It makes me sad every time...

[OrbitalDawn]

Edit: The "facts" also need to be looked at correctly.

What do you mean by this?

Also, am I correct in assuming that you haven't made the effort to gain some knowledge on the subject matter?

 

[porchrat]

What do you mean by this?

I'm guessing he means that he wants the evidence looked over by creation 'scientists'.

Also, am I correct in assuming that you haven't made the effort to gain some knowledge on the subject matter?

I'm guessing you are correct.

 

[porchrat]

Just let that sort of thing flow off you like water off a ducks back next time. Half my family are hardcore creationists, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter what view you hold, means little and you can't take it with you when you die so what's the point letting it bother you. No point

I disagree with this sentiment. That woman is a teacher. She fills young minds with knowledge.

What if what she says to those children influences them and indoctrinates them to such a degree that they eventually regard the entirety of the biological sciences (a huge portion of which is based on and tied very tightly into evolutionary theories) as utter hogwash and decide not to pursue a career in that field where one or more children would otherwise have done so.

I wouldn't have a problem if it was just a personal thing but when people are teaching other kids and their attitude is that it doesn't matter if a poster designed to educate children has some incorrect information on it because it is all crap anyway then it actually influence others and your attitude of it not mattering doesn't apply.

 

[be.plato]

What do you mean by this?

Also, am I correct in assuming that you haven't made the effort to gain some knowledge on the subject matter?

The "facts" that explain the ascent of man...

 

[be.plato]

My point was that because there is no evidence that falsifies the Theory of Evolution that rejecting it outright at this point is anti-science, like HIV denialism.

Also that so far from the evidence we do have it looks like the theory is correct.

If you could just acknowledge those points that would be great.

It looks like the theory is correct to you because its the only explanation that fits your worldview.

I am reading up on the theory of evolution currently so lets see were it takes me.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The "facts" that explain the ascent of man...

Why do you think the massive group of scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying this are looking at the facts incorrectly?

It looks like the theory is correct to you because its the only explanation that fits your worldview.

Or maybe because evidence gathered over the last 150+ years affirmed the theory, and it has withstood falsification for that whole period, and continues to. It seems you reject the theory because it doesn't fit your worldview.

I am reading up on the theory of evolution currently so lets see were it takes me.

What are you using as source material?

 

[be.plato]

Why do you think the massive group of scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying this are looking at the facts incorrectly?

Well I think it would be career suicide for a scientist to publicly state that he is going to try and repudiate evolution. The scientific community is very hierarchical and also very suspicious of attempts to rock the boat. But that is just my observation.

Or maybe because evidence gathered over the last 150+ years affirmed the theory, and it has withstood falsification for that whole period, and continues to. It seems you reject the theory because it doesn't fit your worldview.

Perhaps.

What are you using as source material?

I'm starting with this.

 

[Unhappy1]

Well I think it would be career suicide for a scientist to publicly state that he is going to try and repudiate evolution.

If he had the proof to back his claims then it would be quite the opposite.

The scientific community is very hierarchical and also very suspicious of attempts to rock the boat. But that is just my observation.

This statement is so hilarious yet so sad , all at the same time.

 

[SlinkyMike]

A bad theory at that, in fact Darwinism is the quintessential enemy of science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the way things really are, and when logic, evidence, and mathematical scrutiny cast grave doubt concerning the creative powers of the proposed Darwinian mechanism, those who offer such challenges are told to shut up and not ask stupid questions

The core of Darwinism (random errors filtered by natural selection as a universal explanation for everything in life) should take its appropriate place at the summit of the ash heap of pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Setting aside for a second the nigh-on lunacy of this post - try to consider (what I feel is) the most elegant description of the ToE: Changes in the frequency of alleles over time.

Your "...random errors filtered by Natural Selection..." definition is facile and pejorative... at best.

Given the choice between the two, not being taught at all. Children are very impressionable, and once taught something, it is very difficult for them to change their views later on. I would rather have them not being taught anything at all, which makes it easier to learn the correct thing later on from an objective point of view, than have them taught the incorrect thing where it is difficult for them to learn and accept the correct thing later on.

