post. :)

Actually, I learned it from a book about evolution written by an eminent evolutionary scientist who got disgusted with how it is taught in schools. He is not a Christian.

I don't know what a molecular biologist would say, but I do contend that a lot of American scientists do for fear of scientific scorn, which is what happens immediately to any scientist who comes up with any problem to the current model of evolution.
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 9:13:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 8:58:53 AM, Valtarov wrote:

Actually, I learned it from a book about evolution written by an eminent evolutionary scientist who got disgusted with how it is taught in schools. He is not a Christian.

I don't know what a molecular biologist would say, but I do contend that a lot of American scientists do for fear of scientific scorn, which is what happens immediately to any scientist who comes up with any problem to the current model of evolution.

Wrong answer. First, which book? I want context here. "Science on Trial" is a great book on the issues of teaching evolution and the errors teachers make. One of the biggest issues with teaching evolution is the fear of local parents who don't like that Godidit is not taught in a science classroom. I watched this happen in my city and it has happened all over the country.

Your comment about scientists being afraid is silly. Dr. Gould made a living out of calling scientists to the mat for their treatment of evolution and a look at the journal Nature will show that scientists bring forth many issues concerning hypotheses presented even today. The movie "Expelled" is a lie. Read the journals yourself and you will see the vigor in which scientists defend/attack papers. In order to accept your statement then we must accept some worldwide conspiracy among a substantial portion of scientists and then someone will need to explain why evolution works if it is so wrong. Start with the major organizations and work your way down. The Illuminati could only wish for such control.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 9:26:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/23/2010 12:22:35 PM, tkubok wrote:
No no. This is a fundemental misunderstanding on your part.

Scientists will not discard you for questioning evolution, as long as you provide evidence to support your claims. Its that simple.
Evidence? I have plenty, not to mention the Ben Stein documentary that came out a while back.

Time and again, the evidence that creationists, or people who question evolution have brought with them, are faulty. They just cannot stand up to scrutiny.
So all pieces of evidence presented against evolution must be faulty. This is a logical fallacy, through and through.

But the trully sad thing, is the dishonesty. When confronted with the problems regarding the evidence, what do these creationists do? They ignore it, and move onto the next argument or evidence. This is the main reason why, you will find so many christians using the same arguments that have already been debunked, to try to disprove evolution. Because these creationists refuse to admit that the evidence they provided was wrong.
I have yet to hear explanations for many cases of irreducible complexity, or many of my other problems with evolution. Second, the dichotomy you just set up between Christianity and evolution is a false one. Christiantiy is not at odds with evolution.

Scientists don't normally try to destroy evidence that challenges their theories.

If by "Destroy", you mean disproving, then yes, actually, they do. This is the peer review process. It is brutal. Other scientists will look in every nook and cranny trying to find the smallest error within your paper. its why not everything that makes it to publication journals end up in classroom textbooks. If there is even a small discrepancy in your test results outside the error margin, scientists will question you on that, asking for an explanation.
I mean the guy who attacked a fossil with a hammer because it challenged the theory of evolution. Moreover, peer reviewing only works when there isn't bias in the field, which there pretty obviously is.

As for the "Foot prints with dinosaurs" evidence.... No. Every single claim of that nature has either been fabricated, mistaken, or tampered with. If you can provide the specific discovery that you are talking about, then i can go into more detail.
The discovery was a series of dinosaur and human footprints side-by-side in the same stratum. In one of the footprints, the human stepped inside the dinosaur footprint. Analysis has supported it's authenticity.

However, if by Destroy, you mean "Lets burn these papers so that no one will ever see them", then no, that simply does not happen.
An evolutionary scientist attacked said fossil with a hammer! You are empirically denied.

An example of an objection to the actual science of the issue:
Morphological evolution has never been shown to happen. I will grant for the sake of argument (e.g. there are problems with it, but not nearly so big as the former) speciation, but there is absolutely no evidence of morphological evolution.

I still dont understand what morphological evolution is. Are you talking about Common ancestry based on morphology, or what?
See my response in the other thread.

I first noticed the problem in my high school biology textbook (which was, thankfully, less biased than most). The section after genetics, they started talking about micro-evolution. They displayed graphs of polygenic traits changing in population in smooth bell curves i.e. as if they were continuous.

I dont understand why you would use graphs to represent polygenic inheritance. What do you mean by "Smooth bell curves"? i dont quite understand you.
Population bell curves showing sizes of traits.

But if genetics is at all accurate, this cannot be true; the variables must be discrete and not continuous. The polygenic traits still are bound by a set number of gene configurations.

Are you talking about a specific trait, or traits in general?
Traits in general.

This is the problem with morphological evolution: it requires the manufacture of new DNA and entire new genes to produce, but no known process of mutation can do this (and certainly not to the organism's benefit).

Uh, no. Mutations can increase the number of base pairs within a sequence.
At a rate that takes 6 billion years to get to current genetic diversity.

Insertion mutations are just as their name suggests. They insert strings of base pairs into genes. And thats not all. Deletion, point mutation, these mutations can all change and alter the gene to create an utterly new section of DNA.

Furthermore, again, no. Benefitial mutations have been observed.
But the rate of occurrence is not nearly fast enough to produce the required variation.

Most genes work (and must work) very precisely, or the animal dies/is crippled. Scientists have yet to show morphological evolution, even in fruit flies. This is one of ten or eleven /scientific/ objections to the process of evolution itself.

Actually, yes, morphologically different fruit flies have been produced, and infact, scientists are able to selectively enhance or remove specific morphological traits. Your claim simply isnt true.
The fruit flies were manufactured by turning on existing genes to enlarge up their equivalent of horizontal stabilizers into full-sized wings. The wings have no muscles, make the flies very clumsy, and inhibit all functions of the fly's life. The species must be bred and maintained separately, or it immediately dies out due to natural selection. It's morphological damage, not evolution.

Better present the other 9 or 10 scientific objections to the process of evolution. Cause so far, all the ones youve presented have failed.
Empirically denied.


As for DNA, again, not true. RNA, has already been produced in labs through "Natural" processes and are self replicating. And since we know of mechanisms that can transform RNA into DNA, and vice versa, this problem, like the one above, is pretty damn close to being solved.
Source? There are few non-living replicating processes; this seems highly unlikely. Moreover, it still doesn't address the problem of how you get information, much less the right information for life, encoded if it originates from determined processes i.e. you can't get information from randomness. Moreover, these lab natural processes must have been encoding the RNA; else it's just strings of nonsense that kill the cell.
If anyone wants to debate me on the topic "Evolution is not a proven scientific fact," I'll be happy to issue a challenge.

Id take you up on that challenge, as it would be a very very very very short debate. Evolution is a fact. The fact is, that your child will have different genes than you, and that is evolution. What you want to discuss, is whether or not evolution is a valid scientific theory. Dont use the word "Proven", as there is no such thing in science as "proof". Proof is a mathematical term.
That is mircro-evolution, first off. Second, the reason I worded it that way is because I hear people like Dawkins saying that evolution, as in macro-evolution (and materialism thrown in just for giggles), is scientifically a proven fact.

Judging by your knowledge of evolution so far though, id say youre going to lose either way. :(
I doubt that very, very much.
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"