G
goout
Guest
That’s a very sweeping statement.
What are your qualifications to criticize the whole realm of science?
- Status
What are your qualifications to criticize the whole realm of science?
G
goout
Guest
Getting back to the OP, can you clarify what it is you are asking?
The point of your question is not well defined at all.
R
rossum
Guest
Yes they did. DNA sequencing showed different DNA, in the same way as DNA sequencing can identify suspects and parents in humans.
Again, I point to your lack of relevant knowledge. In you terms, bacteria = bacteria, then in the same terms amoeba = humans because both are eukaryotes.
Your lack of knowledge is leading you into making errors.
rossum
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No, science earns this respect by being right and following the scientific method. You cannot discredit a scientific result by claiming bias. The only way to discredit a scientific result is through that same scientific method.
G
goout
Guest
This shouldn’t surprise you in the age of relativism, where feelings and assertions are mistaken for truth.buffalo:
Your lack of knowledge is leading you into making errors.
rossum
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You are assuming there is only one conceivable path to this evolutionary result. Did you consider that the light came first, and then the structure behind the light lengthened? Then the most mysterious part is the evolution of the light itself. But that is no different from the explaining the light in a firefly. It could have been a chemical accident that first produced some light. Then that accident was amplified and light became stronger. But even if we have no idea how a particular evolutionary result was achieved, we cannot let our ignorance on this question substitute for an argument for impossibility.
B
buffalo
Guest
That is you view. It can be safely ignored if it is below the UPB.
B
buffalo
Guest
The scientific method is observable, repeatable and predictable.
What will man look like in 200,000 years?
What will man look like in 200,000 years?
B
buffalo
Guest
consider, mysterious, could have, accident, no idea.
Some of the typical words in much evo literature. It amounts to story telling.
Some of the typical words in much evo literature. It amounts to story telling.
B
buffalo
Guest
Considering I as a taxpayer fund it, I want it accountable and free of bias. Peer review has its issues and is being reconsidered. Grants are withheld if you do not support current paradigms. People are fired for going against the grain.
This is the science we want?
See retractionwatch.org
This is the science we want?
See retractionwatch.org
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Some of the first words in “Signature in the Cell” are “Gee, Daddy, that looks like you on television.” So don’t talk to me about story-telling words.
You abhor bias, yet you go to retractionwatch.org???
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Story telling on both sides?
Please put that in context for the folks.
Please put that in context for the folks.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
I check out many diversified sources. Do you?
And now you are willing to castigate a site who lists actual paper retractions? You think these are made up?
BTW, I gave the wrong link. You really did not check it out did you…
And now you are willing to castigate a site who lists actual paper retractions? You think these are made up?
BTW, I gave the wrong link. You really did not check it out did you…
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As you know, there are many ways to realize bias besides making up things.
Yes, I saw the broken link. But I have heard of them before.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Hmmmm - do you really know what they do and why?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Apparently not everyone thinks retractionwatch is unbiased.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
There are always doubters as we see here. However, a paper retracted is a paper retracted no matter what one thinks. Retractions happen for various reasons. Fraud, plagiarism, biased research, collusion. peer pressure, money, pride, etc… Anyone who denies human beings do not do these things in daily or their professional life is not living in reality.
Revelation has the Holy Spirit to protect from error. Science has no such thing to protect it from error for it is human and not divine.
Understanding this is key to demanding good science be done. It must be accountable to we, the people, not the other way around.
Revelation gives a good standard to measure against for it does not change. Science is provisional.
Revelation has the Holy Spirit to protect from error. Science has no such thing to protect it from error for it is human and not divine.
Understanding this is key to demanding good science be done. It must be accountable to we, the people, not the other way around.
Revelation gives a good standard to measure against for it does not change. Science is provisional.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is true. And provided the evidence supports evolution, the proper thing to conclude is that evolution is true. It may not actually be true, but it sure looks like it is. So until contrary evidence shows it is not true (evidence which you have tried but failed to produce) evolution stands along with nuclear physics, general relativity, immunology, thermodynamics, and even gravity. They are all provisional theories. But that should not stop us from accepting them provisionally until something better comes along.
R
rossum
Guest
Then I can safely ignore you, since your existence is well below the UPB. How many atoms are there in your body? What is the chance that all those atoms are all present in the (roughly) 2 cubic metres of the whole universe that you occupy. The probability is well below Dembski’s UPB: about 8.25 x 10^-1926 according to my estimate. Yes, I can show you my calculations if you want.
Since you, as well as every other human being and the entire planet, are below the UPB you can be safely ignored.
Of course, since you have not shown your calculations, we do not know it they are correct or not. Incorrect calculations can also be safely ignored.
rossum
G
goout
Guest
what has this to do with the topic. You are veering off into a general gripe.
- Status