Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 181 of 304 (423052)
09-19-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by bluegenes
09-19-2007 7:23 AM


Re: Err... wrong person
I think you accidentally replied to the wrong post,
Yes. Quite correct. I, of course, meant to reply to IAmJoseph. Is there anyway to change the post you're responding to?
Sorry, RAZD, I never consider any of your insightful posts to be nonsensical.
Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.
Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by bluegenes, posted 09-19-2007 7:23 AM bluegenes has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 182 of 304 (423054)
09-19-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by AnswersInGenitals
09-19-2007 7:01 AM


Re: Understanding the pervue of scientific theories.
LOL I didn't notice that. You can always edit the post to say
"This was really in reply to [msg=-xxx] by IamJoseph"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 09-19-2007 7:01 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 183 of 304 (423080)
09-19-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by IamJoseph
09-19-2007 8:38 AM


Re: THE GREATNESS OF ... being on topic?
So, are you saying that thousands of scientists are just really bad at doing science?
Like, incompetent?
Also, why are predictions based upon the Theory of Evolution ever successful, if it is so incredibly wrong?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by IamJoseph, posted 09-19-2007 8:38 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by IamJoseph, posted 09-20-2007 6:50 AM nator has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 184 of 304 (423194)
09-20-2007 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Quetzal
09-19-2007 10:06 AM


Re: THE GREATNESS OF ... being on topic?
quote:
I'd appreciate a direct answer to the question posed in the OP
Its not about detail of the ToE process but its principle and conclusion. One can select a preferred, contrived path to prove that pigs can fly too - leaving the pivotal factors in the 'millions of years' bin for further proof. I have responded to PO's question. There is fear, as well as an ascending trend against religion - thanks to Europe and Arabia, and it reached a point, ANY DREAM WILL DO.
You say all what you saw in the wild of nature alligns with Darwin: so would a 1000 other explanations. Darwin took some factors such as growth points in different places, and alligned them with his ToE's factors; claimed speciation an elevation instead of anihilation; incorrectly categorised species; has no answers for what lay behind the actions he describes; failed to explain the relationship between reproduction against evolution; and failed to show any transit imprints of his thesis over millions of years of evolution.
I concur we have no answers, because referring the matter to religion or the Creator is escapism from science; but Darwin does not explain any gaps or unknowns here - they remain unknowns mixed with grotesque premises. Eg:
Let's say you discover that a growth in one life form group resembles or alligns with a growth point in another life form group, and let's say you can draw a graph which says millions of years ago these two points were connected, and one emrged as the other. Let's say you find the same in other areas, and nominate that this is the mode of operation for life the last 500 million years. But also, lets say the growth points were not directed at speciation but only to adapt to the same kind of life form, eg within the feline category. How would you tell the difference, that your conclusion was wrong? Whatever you site, such as an immediate time factor or another continuation factor, can apply elsewhere as well. How would you explain that the last life form, humans, acquired speech but crocs did not adapt, despite being a far older life? Here we see, that skelatal and dna imprints do not explain the difs between prime species - because these items are common to all life. Darwin does not even acknowledge speech as the factor separating humans from all others - as if its not relevent! Shall we wait the next million years - maybe crocs will clue on - speech is a more powerful tool for survival than strong jaws?
But why get lost in such details - anyone can justify anything - when hard proof is not the criteria. Its called slight of hand, casino science. More impacting is the principle, than the factors which seek to justify that premise. If you say speciation occured millions of years ago, and that it is a continueing process which never ceased - then show me evidence it occured yesterday - because the millions of years have no impact on this demand - anyone with reasonable maths would acknowledge this fact. Try it with tomatoes, which are subject to decay as an ongoing process: can you say that the effects are not measurable with tomatoes everywhere and at all times? Try to match ToE with other hard facts on the ground - eg population growths every 50K years.
Fact is, all the impacting fulcrum questions are sidelined with bogus answers: all transit life forms in the process of change have either become extinct, the changes were too slow to capture, or it happened long, long ago: how convenient. But even accepting those excuses - a biologist must ask the impacting questions: show us a single life form in the midst of a change - and no, not academically in dna form - but one which can be put in a museum for a child to see.
There is no such thing as evolution in reality. All life form transmissions occur via the interaction of the parent host and the offspring. ToE is proven only when the latter is absent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Quetzal, posted 09-19-2007 10:06 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by nator, posted 09-20-2007 6:48 AM IamJoseph has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 185 of 304 (423195)
09-20-2007 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by IamJoseph
09-20-2007 6:43 AM


