|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: How can Biologists believe in the ToE? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4115 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: And people who don't know what a theory is. It's not surprising why the US is steadily facing a decline in global competitiveness. The population is steadily getting dumber and dumber when it comes to science. The vast majority of science graduates in US secondary schooling are foreign.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That was a special report from whichever planet CTD lives on.
And now, back to the real world, in which biologists know about biology and would realise if it conflicted with the ToE. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The earlier they encounter the idea, the longer they have to question it. And it's banished by scrutiny. Now, let's think about why the theory of evolution is "banished" by the "scrutiny" of children but not by the scrutiny of scientists. Now I have a hypothesis here, which is that evolution is scientific and creationism is childish. That would explain why you can fool children into creationism, but not scientists. A child can be brainwashed by a Jack Chick tract --- a scientist comes face to face with the facts of nature on a daily basis, and would never fall for his ludicrous bullshit. You might also ponder why these children of whom you boast do not go on to become scientists. After all, you claim to have more than 50% of children on your side --- whereas we have 99.9% of scientists. It must therefore be preponderantly and overwhelmingly the case that the children who reject evolution are those who are incompetent in science or uninterested in it or in some other way incapable of pursuing a scientific career. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But there's good news: Roughly half the kids graduating high school ("U.S.") are rejecting evolutionism to one extent or another. The per centage was much worse not too many years ago. It's shifting rapidly. Considering the longstanding monopoly, and increasing requirements that the religion must be taught as if it were an established fact, this is really something! I think I see a pattern. 10 or 15 years back (I forget) a major campaign was launched to get evolutionism into lower grades. Books were re-written to stuff it in at every opportunity, and teachers were given special training. But it's backfired spectacularly. Young kids are much smarter than the evolutionists thought. And they have a lot of free time, a luxury not often found in the adult world. The earlier they encounter the idea, the longer they have to question it. And it's banished by scrutiny. One obvious problem with your fantasy is that if people really rejected the theory of evolution as a consequence of learning about it, as you pretend, then the people who reject it would know what it was. Instead, by an overwhelming majority, creationists get evolution confused with stupid creationist crap about "a monkey turning into a man" and "something coming from nothing" and "pure chance" and all the rest of it. Also, if learning about the theory caused people to reject it, then the creationist propagandists who come up with this rubbish wouldn't be so desperate to conceal what the theory of evolution is. If you really believed in your delusion, then your course would clear. You should campaign for more class time to be devoted to the study of evolution. But you're not going to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4115 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: CTD has made a fatal error. His argument only includes the youth of America and the youth of countries like Pakistan. In countries that have good primary education systems, evolution is a solid fact. Western Europe is effectively a evolution stronghold. North East Asia as well. Both lead the world in youth test scores. So his argument really is that evolution fails under the scrutiny of some of the poorly education children of the world, yet omits that it is accepted by the children who have had the best education. I suspect he will ignore this problem even though I've asked him to deal with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
CTD writes: But there's good news: Roughly half the kids graduating high school ("U.S.") are rejecting evolutionism to one extent or another. The per centage was much worse not too many years ago. It's shifting rapidly. Considering the longstanding monopoly, and increasing requirements that the religion must be taught as if it were an established fact, this is really something! First, I would like to see what evidence you have for this statement. Second, since half of all adults in the US do not accept the findings of modern biology or geology, how could such a trend be discerned? In my personal, and admittedly anecdotal experience, both as a community college employee and the father of a 15-year-old, I see the opposite. Since it is clear to all except the most fanatical of the generation that is currently of teen age that virtually all so-called authorities in power, be they political or religious, are corrupt hypocrites and liars, I see a much greater support for the findings of science and much less for fundamentalist religion than I did 10 years ago. Remember, I am speaking from 'Bush country' 40 miles from where Bush grew up. His discredited and failed administration has done much to disgrace the conservative religious movement that is still in nominal control of the Republican Party. I found my last road trip to Austin quite interesting as all the wealthy ranchers along the way seem to have replaced their Bush/Cheney billboards for those in support of Ron Paul, a definite fiscal conservative that has no use for the political manipulation of religious fanatics. So how can biologists believe in the ToE? Ask someone in the US between 10 and 20, you may find the answer defies 'conventional wisdom.' Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: That there is no alternative to creationism and monotheism is not countered by science or any other factor - successfully. Randomity to Complexity can be the greatest myth of all, and belongs less in science than anything else one can imagine. In any case, a host of scientific assumptions, including ToE, fail in a finite universe, and the assumption of an infinite uni is less than sci-fi, and escapism. The debate about speech fell into desperation mode here, while being assumed as sciencespeak; this despite a host of evidences, backed by today's most prominent scientists - who agree speech is a mystery, inexplicable, not an extension of communication, that it has never existed outside humans - and emerged suddenly and in an already advanced state. Not a singular hard evedence was forthcoming - against counter existent hard evidences. At least, the latter is not myth, but a premise which has not been countered with any successful alternatives. Even it's assumed counters were reliant on the most obtuse forms of semantics possible, and then too were in the struggle only to form a reasonable, coherent alternative derived from unevidential semantics and word play. The bottom line is, no biologist can justify any premise for speech via ToE or any other factor. This then is a scientific myth which exceeds all others - because it fronts up as a science. One is left to consider the alternatives, 'IF' speech is not a result of evolution - but this appears to formidable to entertain, making its neo science premise akin to a very religious ilk and not up for negotiation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
ToE becomes more attractive as an escape from the multi contradicting religious beliefs; it avoids these awkward interactions.