"If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world."
- God is not great, Christopher Hitchens.

We missed each other. I'm assuming this is an elementary school where the class has one teacher for all their subjects (math, science, bible study, and whatever else). That is why I asked would you rather them be without a teacher or be taught about creationism which won't make all that big a difference in the end. Kids eventually figure out that Santa Clause isn't real so I'm sure they'll be ok.

I'm Christian so of course I'd want Christianity to be taught in school. I will kick up a fuss if hinduism or islam is being taught. It is unfair towards others though so it is more correct to remove religion from schools completely, but I'm definitely not gonna go out of my way to fight it though (not when my side is "winning").

This post (to my mind) rather neatly sums up the reason why humanity needs to be extricated from religions. The sentiments expressed here represent the worst kind of un-intelligent, bloody-minded, short-sighted... just plain harmful sentiment a person could hold.

You are free to practice your religion in the privacy of your home, to raise your children in the doctrine of this belief system, you appreciate this liberty and yet you would not extend the same freedom to your fellow (albeit Hindu) man?

What kind of human being would think in such a way? What depth of immorality and depravity would blind you to the injustice and hideousness of this outlook?

...I guess we know the answer to that.

You claim "your side" is "winning"... is this a war? Dare I ask the question? As a memener of a species that has suffered entire histories of horror at the hands of the devout, that has somehow survived The Dark Ages, dare I even think it?

 

[porchrat]

It looks like the theory is correct to you because its the only explanation that fits your worldview.

I am reading up on the theory of evolution currently so lets see were it takes me.

No it looks correct because it is the only scientifically valid explanation that fits all the evidence so far.

If you are going to reject it then reject it scientifically or be labelled anti-science and intellectually dishonest for refusing to entertain it as a very real possibility. Which is actually my point.... prepared to acknowledge it now?... you seem to be implying that you acknowledge it but I want you to explicitly state it.

Scientists that are experts in every nuance of these facts all agree (with the exception of a few individuals who usually have their arguments thoroughly dismantled) that the evidence is pretty compelling, can you at least acknowledge that as far as the experts in the field are concerned, those most qualified to determine these matters, it looks like the theory is correct.

So please now acknowledge my points or refute them.

 

[be.plato]

No it looks correct because it is the only scientifically valid explanation that fits all the evidence so far.

If you are going to reject it then reject it scientifically or be labelled anti-science and intellectually dishonest for refusing to entertain it as a very real possibility. Which is actually my point.... prepared to acknowledge it now?... you seem to be implying that you acknowledge it but I want you to explicitly state it.

Scientists that are experts in every nuance of these facts all agree (with the exception of a few individuals who usually have their arguments thoroughly dismantled) that the evidence is pretty compelling, can you at least acknowledge that as far as the experts in the field are concerned, those most qualified to determine these matters, it looks like the theory is correct.

So please now acknowledge my points or refute them.

I acknowledge that you have made points, but I am reading up on the theory of evolution currently so lets see were it takes me.

 

[porchrat]

I acknowledge that you have made points, but I am reading up on the theory of evolution currently so lets see were it takes me.

Oh for goodness sake not what I asked and you know it. Stop dodging.

I, like you, am no expert on evolution. Even if you do some reading you are never going to be as knowledgeable on the subject as the experts that dedicate their lives to the study of it. THEIR thoughts on the matter are what matter here, not yours or mine. I don't care if you don't know enough about evolution to ever know that all the evidence points to it being true, you never will, I never will. The only people that do know are the ones that study this stuff full time. They are in agreement that the theory explains the evidence we have at hand. Acknowledge this point.

Besides the point about rejecting evolution actually has nothing to do with knowing anything about evolution itself. If you reject evolution without a valid scientific explanation as to why (e.g. some set of observations that falsifies the theory) then you are anti-science. You don't need to know anything about evolution in order to acknowledge this point. Now please acknowledge it.

