Time to clear the decks...

[empirex]

...or at the very least reintroduce true scientific method and thought.
Kick out the loud mouths, stab the intolerant in the eye, stamp out agenda's; whatever happened to real scientists?

Or is that just wishful thinking.

“The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951).

Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.”

-- Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 336.

 

[Swa]

My thoughts exactly. I've found though that the real scientists are actually more than willing to accept that it's just a theory. Oh yes, there's that dirty blasphemous word again. It's actually more these google scientists with no degrees behind their name who think they have the God given (heaven forbid!) ability to discern true fact from fiction. I know you may think of it as something more than a theory but ultimately it isn't. It's also not both a fact and a theory (the fallacy of equivocation).

 

[Arthur]

Yes, indeed.

 

[cyghost]

The Interwebs ~ where you can say any dumb **** you like and find idiots who think as you do

 

[Ancalagon]

It is in fact both a fact and a theory. Its a fact because we can observe it happening. The theory is our attempt to explain why and how this phenomenon occurs.

But why do I bother? Why not just declare God did it, and stick my fingers in my ears, like creationists do? Much easier that way.

You lot would never be happy with any other scientific theory anyway. You say here you think its not good science, rubbish, you wouldnt know good science if it hit you in the face. What you want is for the scientists to leave a place for God in their explanation of why things happen like they do. Because evolution has no need for God, you dont like it. If there was another scientific theory, and it didnt involve God either, you would be equally unhappy.

So dont come here telling us you dont think evolution is good science. You dont want a scientific theory anyway, just admit it.

 

[Ekstasis]

The Interwebs ~ where you can say any dumb **** you like and find idiots who think as you do

You must be one of them then

 

[Ekstasis]

It is in fact both a fact and a theory.

This here is a very dangerous, well disguised statement because it's true....well half a truth. It's the old story of micro evolution and macro results.
Yes, evolution has been and are being observed, but at what level and to what extent? Micro organisms? Certainly. Macro organisms? Yes, but again..to what extent? The theory is an explanation based on observation - does this make the theory true?

How much of evolutionary science (all the disciplines involved) are actually science? Just a question

 

[Ancalagon]

As I said, I'm not bothering. What "scientific" theory would you be happy with? One in which god did it and made everything and no other gods except yours exist?

Please, just dont bother. I could show you unequivocal proof, and your mind would filter it out in order to preserve your religious beliefs. So why should I bother?

When I debate religion, I at least make an attempt to understand it. But you creationists do not understand evolution, and make no attempt to.

 

[Archer]

This here is a very dangerous, well disguised statement because it's true....well half a truth. It's the old story of micro evolution and macro results.
Yes, evolution has been and are being observed, but at what level and to what extent? Micro organisms? Certainly. Macro organisms? Yes, but again..to what extent? The theory is an explanation based on observation - does this make the theory true?

So if theory accurately describes what observed (ie what really happens) how is it not a good theory... Are you really this ignorant? Oh wait yes you are. People have on numerous occasions shown you where to look for this "macro evolution" but you soldier on, blinkers on, hands over ears shouting away

How much of evolutionary science (all the disciplines involved) are actually science? Just a question

Loaded troll question - ignore

 

[Techne]

...or at the very least reintroduce true scientific method and thought.
Kick out the loud mouths, stab the intolerant in the eye, stamp out agenda's; whatever happened to real scientists?

Or is that just wishful thinking.

Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is a good read.

It is in fact both a fact and a theory. Its a fact because we can observe it happening. The theory is our attempt to explain why and how this phenomenon occurs.

Say what you want, the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. Don't confuse evolution (which is just another word for biological change over time) and the Theory of Evolution. Biological change aka evolution is a fact and I don't think any person disputes this. Things change. The Theory of Evolution just tries to explain how biological change happens over time. The Theory of evolution relies, in part, on the concept of "natural selection" and its related concept of "fitness". Debate is still ongoing as to what exactly natural selection and fitness are.

Like I said before, ask any 10 people who claim to understand evolution by natural selection to define fitness and natural selection and the odds are that contradictory answers will be given. Farcical and fun to watch. Try it.

But why do I bother? Why not just declare God did it, and stick my fingers in my ears, like creationists do? Much easier that way.

You lot would never be happy with any other scientific theory anyway. You say here you think its not good science, rubbish, you wouldnt know good science if it hit you in the face. What you want is for the scientists to leave a place for God in their explanation of why things happen like they do. Because evolution has no need for God, you dont like it. If there was another scientific theory, and it didnt involve God either, you would be equally unhappy.

So dont come here telling us you dont think evolution is good science. You dont want a scientific theory anyway, just admit it.

I don't know why God or religion has to be dragged in YET AGAIN. This phenomenon is truly fascinating. But anyway, there is not a single scientific theory that explicitly states that there is no need for God. Anybody that makes such a claim is either ignorant or dishonest or a combination of both. The simple fact is that empirical scientific theories DO NOT deal with the existence of God. Empirical science does not deal with the question of God and this does not mean that science has determined that there is no God (that would be fallacious). Don't confuse metaphysics and philosophy with empirical claims.

 

[Ancalagon]

I don't know why God or religion has to be dragged in YET AGAIN. This phenomenon is truly fascinating. But anyway, there is not a single scientific theory that explicitly states that there is no need for God. Anybody that makes such a claim is either ignorant or dishonest or a combination of both. The simple fact is that empirical scientific theories DO NOT deal with the existence of God. Empirical science does not deal with the question of God and this does not mean that science has determined that there is no God (that would be fallacious). Don't confuse metaphysics and philosophy with empirical claims.

I'm not the one that confuses that. Evolution has no concern or care for the existence or lack thereof of God, gods, or other supernatural entities. And it precisely because of that fact that threads like this exist - people like the OP simply cannot accept a theory that does not say GOD DID IT, and will invent all sorts of excuses to cover up for that.

