Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[matthewgar]

*laughs* Any chance of this topic getting back on topic? :> This was about more, "Do scientists do enough to inform people about science>" and instead turned into argument from incorrect definition...

 

[Delphiki]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Egg.

Here's a picture of evidence of one that existed millions of years before chickens did. It was actually for sale for $700, but it's gone.

Say, wouldn't it be cool if you guys could do the whole find-actual-evidence thing with the bible too? That'd be swell, huh?

 

[Gracchus]

The "anti-science movement" is a product of those too lazy or too stupid to learn what science has to teach, and too arrogant to admit to being too lazy or too stupid.

 

[sfs]

*laughs* Any chance of this topic getting back on topic? :> This was about more, "Do scientists do enough to inform people about science>" and instead turned into argument from incorrect definition...

That's because there didn't seem to be much more to say about the original topic. No one, it seems, could think of anything additional that scientists should be doing to inform people about science. So what else is there to discuss?

 

[Freodin]

And that's probably the fastest that phenotypic evolution gets under "natural" mechanisms. I'd say it's a lot faster than good old Charles Darwin ever expected, but it's still not fast enough to make cats out of dogs in an observable period.

As creationists (our most recent trophy included) often make this strawman argument about evolution, I would advise the utmost care never to even hint at such a possibility.

There is absolutely NO WAY that by evolution the currently existing species of "cats" can ever come from the currently existing species of "dogs".

There could be, at some future point, descendants of dogs that resembles in every possible way our current cats.... but these wouldn´t be classified as belonging to our current "cat" species.

 

[AV1611VET]

As creationists (our most recent trophy included) often make this strawman argument about evolution, I would advise the utmost care never to even hint at such a possibility.

There is absolutely NO WAY that by evolution the currently existing species of "cats" can ever come from the currently existing species of "dogs".

There could be, at some future point, descendants of dogs that resembles in every possible way our current cats.... but these wouldn´t be classified as belonging to our current "cat" species.

Don't they come from a common ancestor, though? via the hydrological cycle?

 

[Freodin]

Don't they come from a common ancestor, though? via the hydrological cycle?

I don´t understand the reference to the hydrological cycle, but yes, they did come from a common ancestor.

Just like you and your cousin came from a common ancestor. But that doesn´t mean you could become your cousin ... and I won´t get into any jokes about Hillbillies here.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don´t understand the reference to the hydrological cycle, but yes, they did come from a common ancestor.

Doesn't it rain cats and dogs?

 

[Freodin]

Doesn't it rain cats and dogs?

Not in Germany.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not in Germany.

Oh, sorry --

 

[Freodin]

Oh, sorry --

No problem... just shows the differences you have to observe when talking to speakers of a different language.

But do you now understand why it is biologically meaningless to talk about "cats from dogs"?

 

[Nabobalis]

The "anti-science movement" is a product of those too lazy or too stupid to learn what science has to teach, and too arrogant to admit to being too lazy or too stupid.

On top on a media that only wants "huge" stories to cover and will hype up most discoveries.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

There is a disconnect when it comes to the communication of science that can cause apathy in the general public. Also because of their experience in school I think people regard the scientific process as boring and distant, which leads to the silly "sexing up" of some science (LHC springs to mind) to try and stir public interest and debate.

We need people to question and debate various scientific projects but this needs to be tempered with some scientific literacy from the public; otherwise we end up with criticism limited to "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] THE LHC IZ GONNA KILL US ALL!!!!!"

EDIT - the filter is a bit keen, I only said [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]

 

[AV1611VET]

But do you now understand why it is biologically meaningless to talk about "cats from dogs"?

Yes

 

[AV1611VET]

EDIT - the filter is a bit keen, I only said [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]

That's okay, we understand what you Internet scientists think of us plebeians.

 

[HAPMinistries]

As as you have been shown, this is a false assertion. If you disagree - as you obviously do - PROVE IT.

um, I did.

What part of 'Only something eternal can solve infinite regression.' do you not understand?

 

[AV1611VET]

um, I did.

What part of 'Only something eternal can solve infinite regression.' do you not understand?

Have a GREAT weekend, bro and a HAPpy Thanksgiving!

 

[HAPMinistries]

Easy. Amniotes existed before chickens

Well that's funny, I asked which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I mean, you could say dinosaur too and find yourself to be correct in your own eyes...

 

[HAPMinistries]

Say, wouldn't it be cool if you guys could do the whole find-actual-evidence thing with the bible too? That'd be swell, huh?

The bible is not one book, but many, by many different authors, over a large stretch of time, so a lot of the bible is cross referencing itself. There are things that can be empirically shown and proven, like from Josephus writings, and for a more philosophical approach, like the Quinque Viae by Thomas Aquinas.

Still, with me being a protestant, dealing with the bible, it must be about 'faith', otherwise, it is not Christianity.

Let me expound, if the only way to buy something is a debit/credit card, then even though cash is legal tender, you must use a debit/credit card, or you are not getting the product. You can use cash and transfer it to a debit/credit card, but it will not accept cash in cash form.

That being said, Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Let me key in on the words "without faith it is impossible". I certainly believe in having a rational mind, but that must be converted to faith, otherwise, it is not accepted. To approach God by logic alone is not a Christian approach, or at least a believers approach.

There has to be faith, or there is no approval.

 

[HAPMinistries]

The "anti-science movement" is a product of those too lazy or too stupid to learn what science has to teach, and too arrogant to admit to being too lazy or too stupid.

ad hominem