Re: THE GREATNESS OF ... being on topic?
So, are you saying that thousands of scientists are just really bad at doing science?
Like, incompetent?
Also, why are predictions based upon the Theory of Evolution ever successful, if it is so incredibly wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by IamJoseph, posted 09-20-2007 6:43 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 186 of 304 (423196)
09-20-2007 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by nator
09-19-2007 5:21 PM


Re: THE GREATNESS OF ... being on topic?
quote:
Also, why are predictions based upon the Theory of Evolution ever successful, if it is so incredibly wrong?
Its a worldly view - but its not successful from the POV it has not progressed from theory to fact. But you seem to describe it as if it was. A bird becomes a bird, and a zebra becomes a zebra - not because of the external, environmental factors or the dna inherited millions of years ago - but by what it is formed by in its mother's womb. What is being said here is, the host parent is only a sub-plot, and all the right stuff comes from elsewhere. Does it mean, an egg becomes a chicken because of a retrovirus inherited millions of years ago: try that without the yoke inside.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 09-19-2007 5:21 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by nator, posted 09-20-2007 7:00 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 188 by Vacate, posted 09-20-2007 7:23 AM IamJoseph has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 187 of 304 (423197)
09-20-2007 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by IamJoseph
09-20-2007 6:50 AM


Re: THE GREATNESS OF ... being on topic?
So, are you saying that thousands of scientists are just really bad at doing science?
Like, incompetent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by IamJoseph, posted 09-20-2007 6:50 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 188 of 304 (423200)
09-20-2007 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by IamJoseph
09-20-2007 6:50 AM


Re: THE GREATNESS OF ... being on topic?
A bird becomes a bird, and a zebra becomes a zebra - not because of the external, environmental factors or the dna inherited millions of years ago - but by what it is formed by in its mother's womb
This isnt quite what you said earlier. What happened to the Air Borne [Fowl] kind? Chickens giving birth to penguins, hummingbirds, and crows...
If you want to elaborate I am curious about your groupings. I posted on RAZDs thread about your categories of kind, if you are willing I believe that they need some clarity.
Problems of a different "Kind"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by IamJoseph, posted 09-20-2007 6:50 AM IamJoseph has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 189 of 304 (425604)
10-03-2007 4:04 AM


How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
Simple: The same way non-Norse European navigators could believe one would could drop off the western edge of the Atlantic. It's what they were taught.
The only ones whose behavior is unethical in this respect are those who discover the truth and act to suppress it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by cavediver, posted 10-03-2007 6:11 AM CTD has replied
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-03-2007 5:33 PM CTD has replied
 Message 192 by bluegenes, posted 10-03-2007 6:48 PM CTD has not replied
 Message 193 by iceage, posted 10-03-2007 7:24 PM CTD has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 190 of 304 (425610)
10-03-2007 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by CTD
10-03-2007 4:04 AM


How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
Simple... ...It's what they were taught.
The only ones whose behavior is unethical in this respect are those who discover the truth and act to suppress it.
You really believe that scientists just blindly swallow what they are taught???
Just how stupid do you think scientists are? Would you care to suggest just how stupid I am, as a cosmologist, who has obviously just been gullible enough to swallow all the lies that have been taught me. And I, in my ignorance, have then passed on these lies to all of my students!!! Or perhaps I am one of the unethical ones, who knows the truth but prefers to conceal it, having deliberately fed lies to my students???
Or does this scientific stupidity/dishonesty only apply to biologists?
The complete arrogance and utter ignorance demonstrated in your accusation is simply astounding.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 4:04 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 9:26 PM cavediver has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 191 of 304 (425674)
10-03-2007 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by CTD
10-03-2007 4:04 AM


Simple: The same way non-Norse European navigators could believe one would could drop off the western edge of the Atlantic. It's what they were taught.
Of course, you made this rubbish up in your head, which is why you can't produce one shred of evidence for your delusions.
And what's the point of you reciting this rubbish? Let me remind you once more.
Yes, every creationist argument is rubbish, but that doesn't mean that everything that's rubbish is a creationist argument. Some rubbish is just rubbish. It's not even creationist rubbish, it's just rubbish.
You are reciting ignorant trash and it doesn't even help prop up your fairytale about the talking snake. It's just ignorant trash.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 4:04 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 10:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 192 of 304 (425684)
10-03-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by CTD
10-03-2007 4:04 AM


