|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution or Creation | |||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Prove to me where your great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother came from, how and why. If you cannot, I refuse to believe that such a person existed. Furthermore, I won't believe that you exist, either. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How is it possible that "day" and "night" were created on one day, but the Sun was created at a later time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I guess that means that you do, in fact, think that Biologists are stupid, incompetent scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Prove it. Tell me where and when they had sex, and why. Edited by nator, : No reason given. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But you asked, ICANT, "How can anyone believe in the Theory of Evolution?". That includes Biologists, doesn't it? The vast majority of professional Biologists accept the ToE as the great, overarching theory that underpins their entire field. This is because for the last 100 years or so, it has proven to have enormous predictive power, has not been falsified, and has spawned many other fruitful lines of research. The emergence of the field of Genetics, and the remarkable congruence between it and the predictions of the ToE was incredibly important to it's wide acceptance by the entire scientific community. Let me repeat: Scientific theories live or die on their usefulness. Do they make accurate predictions? Can we build upon past findings of the theory to ask more and better questions? The answer is a resounding YES for the Theory of Evolution.
quote: Like who? I see now that you hold to the conspiracy theory of why Biologists accept the ToE. ICANT, science is a painfully open, honest profession. Scientists who "twist anything to say what they want" will have an extremely hard time getting published in any legitimate peer-reviewed professional journal. This is because science is progressive; it builds upon the work of others. Fraud in science is extremely rare because the penalty for doing so is very harsh. (and they are nearly always eventually caught because when other scientists try to replicate their work, they won't get the same results, and also because graduate students and collaborators are very willing to be whistleblowers, since nobody wants their own work to be tainted by association) Scientists who cheat can't get work in their field ever again. So, I ask again; exactly which Biologists are willing to "twist anything"? Which scientists, exactly, distort or fabricate their findings in favor of their "agenda"? Which legitimate scientific journals have their papers been published in? How could it be that, in such an open, self-critical system as scientific peer-review is, certain Biologists could manage to lie and not get caught?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Er, I guess...
Except where in the Bible does it say "billions of years?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Like who? And who uncovered the frauds?
quote: You have no way of knowing that, so I suggest you retract it. I just love how people who don't know anything about how science is done casually throw around what are considered by scientists extremely serious and insulting accusations of fraud.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
It seems you are not willing or able to get my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So does that mean that if a crime is committed and there were no witnesses, that we can't figure out what happened? I guess you reject the field of forensics, then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No. There are, however, 1) extremely rare, and2) uncovered almost immediately by other scientists. quote: Again, they were discovered to be frauds, by other scientists, through the process of peer-review. Science is self-correcting, becasue it is extremely rigorous in examining and testing every claim.
quote: If somebody lies such that data is fudged or inappropriately tweaked, it will likely be noticed. First, a scientist's graduate students and post doctoral students will notice, becasue they are the ones doing the actual experiments and most of the writing of the paper. If things are fishy in the final product, they will be likely to notice. Second, the reviewers at the journal who reads the manuscrips is an expert in the field and will also likely notice if something doesn't add up. Third, if the work is presented at a conference, other scientists will have no qualms whasoever about grilling a scientist to his or her face about results or numbers that appear to be dodgy. Fourth, even if the fraudulent paper gets through all of this and is published, for the research to be granted anything more than the most tentative of acceptance, other independent labs will attempt to replicate the experiments and if nobody gets the same result, the hypothesis simply dies.
quote: Actually, as I explained, they do go away in science. The scientific peer review process is designed specifically to keep the good stuff and purge what isn't useful. Lies aren't useful becasue they do no correspond with reality, so they are rejected.
quote: All professional Biologists "use" the ToE in that all of the work by all of the scientists that their work is based upon flows from the basic premise of the ToE, which is that all life originated from a common ancestor and has descended with modification.
quote: LOL! Yeah, tell me about how highly we regard scientists in this country that we read about them in People magazine, and how many European villas all of these millionaire scientists own. The vast, vast majority of basic research is done by modestly-compensated professors toiling away in academia, ICANT.
quote: Every single experiment a Biologist does is a test of the ToE.
quote: Okay. But even if you believe God just poofed life into existence it changes nothing at all about the positive evidence gathered over the last 150 years in favor of the ToE. The ToE doesn't attempt to explain where the first life came from any more than Aerodynamics explains where wind comes from.
