I do not believe for one second that you’re an idiot. So why are you trying to make me think that you are by pretending to not grasp what I’m saying?@widdershins
I know, right?
I do not believe for one second that you’re an idiot. So why are you trying to make me think that you are by pretending to not grasp what I’m saying?@widdershins
I know, right?
You don’t understand what science is.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! A scientific prediction predicts what IS, not what IS NOT. It is NOT testable to predict that something does not exist. If I tell you that no alien life exists in any galaxy but our own, failure to find that life DOES NOT prove that I am right. This is called “proving a negative” and it IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!@widdershins makes a point about science.
I have no idea what you are saying here you appear to have either misunderstood me or gone off on some tangent.@holmes has gone off on a tangent.
It just gets more comical as it goes on doesn’t it. I can’t believe he posted the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, a particularly non-scientific document. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_from_Darwinism
And I know wikipedia isn’t science either, but if I posted something from a skeptic org, or from a science org, he’d disqualify it as biased. Fortunately people like Greta Thurnberg and Malala Yousafzai exist, or I would be sure the end of humanity is near.
The other day someone posted in facebook that “climate change believers” are ignoring facts because, truth is, Venice is sinking for reasons unrelated to climate change. I opened the article and the first sentence said that’s true, and it’s also true that the oceans are rising due to climate change. The ability of people to choose facts that comfort them is beyond my understanding.
I just want to highlight some points about that “Dissent From Darwinism” list @holmes provided, including info from Index to Creationist Claims as well as Wiki.*
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.1] The wording is misleading, ambiguous, and not actually anti-evolution.
Scientists are always examining evidence and are trained to be skeptical of everything. This statement could be signed by most scientists including Charles Darwin himself.
It is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms such as genetic drift, gene flow, genetic recombination and endosymbiosis are important, too. (Darwin described natural selection as being “the main, but not exclusive, means of modification” of species.)
The statement also includes the term “Darwinism,” which can refer specifically to natural selection or informally to evolution in general. But it’s mainly a dogwhistle for Creationists, as most real scientists don’t refer to themselves as “Darwinists.”
2] Very few of the signees have anything to do with fields requiring knowledge of evolutionary theory.
Signatories include historians and philosophers of science as well as scientists. Most of the scientists come from unrelated fields of academia, such as aviation, engineering, computer science and meteorology.
Actually the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields of biology, genetics, physiology etc.
Scientists are always examining evidence and are trained to be skeptical of everything. This statement could be signed by most scientists including Charles Darwin himself.That's why every now and then Sherlock says something like "what's the big deal". It's a variation of "hey, I'm just asking questions". A friend of mine does with conspiracy theories. He asks questions but doesn't like it when I answer them. His narrative is blown if you can explain how Building 7 collapsed.
By “scientific community” (there is no such organization by the way) do you mean all scientists who disapprove of ID? If so then it’s hardly surprising that the “scientific community” disapproves of ID is it?Nice attempt to paint reality to match your beliefs. The term "scientific community" is well established and commonly used and nobody has ever suggested it was some sort of organization, least of all me. The scientific community is not a biased selection of the scientists who agree with me, it is all scientists everywhere collectively. This includes Dr Michael Behe, the one biologist of which I am aware who is a proponent of ID. The term refers to the consensus among all scientists everywhere, so it includes ID opponents AND proponents. When we say what the "scientific community" says we are saying what they say as a whole, not as individuals on the side we have chosen.
It is a lie to keep insisting that “There is ONE scientists, in the tens of thousands of qualified professionals in the world, who disagrees” – this is quite easy to ascertain with a little effort, for example there’s this rather long list.Oh, that is not a list you wanted to bring up with me. I am very familiar with that list. I've examined that list closely. The problems with that list are many.
First, almost NONE of the names on that list are qualified to speak to the validity of evolution. There are names on that list with fewer qualifications than you, and a lot of them. Almost NONE of the names on that list have degrees in a field even remotely related to one which would allow them to understand or study evolution. There are software engineers galore on that list. There are almost no biologists or geneticists.
Second, some of the people on that list who are qualified have publicly questioned how their names got on that list and would like their names to not be on that list.
Third, you can find a much longer list here, at the Project Steve web page, which only allows QUALIFIED people to sign it, bothers to confirm the people who are signing it and refuses signatures from any qualified scientists not named “Steve” or some variant of the name. There are more qualified scientists in the world named Steve who signed the list supporting evolution than there are unqualified computer engineers who oppose it.