God and religion have to be dragged in again, because theists simply cannot accept a theory that does not include them. This thread is evidence of that.

 

[Techne]

I'm not the one that confuses that. Evolution has no concern or care for the existence or lack thereof of God, gods, or other supernatural entities. And it precisely because of that fact that threads like this exist - people like the OP simply cannot accept a theory that does not say GOD DID IT, and will invent all sorts of excuses to cover up for that.

God and religion have to be dragged in again, because theists simply cannot accept a theory that does not include them. This thread is evidence of that.

There was no need to talk about God or religion until you dragged it into the conversation. And you are being disingenuous by generalizing about theists like that.

 

[Ancalagon]

There was no need to talk about God or religion until you dragged it into the conversation. And you are being disingenuous by generalizing about theists like that.

No, I'm not, thats exactly what 99% of them are like after discussing such issues for hours.

I'm not going to debate science with people who dont really want to debate science. They want pesky science to go away - except for computers, cars and genetically engineered algae that eat carbon and excrete oil - so that everyone will believe their particular god is responsible for the way things are.

If they wanted to debate science, they would make an attempt to understand the science.

 

[Techne]

No, I'm not, thats exactly what 99% of them are like after discussing such issues for hours.

I'm not going to debate science with people who dont really want to debate science. They want pesky science to go away - except for computers, cars and genetically engineered algae that eat carbon and excrete oil - so that everyone will believe their particular god is responsible for the way things are.

If they wanted to debate science, they would make an attempt to understand the science.

Great, more worthless generalizations based on your interactions of a few. Please stop and please don't drag God and religion into this discussion, there is no need for it.

 

[TJ99]

Oh you guys. You are of course welcome to debate the people who have dedicated their lives to understanding how biology works. Some people might hold it against you that you have no formal credentials or published work but I think that's a bit elitist and everyone should be heard as long as they have a good point and can back it up.

Since you have such logical, well reasoned arguments, backed up by tons of data, proving how the current understanding of evolution is completely wrong, and since you understand the true scientific method so well, why not publish an article in a respected journal outlining your alternate hypotheses, listing the evidence for them, and have your work peer-reviewed? Since the evidence is obviously in your favour, it will of course stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of pretty much every expert in the field and completely revolutionise the way biology, anthropology, medicine, biochemistry, botany and one or two other sciences are done and earn you at least one Nobel prize.

Unles the global illuminati conspiracy is censoring your work, burning down your labs, or intimidating your assistants? Or does the thought of instant world-wide acclaim, a million Dollars in cash (at least), and having your name live on forever in history with the likes of Einstein, Planck, Newton or Pythagoras just not tempt you enough? If that's the case, you could publish under an alias, or request that your name remain secret, and donate all the money to charities and be secure in the knowledge that mankind as a whole is much better off as a result of your efforts.

 

[porchrat]

This is the Natural Sciences section FFS take this philosophy where it belongs... PD!

 

[Ancalagon]

Great, more worthless generalizations based on your interactions of a few. Please stop and please don't drag God and religion into this discussion, there is no need for it.

So you cant refute my points. Nice.

 

[Techne]

So you cant refute my points. Nice.

I see no reason to "refute" fallacies.

 

[Unhappy438]

Neil Tyson recently said "Odd that many who embrace the discoveries of science will disagree only when results conflict with their politics or religion"

 

[Geriatrix]

My thoughts exactly. I've found though that the real scientists are actually more than willing to accept that it's just a theory. Oh yes, there's that dirty blasphemous word again. It's actually more these google scientists with no degrees behind their name who think they have the God given (heaven forbid!) ability to discern true fact from fiction. I know you may think of it as something more than a theory but ultimately it isn't. It's also not both a fact and a theory (the fallacy of equivocation).

Ok, so wait, are you having issues with the posters on this forum or the researchers in the labs?

Debate is still ongoing as to what exactly natural selection and fitness are.

Wiki suggests "Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

I don't know why God or religion has to be dragged in YET AGAIN. This phenomenon is truly fascinating. But anyway, there is not a single scientific theory that explicitly states that there is no need for God. Anybody that makes such a claim is either ignorant or dishonest or a combination of both. The simple fact is that empirical scientific theories DO NOT deal with the existence of God. Empirical science does not deal with the question of God and this does not mean that science has determined that there is no God (that would be fallacious). Don't confuse metaphysics and philosophy with empirical claims.

It's brought up, I suppose, because all these "ITS ONLY A THEORY" treads are started by, ahem, the religious.
Just like it's brought up in all the treads which suggest "EVOLUTION DISPROVES THIS OR THAT CREATION STORY!"
It is indeed entertaining. It's almost like it's structured and scripted like a sitcom.

Since you have such logical, well reasoned arguments, backed up by tons of data, proving how the current understanding of evolution is completely wrong, and since you understand the true scientific method so well, why not publish an article in a respected journal outlining your alternate hypotheses, listing the evidence for them, and have your work peer-reviewed? Since the evidence is obviously in your favour, it will of course stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of pretty much every expert in the field and completely revolutionise the way biology, anthropology, medicine, biochemistry, botany and one or two other sciences are done and earn you at least one Nobel prize.

Unles the global illuminati conspiracy is censoring your work, burning down your labs, or intimidating your assistants? Or does the thought of instant world-wide acclaim, a million Dollars in cash (at least), and having your name live on forever in history with the likes of Einstein, Planck, Newton or Pythagoras just not tempt you enough? If that's the case, you could publish under an alias, or request that your name remain secret, and donate all the money to charities and be secure in the knowledge that mankind as a whole is much better off as a result of your efforts.

There's an excellent thriller movie in there somewhere...