At least you have finally started to bother actually learning what evolution is... well you are claiming to have started reading some wiki article anyway. Until you start demonstrating that knowledge I reserve judgement. After your latest embarrassing bit of HIV denialism Imust say I don't hold out much hope for you where the sciences are concerned. Still I encourage you to go to places like talkorigins.org. It will be especially useful when it comes to reversing the insane pseudoscience indoctrination you are likely to have been fed by other ignorant biblical literalist fundies as it directly addresses the vast majority of those so called arguments and shows why they are such pigswill.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Well I think it would be career suicide for a scientist to publicly state that he is going to try and repudiate evolution. The scientific community is very hierarchical and also very suspicious of attempts to rock the boat. But that is just my observation.

I think the exact opposite would happen. If you could falsify the ToE you'd be a science superhero. Did Einstein commit career suicide by expanding on Newton's work on gravitation? Did Hawking commit career suicide by expanding on Einstein's work? No. They solidified themselves as giants.

Perhaps.

Seems spot on, to me. You've proffered no actual scientific reasons why you reject the theory. You just don't 'like' it.

I'm starting with this.

Good. Make sure you read through the anti-evolution arguments section. Then head over to TalkOrigin's FAQ.

 

[porchrat]

Well I think it would be career suicide for a scientist to publicly state that he is going to try and repudiate evolution.

Yes it would but not for the reasons you think. It would be career suicide because that scientist would be demonstrating to the world that he/she is not even trying to be objective. The goal is to observe something, not to attempt to reach a particular conclusion. Any scientist that begins an investigation with the goal of reaching a particular conclusion is a poor scientist.

The scientific community is very hierarchical and also very suspicious of attempts to rock the boat. But that is just my observation.

Indeed and it is an incorrect one. As OrbitalDawn has pointed out those who have falsified long held theories have been held up in the past by the scientific community as giants in their fields. Think back to the list of famous scientists you recall and think just how many of them are famous because they rocked the boat. If your research doesn't rock the boat in some way by testing something to determine whether it is correct then you actually aren't doing science at all. The scientist that successfully and conclusively falsified evolution would get a free ride for the rest of his/her life. Made in the shade.

I also don't know where you get the idea that scientific research is very hierarchical. Could you please explain what you mean by this?

They refer to it as the scientific community for a reason. In my experience there are dedicated teams throughout the planet and while they do in some cases keep in contact just to keep tabs on what the others are up to they are all working independently. It is very much a community. These separate researchers don't have the power to silence one another in open discussions of their work. I think this hierarchy exists in your mind only.

Besides tenure exists to combat the very situation you describe of people attempting to fire or silence those who publish stuff they don't agree with. Those who have tenure are free to perform whatever research they want free of threat. That threat though usually comes from university management and political pressure, not fellow scientists.

 

[be.plato]

Seems spot on, to me. You've proffered no actual scientific reasons why you reject the theory. You just don't 'like' it.

One of the reasons I don't agree with evolution is cause you say this:

after much mutation and what not became this:

Just doesn't ring true..

 

[SlinkyMike]

One of the reasons I don't agree with evolution is cause you say this:
View attachment 35458
after much mutation and what not became this:
View attachment 35460
Just doesn't ring true..

Logical fallacy: Reductio ad absurdum.

 

[porchrat]

One of the reasons I don't agree with evolution is cause you say this:
View attachment 35458
after much mutation and what not became this:
View attachment 35460
Just doesn't ring true..

I agree that is utter nonsense.

Luckily that isn't what we, or the theory of evolution, say. Your ignorance is showing again. Rather take this time to read more about evolution as opposed to just further demonstrating OrbitalDawn's point about you rejecting evolution with no scientific reasons as backing.

A tip: discard what you think you know about evolution before reading through that wiki article (not that I believe you will ever read through it, or have even started) because you are very confused.

 

[be.plato]

I agree that is utter nonsense.

Luckily that isn't what we, or the theory of evolution, say. Your ignorance is showing again. Rather take this time to read more about evolution as opposed to just further demonstrating OrbitalDawn's point about you rejecting evolution with no scientific reasons as backing.

A tip: discard what you think you know about evolution before reading through that wiki article (not that I believe you will ever read through it, or have even started) because you are very confused.

Of course it says that.

 

[porchrat]

Of course it says that.

If you think that then you need to do a lot more reading.

 

[SlinkyMike]

Of course it says that.

I smell troll. Cease to feed - it should move on.