Widdershins, I’m by nature a skeptic and feel comfortable disagreeing with people when I feel I have sufficient information to make an informed decision. Unlike you I do not regard the “scientific community” as a latter day priestly sect who get to decide what is truth for the rest of masses.And now you try to trivialize my trust of science by making it out to be ridiculous. But my trust is not trivial. I do not worship the scientific community and agree with whatever they say because I worship them. I accept scientific opinion for the same reason I don't go to my mechanic to get a physical (I'm not falling for THAT again, Joe!). It's the same reason I don't go to a philosophy professor to get a heart transplant. It doesn't matter how smart these people are, only medical professionals are qualified to offer medical care. This is why I understand that, not having a PhD in biology or genetics myself, I am not qualified to understand the complexities of evolution, so I refer to the experts because I DO NOT WANT to go out and get a biology degree, something I am not remotely interested in doing for the rest of my life, JUST so that I am qualified to check out evolution for myself. And I'm smart enough to know that is exactly what I would have to do in order to become qualified to have my own opinion. So, just like when I call a furnace company and not a maid service when I need my furnace worked on, I defer to the expertise of actual experts.
It is utterly arrogant to think that you have anywhere near the understanding of evolution as do evolutionary scientists because you’ve read a few web pages that said what you wanted to hear. And it is the epitome of ignorance to think that you can learn enough from Google to be as qualified to form an opinion as scientists in the field. I don’t trust scientists because it’s my religion. I trust scientists because I’m smart enough to realize that they know more than me in their fields.
Trust is trust, if you’ve delegated to others to decide for you what is true then how can you defend any position other than saying “But the source I trust says so” – why do you think I should place the same degree of trust as in the same people as you?Delegating trust is how we cure diseases and get to the moon. The difference between science and religion is that science has a system for validating what we can trust. If you work your way up the chain, learning everything you need to know to determine if someone is using proper methods of logic and evidence, you will find questions that you have can be answered. When it gets to where no one knows, you'll know why they don't and what needs to be explored. Whatever can't be answered can be described with a probability of confidence. If we didn't have this, everyone would have to know everything for any decision to be made. That of course is impossible. Since not everyone can know everything, we have an open system where enough people work up that chain and check the work that has been done.
Religion outright states that there is mystery in the universe, but if you follow a mysterious path, you gain the knowledge, but then not be able to explain it, you’ll just know that you know.
Trust is trust, if you’ve delegated to others to decide for you what is true then how can you defend any position other than saying “But the source I trust says so” – why do you think I should place the same degree of trust as in the same people as you?You place the same degree of trust in the same people as me every day. You do it when you get a lawyer, you do it when you go to the doctor, you did it every time you read a textbook when you were going to college, you do it every time you drive or fly. You trust the professionals to know more than you in almost every aspect of your life. The only professionals you don't trust to know more than you are the ones you disagree with philosophically. You've singled out a very small group and said, "THESE professionals I don't trust". They are the exceptions for you, not the rule. And you mock me because I don't make those exceptions just because what they say hurts my tender little feelings.
Well you should not assume that I suffer from the same limitations you do.Oh, you have a PhD in genetics or biology? Well why didn't you say? I would have paid a lot more attention to the things you said had I known.
One doesn’t need a biology degree to explore and critique evolution, one does not need a mathematics degree to study mathematics or anything, certification is often evidence of study but it isn’t a way to define truth. Besides I’ve met numerous certificated individuals over the years who have university degrees in this or that yet have been a fallibel as the rest of society.Okay, so you don't have a degree in biology. Okay, that makes more sense. One needs a degree in biology or some related field to even understand the theory of evolution. That's why you're arguing with me and not biologists. I don't have the education required to understand it so it's easier to pretend you're trying to teach me something than to get schooled by a biologist.
And people are flawed even if they have unnamed certifications and degrees??? Say it ain’t so! You’re just messing with me, right??? What a silly thing to say.
Delegating trust is how we cure diseases and get to the moon. The difference between science and religion is that science has a system for validating what we can trust.I may steal this & quote you sometime
You know and I already gave y’all my thoughts about “flat earth” in another thread, which I also thought about when I was between 4 and 6 years old, I’ll also share something else I pointed out when I was little and still don’t understand how a person can believe ID or Creationism. My mother and I were at the zoo visiting my favourite area, the Primate House, and I said, “They look like us only with more fur.” My mother of course told me to be quiet, but the thing is, if a little kid can see these things, how in the world do the religious see a flat earth and ID/Creationism? Evolution isn’t very difficult to see and from what I’ve read about Darwin, he made similar observations as I did as a little kid. I’m often quiet about such topics only because ID/Creationism never exactly made sense to me, even growing up in religion. The easy way I solved the issue as a teenage was to say that God gave us a common ancestor and then decided each of us should be our own species, but that’s just fixing an issue to keep adults from jumping you. To tell the truth, ID/Creation and Flat Earth crap make no sense and science makes a lot of sense, just with observation alone. So, I don’t see how anyone can argue the issue- Either throw God in just to ease one’s trouble mind or face the fact that there was no god that had anything to do with any of it.