My question stands "How can anybody believe in the theory of evolution?" The reason they accept it is because the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it.
quote: That question is irrelevant to the ToE, just as where the wind comes from is irrelevant to the field of Aerodynamics. Do you disbelieve the Germ Theory of Disease because it doesn't explain where the first bacteria came from? Do you disbelieve the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System because it doesn't explain gravity?
quote: I'm not angry. I am direct. Now, would you please actually answer the question I asked, since it wasn't merely rhetorical? If you cannot answer it, then please retract this most serious and insulting accusation. I would also appreciate an ackowledgement that you read and understood my description of how and why the way science is conducted is likely to detect wrongdoing.
ICANT, science is a painfully open, honest profession. Scientists who "twist anything to say what they want" will have an extremely hard time getting published in any legitimate peer-reviewed professional journal. This is because science is progressive; it builds upon the work of others. Fraud in science is extremely rare because the penalty for doing so is very harsh. (and they are nearly always eventually caught because when other scientists try to replicate their work, they won't get the same results, and also because graduate students and collaborators are very willing to be whistleblowers, since nobody wants their own work to be tainted by association) Scientists who cheat can't get work in their field ever again.
So, I ask again; exactly which Biologists are willing to "twist anything"? Which scientists, exactly, distort or fabricate their findings in favor of their "agenda"? Which legitimate scientific journals have their papers been published in?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I see. So, sometimes you take the bible at it's literal word, and other times you add to the literal word, such as adding "billions" of years to a story. Sometimes you include what science says, and other times you don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Do you disbelieve the Germ Theory of Disease because it doesn't explain where the first bacteria came from? quote: That's right.
quote: It's not up to you to decide the scope of a scientific theory, ICANT. The ToE DOESN'T EXTEND TO EXPLAINING WHERE THE FIRST LIFE COMES FROM. Period. It doesn't. At all. Never has. For you to insist that it must is in opposition to reality. Stop playing these peverse, childish games.
quote: OK. That's one. That was eventually discovered and corrected by the scientific process. What's next?
quote: What is the definition of "kind", and what system is used to determine one "kind" from another? Please describe, in detail.
quote: So, you are basically saying that you are refusing to further your understanding and are happy to casually insult and seriously accuse many scientists of fraud. I took pains to write an explanation of the peer-review process for you so that you might better understand how insuting and spurious your accusation of fraud is, but you have brushed it aside and, for all I know, ignored it. Again and again over the years, I have been witness to this sort of faulty integrity your religion produces. I am glad I am not a Christian like you, ICANT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Look, ICANT, I know you don't like me, or what I have to say to you, and I don't blame you. You generally avoid addressing the substantive portions of my replies to you as much as you can and often ignore my rebuttals of your claims entirely.
You claim that you are here to learn, but you are singularly resistant to taking in any new information. You ask questions, receive answers, but then mostly fail to deal honestly and forthrightly with the answers people give you. Instead, you ignore the answers given you and simply repeat your questions. This is not the behavior of someone who truly wants to learn. This is instead the behavior of someone who is afraid to consider any thought or idea that might challenge his preconceptions. You made an insulting and serious accusation of widespread scientific fraud, such that many Biologists must be conspiring to falsify their data in order to promote a shared social agenda. Support this claim or withdraw it. If you have any integrity whasoever, and are not merely too proud to admit that you made this accusation on the basis of hearsay instead of well-researched evidence, you will do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
ICANT, most of your sources are just plain lies.
At best, they are horribly misinformed. And the ones that are correct you seem to be misreading, like the brontosaurus head issue. There is no fraud or hoax there. They just got it wrong at first and then corrected it when they learned more and got better information. What, scienctists are supposed to have perfect knowledge all the time for you to not accuse them of conspiring to deceive everyone else? If you would like to open a thread to discuss each of the claims in turn, I am sure we could work through them fairly quickly, but there is too much to address here. The question is, do you have the courage to do so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You wondered how anyone could believe in Evolution. Biology is the branch of science that most closely deals with Evolution (Genetics is a close second), therefore I asked you if you thought Biologists were stupid. Now it turns out that you believe many Biologists are liars and frauds. But if you want to extend it to include all scientists, it's fine by me; it just makes your job of providing evidence to support this claim that much more difficult.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024