Issues in Scienceville.

[Inan3]

I am familiar with the “Theory” of Evolution, and the Creationists have a few valid points, but their bias causes them to make many erroneous conclusions. These mistakes cost them any credibility, and the few valid points they make are ignored because of it.

Atheist scientists also have a bias and tend to overlook the problems with the theory of evolution, as it currently stands.

However there are scientists without a bias that sees these flaws, but no one has come up with a better theory.

Physicist myself, but I can see how evolution could be modified, and might look into that in detail some day.

Science and Religion do not speak the same language, and often uses different but equally valid logical methods. But there are always misunderstanding when people of different languages and perspective try to communicate, and emotional attachment makes it even harder.

OMGoodness!! You are a rare breed on this forum. The fact that you can see both sides is impressive and I thank you for your post. The attitude of your points is all that is asked for to have an open discussion. I certainly do not expect everyone to see it my way but I hope that they will not shut out EVERYONE that has an opinion contrary to theirs.

They ask that we give them evidence of what we are saying and when we do they automatically take the side that they are lying, remote, in error, etc.

I was beginning to think ALL scientists acted this way but I see by your post they do not, so I thank you.

 

[Inan3]

The ironic thing is is that if we were to take these guy's claims at face value and then it was discovered to be wrong, creationists would be honking at us that we're corrupt for taking fakes seriously, like they think we did with Piltdown man, Nebraska man, etc.

Just can't win with these people.

The irony is that you automatically assumed they were wrong just because "Scienceville" didn't accept them but you seemed to totally ignore the fact that they wouldn't even look into it but when someone who had a little more reputation looked into it then it was considered and found to be correct. That's my point. What if that person hadn't looked into it? This evidence which WAS not WRONG (as you suggest) would not have been known and they would have kept putting WRONG evidence out there regardless. Bias is there and it keeps the evidence under control so the public won't know. So why should "I" believe you and your incomplete evidence. No, I'm going to keep on looking at both sides and finding out what the real truth is by listening to ALL sides instead of the bigoted and biased and therefore, somewhat deceitful half truth of atheistic science.

 

[Cabal]

The irony is that you automatically assumed they were wrong just because "Scienceville" didn't accept them but you seemed to totally ignore the fact that they wouldn't even look into it but when someone who had a little more reputation looked into it then it was considered and found to be correct.

And this is entirely on the strength of an article which doesn't even attempt to back up its sources, leaving us to take it entirely on trust. I didn't actually automatically assume it was wrong, just not convincing - and this is the same mistake you keep making, as evidenced by your post to Little Feather above - yes, we will ask for evidence. Just because we then scrutinise it doesn't mean we are automatically dismissing your sources - it is entirely possible for one to post inadequate evidence for a claim, which is what you've been doing so far.

I for one didn't take your sources on face value as you seemed to have but instead looked for a few others (which I posted, which contained references, none of which you've addressed) - and those sources claim that the "controversy" here is not as your source claims it is. Now, are we going to discuss those and their references with respect to your or are you going to do the very thing you just incorrectly accused me of here?

That's my point. What if that person hadn't looked into it? This evidence which WAS not WRONG (as you suggest) would not have been known and they would have kept putting WRONG evidence out there regardless.

Where did I say that people shouldn't look into things? The point is that merely looking into things is not sufficient, if you're going to query established consensus, you need robust evidence. Now, that evidence may be there, but the very brief link you provided gives us nothing to go on. I looked for more, but found a much stronger case showing that this is a storm in a teacup. That's not automatically dismissing the claim as you make out, it's asking for a stronger case to be made as the case that has been made so far is feeble.

And how do you for sure that it "WAS not WRONG"? I didn't claim it necessarily was wrong, only that the article you've presented doesn't make a case for it - and I get the feeling that if we were to believe any old thing who came along, people like you would be the first to complain about that, given the obvious bias they present towards science that they take issue with.

Bias is there and it keeps the evidence under control so the public won't know. So why should "I" believe you and your incomplete evidence.

LOL! You didn't even provide a detailed source, or even a source with references! Mine did - up your standards considerably to match, then you can criticise.

No, I'm going to keep on looking at both sides and finding out what the real truth is by listening to ALL sides instead of the bigoted and biased and therefore, somewhat deceitful half truth of atheistic science.

Inan, tone it down several notches here. You're heading back into the same unconvincing rhetoric you did in the thread that inspired this one, and that wasn't a good performance on your part. I've given you several reasons now why I for one am not accepting your claims, and none of them have to do with bias. Start addressing them, and the references I provided (because I've at least had the courtesy to do that with yours), because frankly the only person starting to look like they're not interested in looking at both sides is you, if you carry on like this. For someone who claims to be interested in it, you haven't even addressed the sources I posted, which present the, er, OTHER side of the matter.