By “scientific community” (there is no such organization by the way) do you mean all scientists who disapprove of ID? If so then it’s hardly surprising that the “scientific community” disapproves of ID is it?
It is a lie to keep insisting that “There is ONE scientists, in the tens of thousands of qualified professionals in the world, who disagrees” – this is quite easy to ascertain with a little effort, for example there’s this rather long list.
ID and Creationism ARE the same thing, just rebranded and Ken Ham, the ape he is, is NOT a scientist. Ken Ham is just Dr. Zaius, only one is a real humanoid and the other is Minister of Science (you can decide which is which and you still have the same person), emphasis on “minister”.
I forgot to say, they look alike and sound alike to me.
What parts of natural selection do not fit? Cats and dogs have digits, two ears, two eyes, etc. What I’m saying is, evolution is so simple a small child can understand it because you see the relationship in all things. Technically, even bats have digits within their wings, even though they don’t use them as fingers. All mammals share similarities. All bird share similarities. So the evolution of mammals all show an extremely distant relationship, sort of a 14th cousin once removed in species, but there relationship is still noticeable. It is especially noticeable among us apes. As I said, a child can understand it- they look like us.
I don’t know about you being a dumb creationist hick. I can’t say that. Many think I’m crazy animal hugger who wants to talk to the animals- AKA Elly May Clampett with an education and doesn’t eat her critters because they’re family, my brothers and sisters and cousins. Yes, I’m an only child who grew up among animals. You’re a dumb hick and I’m an animal hugger.
The key to unlock this subject is to seek out and focus on the areas of natural selection that do not fit well with observation.And then you name none of them, here or elsewhere. When you have named them, we have provided evidence of they do fit. Then you spend the rest of your post doing a Donald Trump impersonation.
And then you name none of them, here or elsewhere. When you have named them, we have provided evidence of they do fit. Then you spend the rest of your post doing a Donald Trump impersonation.
ROFL! I have a funny feeling Sherlock hasn’t even spent much time around animals, so he can’t even see it or open his mind to see the relationships. His observational skills seem as narrow as his reading material.
But where are your examples of Irreducible Complexity?
Holmes: I’m also a very competent thinker, designer and general problem solver and I’m very much at ease with these kinds of challenges, I’ve been solving technical problems for well over fifty years, I’m good at solving problems, very good indeed.Self-evaluation is such an odd thing to base one's convictions on. Science does not work that way! In science you must be willing to accept; listen to; and pursue the critiques of your work. Holmes does not do that - he refuses to absorb the new information he is offered. That is not how the constructive cumulative process of science operates. What he is doing is more akin to religion than science.
Why are you so comfortable with ignoring evidence that scientists are discussing amongst themselves and in the literature.
This Is the Way the Animals Arose: Not With a Bang, but With a Bunch of Bangs The much-hyped Cambrian explosion may have been just one burst in a marathon evolutionary fireworks display.
ED YONG - The Atlantic
APRIL 24, 2019
Oh yeah, Holmes, still waiting for real examples of this Irreducible Complexity - What If’s don’t count !!!
@holmes I have done the reading and as I said, as little kid I didn’t have to be able to read to understand Evolution. I could observe it, much like Darwin did, but I could not see how God took his giant hand to do anything. OH wait, he spoke and it happened. Whatever. When I was older and could read, what I read on Evolution made a whole lot more sense than what I read concerning ID/Creationism did. There is no Intelligent/Creator design to anything. We all started with a common ancestor that even a child can see and understand. What you cannot see is the big giant of hand of Gene in Who Mourns for Adonais while grasping a spaceship even. Then again, if God could wrap his hand around a spaceship in space then “what does god need with a ship”? There was no intelligent creator (AKA God/supreme being/Sha Ka Ree). You saw what happened to Sybok when he attempted to seek out Sha Ka Ree. You just can’t find any intelligence to whatever design you’re looking for.
If you need to rely on me here then that’s a mistake, until you yourself are ready and willing to look for these controversial areas with a truly open mind we’ll just go around in circles.
If you care then look, if you don’t then don’t like – ball’s in your court.
November 19, 2019 at 10:17 am #313630 Sherlock Holmes @citizenschallengev3
Please stop with the evangelical evolution program, you’re not going to convert me. I’m a free thinker who makes up his own mind, I do not pay attention to preaching and book thumping whether it be evangelicals bleating on about the Spirit or evolutionists bleating on about Darwin.
I’ve already been converted, I was an atheist then found holes and gaps and problems that changed my mind, one day you will too.
Okay so you’re a free thinker - anything you want to believe you’re free thinking will allow.
Anyone trying to prod you into sharing or looking at actually evidence and engaging with what scientists are actually claiming - and you dismiss with
Please stop with the evangelical evolution program,Reminds me of the number one requirement for a scientific mind - Good Faith approach to learning from all the available evidence. The learning is more important the the Ego.