Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are using a children’s author / Christian apologist as a source of authority on science? Good call.

Do you think maybe you should also consult the many millions of Christians who do real science, and see what their take on it is?
 
Last edited:
Archaeopteryx IS a transitional fossil. So, for that matter, will those of penguins be if they are encased in sand and buried long enough.
 
Glark said:
40.png
benjamin1973:
It has the advantage of tying everything together in a way which allows for further study and insight. Does ID actually add anything to our understanding of anything?
Click to expand...
In more than 150 years, evolutionary biology has contributed nothing at all to applied science - zilch. That’s because evolutionary biology is 100% theory, none of which can be tested or verified - in other words, it’s just talk and story-telling. Theorising about how life supposedly evolved from microbes is a useless as theorising about the Tooth Fairy. It’s about time you realized this fact.
Click to expand...
Wake up and smell the coffee . 🤣
 
I’m not going to do your homework for you. If you want to argue that science is dogmatic, you’re going to have to demonstrate what is dogmatic about it.

I haven’t seen any scientist declare his theories infallible, nor have I seen any coherent community which is expected, possibly under threat of excommunication, to believe it. Instead, scientists struggle to find ideas which best match observable phenomena, and subject their work to the rigors of their peers-- who are often hostile, and motivated financially and socially to dig up mistakes.
 
Thank you, buffalo. Most of the research being done on living things today can be checked and confirmed. My doubts have gone up regarding the distant past, as in ‘millions of years ago.’

However, my other concern is that this boils down to a marketing campaign that needs to convert. Buy into textbook evolution, which, by all standards, is not applicable to the real world. The danger is simple: convincing people they are chemicals in a sack called a body and all of our reactions are programmed. This has moved into psychology and social studies. This is wrong and leads to wrong conclusions. The materialist model fails to describe human beings. Earth worm - human being - same thing. Once people ‘sign on’ to this nonsense, nothing matters. ‘Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.’

And standard psychological warfare is being used here. A) Ignore the post, B) Accuse others of lying (the ‘others’ are part of the enemy).

C) Keep on message. Forever if need be.
 
This exhibits naivete.

Money and research grants drive much research. Try and go against the grain and you may well lose your job. Talk to those who have. Also, check on the failures of peer review. You do the homework. I have my eyes wide open, I do not think you do.
 
I didn’t say that all science is done perfectly. I said that there is no institutional dogma, imposed by authority and required for membership. And, in fact, there cannot be, because science isn’t a single coherent institution in the way that, for example, the Catholic Church is.
 
C’mon edwest211 - money and profit influences no one. All scientists cannot be bought.

benjamin1973 - “Instead, scientists struggle to find ideas which best match observable phenomena, and subject their work to the rigors of their peers-- who are often hostile, and motivated financially and socially to dig up mistakes.”

The multi verse is one example of dogmatic science.
 
Last edited:
Of course there is. Science is highly compartmentalized. Money is put in and results are expected. All research in the United States (and elsewhere) is highly scrutinized and categorized as if this country is on a war footing, because, by default, those are the programs given the highest priority and which are not subject to the regular process of peer review. For more mundane efforts, they (investors, backers, etc.) can cancel it any time, with or without a reason. That happens all the time.
 
Pardon me while I go into a laughing fit. Nothing personal. And yes, no funding, no research. And military projects have a very high bar. Questionable/illegal research, a low bar.
 
Science education in the classroom is about teaching what to think, not how scientists are supposed to think.

Now the NCSE is pitching climate change in addition to evolution to our kids. No dissent allowed.
 
The NAS is “disappointed” when kids do not write down the correct answer: evolution. They even quote some religious people on their site, which has stringent copyright protection, as agreeing there is no conflict between the two. An enormous number of threads and posts spanning years here show otherwise.
 
2016 Poll: Public Opinion on Scientific Dissent

Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support the Right of Students, Teachers, and Scientists to Discuss Dissenting Scientific Views on Evolution

As Americans celebrate their country’s freedom this holiday weekend, a new nationwide survey has been released revealing that an overwhelming 93% of American adults agree that “teachers and students should have the academic freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.” And 88% agree that “scientists who raise scientific criticisms of evolution should have the freedom to make their arguments without being subjected to censorship or discrimination.”

More broadly, Americans overwhelmingly agree that dissenting views in science are healthy:
Code: 
84% believe that “attempts to censor or punish scientists for holding dissenting views on issues such as evolution or climate change are not appropriate in a free society.”
94% believe “it is important for policymakers and the public to hear from scientists with differing views.”
87% think that “people can disagree about what science says on a particular topic without being ‘anti-science.’”
86% think that “disagreeing with the current majority view in science can be an important step in the development of new insights and discoveries in science.”

Loading…

freescience.today
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
in
Click to expand...
But… haven’t you read: “Evolution is a fact.” ? Sure, there’s some middling details to be worked out. But if you don’t believe, you’ll be called names, and your IQ will be brought into question, along with where you live. And if you’re white - look out. For some reason, being white is the new, cool bad thing to point out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top