ToE has gained advances because, more than its own validity, is backed by a growing humanity steering away from the contradictions and lack of proofs in religions. The Lib phenomenon, which began in Europe, and subsequent to growing disenchantment with religions and its hisotry there, has taken on the cloak of a new political stance. It obsessively rejects any science which has an incline with religion, even by default. Today, no scientists can secure a career or grants, if any hint of anti-ToE is evident. Religions are wrong for Libs even if any one of them is right in any area, all being cast in one basket. Your other comment on Bush is an example here. As if anyone else is succeeding elsewhere, in any experimented evidence. There is no evidence Europe is safe and secure, nor do terrains across the far east where there is no Bush impacts. The Libs are thus a manifestation of their own contradictions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
ToE becomes more attractive as an escape from the multi contradicting religious beliefs; it avoids these awkward interactions. Its science. How long have you been here and you still don't know why science avoids religious beliefs?
It obsessively rejects any science which has an incline with religion, even by default. Down with Big Bang!! Sounds too much like Goddidit.
Today, no scientists can secure a career or grants, if any hint of anti-ToE is evident. You mean biologists right? You often confuse ToE with Big Bang, so I want to be sure you don't mean all scientists.
As if anyone else is succeeding elsewhere, in any experimented evidence. The True North strong and free! quote: Canada is doing ok, but I am biased.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That there is no alternative to creationism and monotheism is not countered by science or any other factor - successfully. Randomity to Complexity can be the greatest myth of all, and belongs less in science than anything else one can imagine. In any case, a host of scientific assumptions, including ToE, fail in a finite universe, and the assumption of an infinite uni is less than sci-fi, and escapism. The debate about speech fell into desperation mode here, while being assumed as sciencespeak; this despite a host of evidences, backed by today's most prominent scientists - who agree speech is a mystery, inexplicable, not an extension of communication, that it has never existed outside humans - and emerged suddenly and in an already advanced state. Not a singular hard evedence was forthcoming - against counter existent hard evidences. At least, the latter is not myth, but a premise which has not been countered with any successful alternatives. Even it's assumed counters were reliant on the most obtuse forms of semantics possible, and then too were in the struggle only to form a reasonable, coherent alternative derived from unevidential semantics and word play. The bottom line is, no biologist can justify any premise for speech via ToE or any other factor. This then is a scientific myth which exceeds all others - because it fronts up as a science. One is left to consider the alternatives, 'IF' speech is not a result of evolution - but this appears to formidable to entertain, making its neo science premise akin to a very religious ilk and not up for negotiation. ToE becomes more attractive as an escape from the multi contradicting religious beliefs; it avoids these awkward interactions. ToE has gained advances because, more than its own validity, is backed by a growing humanity steering away from the contradictions and lack of proofs in religions. The Lib phenomenon, which began in Europe, and subsequent to growing disenchantment with religions and its hisotry there, has taken on the cloak of a new political stance. It obsessively rejects any science which has an incline with religion, even by default. Today, no scientists can secure a career or grants, if any hint of anti-ToE is evident. Religions are wrong for Libs even if any one of them is right in any area, all being cast in one basket. Your other comment on Bush is an example here. As if anyone else is succeeding elsewhere, in any experimented evidence. There is no evidence Europe is safe and secure, nor do terrains across the far east where there is no Bush impacts. The Libs are thus a manifestation of their own contradictions. Well, thanks for sharing your paranoid rhetoric. In the real world, the reason for the success of the ToE is that no-one can find a single fact that contradicts it, as is demonstrated by your posts. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There is no doubt, that there are big problems with ToE, agreed even by those who support it: I posted here opinions of the most prominent scientists in the aspect of 'speech' - which does contradict everything held by ToE. The anti links on Google is hardly short or insignificant, but a reasonable and growing minority. But this is a lengthy and avoidable debate, and it will only end up like the speech debacle. It's become science religion vs those mythical religions. Aside from being an unproven theory, except for the most flimsy, obscure inferences seen from a perspective which contorts every plausable logic assumption held - it is also wrong when those compromises are held as fact. This does not mean that all of evolution is wrong, but fulcrum sectors are scientifically controvercial and contradictory, after every effort of consideration. Its not a B/W issue. And there is formidable motive to distort and negate the evidences concerning speech's history and background: the latter makes it encumbent to consider what if speech contradicts the fulcrum clauses of ToE - on multiple levels, making totally wrong it had any linkage with all other forms of communications? Where do we go from such a point - or is biology shakled in a prison and cannot go there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: That's the problem. It is, instead of doing science, avoiding, other religious premises. Its also in the 'lumping game' - as if all religions have anything to say on the universe's origins or present a thesis which stands on its ground sceintifically, and when required, stand as an unshakable counter. the first 'book' on the subject of the universe never happened till some 3000 years inside recorded history: no one wrote on the subject of the universe origins, before or after Genesis, which comes with dates, places and premises which became the centre point of science: the first recording of life forms in their correct chronological listings. If science is not about religious beliefs, it is about Genesis.
quote: As you please. I like to measure a country's merits by the opposing forces confronting it. You are biased for sure. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
a reasonable and growing minority Reasonable? You, like many others have not even shown to grasp what the words mean.
ToE becomes more attractive as an escape from the multi contradicting religious beliefs; it avoids these awkward interactions. You do not know what science means.
Aside from being an unproven theory You do not know what theory means
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I posted here opinions of the most prominent scientists in the aspect of 'speech' - which does contradict everything held by ToE. Except (1) what you posted doesn't contradict the ToE and (2) until you define "speech" so that it can be evaluated you have no argument. As was amply demonstrated on the speech thread, the one where you were completely incapable of making a point because of the total lack of definition on your part.
There is no doubt, that there are big problems with ToE, agreed even by those who support it: Nope. Care to provide some substantiation for this assertion? List the "big problems" first ...
Aside from being an unproven theory, And aside from every single theory in every single science field and in philosophy being an "unproven theory" ... because otherwise it would be called a FACT instead of a theory ... calling any theory an "unproven theory" is a meaningless redundancy. People ignorant of science make this mistake.
And there is formidable motive to distort and negate the evidences concerning speech's history and background: There is a formidable motive in all of science to invalidate all theories, as that is how science operates, and this is why you need to define what you mean by speech: otherwise it could be held up to scrutiny and you absolutely refuse to evaluate it for veracity. You wouldn't want to have your pet theory actually be evaluated for veracity and invalidated now would you? But that is the difference between science and creationist babble.
... or is biology shakled in a prison and cannot go there? Nope, the "shackle" here is your absolute lack of definition for "speech" -- that is what prevents a rational evaluation of whether your concept has any validity or is just creationist babble. You ran screaming from the speech thread making up excuses and ducking the issue ... my logical conclusion is that you cannot define speech in any way that shows it is a different kind of communication from what other animals use, but just a difference in degree. Inability to define your term leaves you little option eh? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4600 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Vacate writes: Canada is doing ok, but I am biased. IamJoseph writes: As you please. I like to measure a country's merits by the opposing forces confronting it. You are biased for sure. You had not specified that a measure of a countries superiority was how many other countries wish to blow it up. I was thinking more along the lines of a strong economy and low unemployment, how silly of me. So based on your idea of what makes a country superior, who would you vote as top of the list?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024