CTD writes:
Simple: The same way non-Norse European navigators could believe one would could drop off the western edge of the Atlantic. It's what they were taught.
That would be a perfect answer to questions like:
quote:
How can Christians believe the Bible is the word of God?
How can Muslims believe that the Koran is the word of God?
How can Hindus believe that they get reincarnated?
How can so many Americans believe that Jewish mythology is literally true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 4:04 AM CTD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by IamJoseph, posted 10-07-2007 5:30 AM bluegenes has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 193 of 304 (425696)
10-03-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by CTD
10-03-2007 4:04 AM


Bullcrap
CTD writes:
It's what they were taught.
The only ones whose behavior is unethical in this respect are those who discover the truth and act to suppress it.
You must never have been exposed to a scientific/academic environment.
Yes there are big egos involved and maybe even peer pressure. However in the end what really matters is correspondence to the data. Accolades and honors are bestowed to those who innovate or go counter to established paradigm and advance new theories, equations or models that better match the data.
Secondly on a personal level integrity and honesty are paramount. Any evidence of dishonesty, unethical manipulations or even ineptitude in the reporting of results or data can be career ending.
Your comment...
CTD writes:
The only ones whose behavior is unethical in this respect are those who discover the truth and act to suppress it.
is really unsupported and baseless. It is really naive to think that there are a cadre of scientist who "discover the truth and act to suppress it" in order to maintain some godless status quo. This is especially true when you sit around and enjoy all the fruits of scientific progress. If the scientific world is inhabited by people of such dubious integrity why has science been so successful in explaining the nature of world and elevating the general living standards of all?
On the contrary within the religious communities fraud, deception, half-truths, false prophecies are tolerated and overlooked. For example, if you ever read the rubbish produced by renown "scholar" Josh McDowell or more recently his son and cannot detect a smorgabord of logical fallacies and implied assertions you are not paying attention. Further I have had exposure to pentecostal style churches before in which they churn out prophecies by the dozen: most fail miserably and those that don't are paraded around as confirmation and repeated and embellished on and on (ie confirmation bias). Recently in my own home town some pentecostal knuckleheads started "receiving Gemstones from Heaven". Go to YouTube and type in "Gemstones from Heaven" and watch a few of these videos produced by Patricia King of Extreme Prophetic.
I investigated this whole affair and wrote up my experiences here...
Gemstones from Heaven in Idaho
The point is that within these groups there is very little skepticism and skepticism is not tolerated or encouraged, which leads to these kinds of abuses. Skeptics or out-the-box thinkers in the religious communities are burned at the stake, excommunicated or if they are lucky start their own cult.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 4:04 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 10:03 PM iceage has replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 194 of 304 (425716)
10-03-2007 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by cavediver
10-03-2007 6:11 AM


cavediver
You really believe that scientists just blindly swallow what they are taught???
Some do. Some don't. This is true in any area of study.
Just how stupid do you think scientists are? Would you care to suggest just how stupid I am, as a cosmologist, who has obviously just been gullible enough to swallow all the lies that have been taught me. And I, in my ignorance, have then passed on these lies to all of my students!!! Or perhaps I am one of the unethical ones, who knows the truth but prefers to conceal it, having deliberately fed lies to my students???
I cannot say just how stupid you are. An observant teacher would observe that some students tend to question things critically while others do not.
When the pace is such that students find themselves "cramming" before tests, they don't really have time to question everything even if they otherwise would be inclined to do so. Some students struggle enough just to get by, and don't have a lot of spare intellectual energy. If you are a teacher you should be able to make a better list than I.
The complete arrogance and utter ignorance demonstrated in your accusation is simply astounding.
Your disproportionate response could be interpreted as incriminating.
Would you maintain that any student of science has ever been able to critically assess and verify everything he's been taught? Even one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by cavediver, posted 10-03-2007 6:11 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by cavediver, posted 10-04-2007 4:48 AM CTD has replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 195 of 304 (425723)
10-03-2007 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by iceage
10-03-2007 7:24 PM


what it is
You must never have been exposed to a scientific/academic environment.
You must believe this statement to have propaganda value. It does.
Congratulations.
In fact, the same can be said for the rest of your post.
But I'm unsure about the title. Is it a label? If so, it is accurate.
As a response, it is insufficient. I'm not sure which of my sentences you disagree with. I expect it's the second. From your perspective the unethical ones would be those who blab. But your post never got around to what's unethical about blabbing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by iceage, posted 10-03-2007 7:24 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by nator, posted 10-03-2007 10:09 PM CTD has replied
 Message 198 by iceage, posted 10-03-2007 10:43 PM CTD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024