Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

I'm sorry but where did i say you had to do this? I said unless there is a Theory that explains things better than ToE, the ToE is what there is. to add on to this if you are willing to accept what science says then why not the ToE unless it had nothing to do with the thoery and more to do with conflicting with your beliefs, then its not about science at all what are you talking about? I think everyone can agree its a theory, to argue this would be silly. But it appears to me that there is a large number of people who have decided that thoery = not factual or not what really happened, or using a difinition that makes the ToE not truthful in thier minds, from this post i think you may fall into this group
well guess what? a theory is what everything is in science if you havn't learned this then umm.. read a book

I don't believe I ever mentioned my beliefs. What I have said was that we do have a herd mentality. I see it in polotics...in religion...in sports....and in "science". It is because we are....human. I never was much of a follower. We also have a habbit of filling in the gaps in data with our own, based on our take.
What "science" says...comes from people. If other people choose to let evidence lead them to thier own conclusions that is thier business. I will be my own judge.Theory has nothing to do with fact. That is why it is called a thoery.
A theory is a human interpretation of data. There are still far too many questions in my mind about the developement of life on earth for me to adhere to one strict interpretation of data. It is my theory that we will never come close to knowing the full picture. For all that we know....much of the evidence we need may no longer exist. For now it is an interesting way to look at the data. One that indicates a general trend of what we call life. Anything beyond that to me is individual speculation. To tout a particular species as a missing link without knowing all the facts is premature.It is one tiny picture in a mozaic we still do not know the nature of. It appears to be a transition species which may or may not be the case. Time will tell...
. And the search for answers to questions that lead to more questions will continue.

quote:

---

What I have said was that we do have a herd mentality.... I never was much of a follower.

---

You don't know how relieved I am that there are Ubermenschen like you among us deluded fools.-

quote:

---

If other people choose to let evidence lead them to thier own conclusions that is thier business.

---

Thank you. And if other people decide to retain their beliefs despite the evidence, that, too, is their business.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

i didn't say anything about your beliefs, i was talking about why a person might decide not to believe the theories that science has produced, one being religious, the other, just plain unwillingness oh really, so now you would say that scientists are making stuff up then? lets see some evidence that they are. You really have no clue about science at all, if people make stuff up its really a bad thing to do if you want to be considered legit what the hell do you think a theory is then? it seems you think scientists sit around and make stuff up to create something out of thin air, sorry but no, a theory is a frame work of facts to explain things. All science is a interpretation of data, so what? are you just going to cherry pick what theories you feel are right and wrong? are you going to say Newtons theories are right but GR isn't? or QM is right bit Chaos theory isn't? There is only one scientific thoery that fits all the facts we have, it is the ToE, so far no one has come up with anything that answers the questions put forth, if you have questions go look and see if the ToE has answered them, it doesn't sound like you have looked that hard when we find evidence that adds to the stability of the theory that also adds to the picture, plus you are using theory wrong which is part of the problem for you. i think you need to read up on how scientists analyze the data they have on species, that includes fossils. Because from this post it sounds like you really don't know much about it there will always be questions,thats not the problem i see, the problem i see if people looking for answers in wrong places

I peeked at the article.Here is a quote."Chloroplasts are one of the forms a plastid may take, and are generally considered to have originated as endosymbiotic cyanobacteria."This is not a fact but a generally accepted belief. I do not mention this to "debunk" anything but simply to show that we do tend to assume.This is another quote from that article."It is interesting to note that in some algae (such as the heterokonts and other protists such as Euglenozoa and Cercozoa), chloroplasts seem to have arisen through a secondary event of endosymbiosis, in which a eukaryotic cell engulfed a second eukaryotic cell containing chloroplasts, forming chloroplasts with three or four membrane layers. In some cases, such secondary endosymbionts have themselves been engulfed by still other eukaryotes, forming tertiary endosymbionts."This is an interesting interpretation of data. Have we seen anything of this nature occure in the lab? I have read several articles on endosymbiosis and they assume many things. See this article. http://www.geocities.com/jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htm
This is a theory to explain a transition. Not fact. Data is being interpreted based on the framework of this theory. It may be a correct interpretation but there is still much we do not know.

quote:

---

I do not mention this to "debunk" anything....

---

That's good, because to "debunk" a claim you would have to talk about the evidence that is being used to support that claim and the arguments that explain why the evidence is believed to support the claims, and then you would have to tell us why you feel the reasoning is fallacious.So far you have only claimed that you are not "following the herd".