Incidentally, why are you so keen to listen to everything a Hindu says hook line and sinker, given that it's pretty obvious from his website that his religion is informing his claims? Isn't a different religious bias no better than a non-religious bias? (At the very least, you can't accuse science of being inconsistent, it rejects Hinduist religiously motivated pseudoscience as much as it rejects Christian religiously motivated psuedoscience - and rightly so).

 

[mzungu]

I am familiar with the “Theory” of Evolution, and the Creationists have a few valid points

Would you care to share with us these "valid points"

 

[Hespera]

Would you care to share with us these "valid points"

been waitin' for those too

 

[Nathan Poe]

been waitin' for those too

I'll third that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you care to share with us these "valid points"

been waitin' for those too

I'll third that.

1

 

[Nathan Poe]

1

Tell your fairy tales to take a hike, AV -- produce something useful or stop littering the thread.

 

[Naraoia]

*Nods along to everything Cabal said*

I am familiar with the “Theory” of Evolution, and the Creationists have a few valid points...

Fourth. The request of those valid points, I mean.

And why the quotes? Whether or not the ToE is true or false or flawed or strawberry-flavoured, it fits at least one definition of a theory (for example, the odd-numbered definitions in Merriam-Webster's).

However there are scientists without a bias that sees these flaws, but no one has come up with a better theory.

And that's the issue, isn't it? Until someone does, this is the best we have, and whatever flaws it may have, it's still a very good theory.

(That said, which flaws? I also don't like this talk of "biases". I do hope you mean more than "disagreements with you" by that term.)

Physicist myself, but I can see how evolution could be modified, and might look into that in detail some day.

My degree and most of my scientific interest is in evolution, so I'd be intrigued to hear any such ideas. Provided they are not creationist PRATTs. I've seen enough and more of those, some fresh air would be welcome.

But there are always misunderstanding when people of different languages and perspective try to communicate, and emotional attachment makes it even harder.

Agreed.

Is this paragraph directed to me? Not sure I know what you are talking about. I never claimed that the hospitals forced me to take anti-depressant meds. I never have taken anti-depressant meds. I think you must be thinking of someone else here.

I believe that was Goodbook in the "myths" thread.

 

[Inan3]

Tell your fairy tales to take a hike, AV -- produce something useful or stop littering the thread.

Useful?? You mean like you guys produce??? You guys talk alot about it but you NEVER produce. All talk and no evidence.

A-All
T-Talk
H-Having No
E-Evidence
I-In
S-Serious
T-Troubel

 

[Inan3]

Originally Posted by mzungu

Would you care to share with us these "valid points"

Originally Posted by Hespera

been waitin' for those too
Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

I'll third that.
​

​

​

1

Curly, Larry and Moe?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally Posted by mzungu

Would you care to share with us these "valid points"

Originally Posted by Hespera

been waitin' for those too
Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

I'll third that.
​

Curly, Larry and Moe?

So, no answers, just insults and vain attempts to be clever -- you're everything I've come to expect from a "Christian," and less.

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by mzungu

Would you care to share with us these "valid points"

Originally Posted by Hespera

been waitin' for those too
Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

I'll third that.
​

Curly, Larry and Moe?

you have some reason to say something insulting? that was really uncalled for and cheap.

 

[Hespera]

So, no answers, just insults and vain attempts to be clever -- you're everything I've come to expect from a "Christian," and less.

speaking of uncalled for and cheap, that is too.

 

[Inan3]

So, no answers, just insults and vain attempts to be clever -- you're everything I've come to expect from a "Christian," and less.

You can dish it out but you can't take it can you. Don't dish it out and you won't get it back. You reap what you sow so stop crying about it.

Nice begets Nice.

 

[Hespera]

You can dish it out but you can't take it can you. Don't dish it out and you won't get it back. You reap what you sow so stop crying about it.

Nice begets Nice.

Any comment on why you felt a need to insult me?

 

[Inan3]

speaking of uncalled for and cheap, that is too.

Thank you, Hespera, he's being mean.

 

[Inan3]

Any comment on why you felt a need to insult me?

I wasn't saying that to you, I was saying to NP.

 

[Skavau]

Useful?? You mean like you guys produce??? You guys talk alot about it but you NEVER produce. All talk and no evidence.

A-All
T-Talk
H-Having No
E-Evidence
I-In
S-Serious
T-Troubel

Observed Instances Of Speciation

That was a quick google search away. How about that.

 

[Inan3]

you have some reason to say something insulting? that was really uncalled for and cheap.

Sorry, I was just being a wise guy. You're right it wasn't nice.