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

The thing is it says why they accept this theory they have evidence of the symbiosis how do you know this not a fact? do you have evidence that this is wrong? your page has examples go read them its a theory on where the nuclei in cells came from. it is made up of facts - you still are using the terms wrong

Or the third...Accepting it for what it is...a human interpretation of data. Weather or not it is an accurate interpretation is still being determined. If you have mistaken a theory for fact that is your choice.
Now you mentioned a nasty little thingy called belief.
To believe in such an animal as a theory requires faith. That is indeed a whole other topic. Hmm...I think you need to relax a little. Seems almost like you revere "scientists" as something more than people. Akin to the reverece or respect a religios follower gives a religious leader simply because of thier training and title. Yer kinda skeerin me there.
Do I question the "authority" ? Damn right I do. Someone has to or we all follow the leader like little sheepies. Well yeah. They are thoeries and nothing more. They are not facts but interpretations of data that are there to be molded and shaped..torn down and rebuilt...added to or debunked. That is how it works.
Beauty ain't it? Yes without a doubt. The other is interpreting the data to fit a preconcieved view. I would love see or perhaps do a study on the politics of science and it's effects on theories and conclusions. Data is data, people will be people and there is much we do not know.

http://www.geocities.com/jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htmA likely scenario...possibly. It would explain things we see. To treat it as fact...I think not. It's a reasonable theory.

Pure strawman arguement, no one ever said it wasn't created by humans, but to accept science you have to accept what we have found and build on it, not say "gee it doesn't make sense to me, it must be wrong or false"
i never said anything like theory = fact i said, theorys explain facts and information, if you think theories are considered facts you have no clue about science. Evolution is a fact, the THEORY of evolution explains evolution and how it works, if you do not understand this then i have cause to weep for this world. as in accept ok so i guess the law of gravity is out, since it is a THEORY, go walk off a building then. no, I am getting frustrated with your distortion of science. why would i be scareing you? thats me getting frustrated with your lack of comprehesion.
I'm not revering anyone i am saying that theories with evidence to back them up shouldn't be handwaved away because you have this general need to show you arn't a sheep. You have yet to give any reasons for why you don't accept a well defined theory other than this silliness as i have said theories are explainations of facts, the ToE is a theory of evolution if you can come up with a better one then do so
but handwaving it is just plain willfull ignorance. Your understanding of science needs some work, saying is just dismissing a major part of science, and is amazing in its absurdity considering how you distort science, no have any evidence that scientists do this? a qualified scientist wouldn't do this. If you know about theories you would know that a scientist who doesn't allow others to test his work would shoot his integrity down, science is self correcting, so i doubt real researchers out to produce unbias science would be that effected

You still confuse fact with theoriesNoun 1. scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)
observation - facts learned by observing; "he reported his observations to the mayor"theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.you dismiss a theory based on what exactly? i still do not understand this
it seems that you are not using the terms right and giving them strawman meanings rather than using them correctlythis is how it works Evolution is the phenomena, the ToE is the theory that explains it, thoeries are not considered facts they construct a frame work around facts - you are making a creo strawman
you need to go read more on science and how it works because you don't seem to have any understanding of how thoeries work
here's a good site Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

You are just not happy that I am not gleefully willing to wholeheartedly accept the "moral majorities" View of the interpretation of observable information. Where is there the rule that I have to give you or anyone else some other explanation to cling to..so that it somehow will make you comfortable that I do not agree?
There are many fundamental questions that we have not come close to answering. In thier place we theorise and fill the gaps. Though this is hypothetically interesting it is still fiction.One thing I am good at is observing how people work. That is the source of all the material that requires my hip boots. I will always start with the assumption that we are wrong or inclined to see things our way. With us it is a good place to start. We are arrogant and egotistical. We are prone to many behavioural pitfalls. A scientist is a human first. For anyone to suggest that science is "above" or apart from our shortcomings I cannot and will not take seriously. Incorrect assumptions based on interpretations of "facts" have been touted by a majority many times throughout history. It is a simple fact of being human. I do not believe there will ever come a time when we cease to prove ourselves wrong and learn. That is how I approach a theory first. Given the source I happen to think it wise.My real beef is when we begin to treat a theory as something more than it is. We place emotions and passions into upholding it..... become upset when someone reminds us what a theory is.
We can have a theoretical interpretation that fits the facts as they are at the time of the thoery. Then we learn something that requires us to rethink the theory.
I do not "believe" we yet know near enough about the process of life coming to be on earth to make the many assumptions we have.
DNA may eventually change this.
But then there is the question of DNA itself and how it came to be.
This leads to the question...what came first? the instructions or the working model? lol

Baa Baa. Tell us poor sheep o "not a follower" where are you getting your ideas??I know they are not yours because I have seen them all over the web. Many times.What facts do you bring for us to interpet.Why should anyone take you as an authoritah?

Mighty good mirror you got there.When did you stop being human?

quote:

---

You are just not happy that I am not gleefully willing to wholeheartedly accept the "moral majorities" View of the interpretation of observable information.

---

On the contrary, now that I've pegged you I find you quite amusing. I know several people like you -- people who just decide to disagree with "the herd" just so you can claim to be "an independent thinker".

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)