Why Evolution is True

[stevevw]

Lie or spread mistruths....you decide. When someone has repeatedly pointed out your errors and you keep repeating them nevertheless, that makes you a lunar in my book....

No you havnt proved that Tim Flannery is as honest as you say. Why we are focusing on him anyway is beyond me. As its not about Tim Flannery. You have decided to hijack the point I was making by focusing on a single man. I am talking about different people and even organization who have mislead or miused scientific data and info for an agenda they have supported. Lets say we forget about Flannery and agree to disagree for the sake of getting this debate back on track.

You keep throwing the mud, but you can't get any of it to stick.....! Where is this "real truth" of yours...? All I've seen so far is you trying to blacken the name of a particular scientist with lies and distortions and then somehow try to draw a line between that and claiming that scientists generally mislead us...! If you can't even get the first claim right, why should we listen to the rest of your assertions...!?

I am not throwing mud its the many other people who are doing it. Even other scientists are doing it. So i am not the only one. In fact Tim Flannery at that time was almost a national joke. It was well known and I'm surprised you hadnt known seeming your Australian. Dont you remember the ads with Kate Blanchet and all those climate summits Rudd had.

Again, you are making wild, general claims about the integrity of scientists generally, but without any credible evidence to support what you are saying....!

No this is what you continue to say and you keep misquoting me for some reason. I have said about 5 times now that I am not accusing all scientists and the majority are fine and Ok. The point is some misuse and misrepresent science for their own means. But you keep denying that and make out they are perfect and never act like humans.

Any fool can throw stones Steve.....

See this is where you start calling people names like fool and liars. I or others who debate you dont get down to this level. You play the man and not the debate. Normally this is done when people cannot answer the questions straight up so they divert it. Like you have done by diverting the debate to focus on a single man and not answer the original point I made.

Remember once again. Some people including scientists can and will misuse and misrepresent science to support their own personal agendas. Just like when you accused religion of misleading children I said science can do the same. You then side tracked it from that point and here we are now 15 or 20 pages down the track debating about an irrelevant point which is really a waste of time. But then your good at that avoiding the questions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

logically it's self defeating like I said, if other God's did exist, other than mine, you would still be wrong.

plus you haven't provided any flaws up for scrutiny.

Actually, the gods of many other religions apparently don't care if you actually worship them, they just care if you a a decent human being. That, or we could both be wrong, statistically though the chances of your personal ideal deity existing all by itself is drastically smaller than the chances that no deities exist.

However, being atheist, at least for me, isn't some ego trip about being right. It is honestly what I think reflects reality, and personally, I hope I am wrong. But wanting to be wrong doesn't make my belief change.

 

[stevevw]

Ok so lets get back to the original point I made when responding to biggles53 in which he side tracked. He said religion was guilty of misleading and badly influencing people and especially children. I said so does science. The point got side tracked with focusing on a single person who we disagreed was completely honest or had mis represented science data and figures to promote the governments campaign against global warming and promote its carbon tax.

So if we get back to the point what other examples are there of people and even scientists twisting facts and figures to promote their own beliefs and agendas.

The heart foundation of Australia who give their tick of approval to sugary breakfast cereals. It costs good money to get the heart foundations tick of approval and gives a product an extra boost in sales by claiming its healthy and good for you.

Last week, Nestle announced that it had secured a Heart Foundation tick on 44 of the 46 breakfast cereals it sells in Australia. The line-up of tick-approved products will now include some of the highest sugar breakfast cereals on sale in Australia. Milo and Milo Duo (both 29.7% sugar), Uncle Toby’s Oats Temptations (up to 34% sugar) and Uncle Toby’s Healthwise for Heart Wellbeing (30% sugar) will join the Kellogg’s Just Right (31.1% sugar) on the list of cereals the Heart Foundation says you should be eating.

The heart foundation doesn't think high sugar content is bad according to their scientific analysis.

The science says that (one of the ways) fructose makes us fat is by interfering with our appetite control over decades of continuous consumption. The cumulative effect of this is steadily increasing weight and concurrent metabolic dysfunction (which make us prone to Type II Diabetes and Heart Disease).
Heart Foundation says sugar isn’t relevant. | David Gillespie

Speaking of climate change.
The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science.
How could two teams of scientists come to such obviously contradictory conclusions on seemingly every point that matters in the debate over global warming?
The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science - Forbes

Now if scientists are getting these things wrong how do we trust them with teaching our kids evolution in schools. How do we trust all the info they have claimed is showing transitions and that evolution is a fact and totally proven.

 

[lasthero]

Now if scientists are getting these things wrong how do we trust them with teaching our kids evolution in schools. How do we trust all the info they have claimed is showing transitions and that evolution is a fact and totally proven.

So, because certain scientists are untrustworthy, ALL scientists are untrustworthy?

And if you're going to go that far, why not ask why you should what scientists state about chemistry? About astrology? Geology? Why trust anything any scientist says, ever? Why teach any science at all? It could all be a lie, couldn't it? Every single thing in every single textbook COULD be made up, so why trust any of it?

 

[stevevw]

I'm trimming this down to manage it better....

Really what about just answer the original point before we all got side tracked. That would trim it down nicely.
For the 6th time, Do you think that people can use science to manipulate things to advance their own personal opinions or agendas. Do you think people and even some scientists can use science to misrepresent things by using the data and stats wrongly. Do you think that people and even some scientists can falsely portray things with science.

 

[lasthero]

Steve, science is tool. Like any tool, it can be misused. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the tool.

A screwdriver is meant to driver screws and hammer is meant to drive in nails. You can also stab or beat someone to death with them. That hardly means there's anything wrong with screwdrivers and hammers.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, science is tool. Like any tool, it can be misused. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the tool.

A screwdriver is meant to driver screws and hammer is meant to drive in nails. You can also stab or beat someone to death with them. That hardly means there's anything wrong with screwdrivers and hammers.

I completely agree. And that was the problem with biggles53. He assumed that I was having a go at science itself and he also assumed that I was saying that all scientists are bad when I stated over and over again that I was referring to some scientists.

My point was like you have indicated that it doesn't matter about the vehicle such as science or the hammer its the person behind it. Humans have a weakness to manipulate things on occasions and misrepresent things. They can take correct data and use it in the wrong places or they can take incorrect data that has been done by a scientists who hasn't performed the tests properly or use the wrong information or criteria to perform the tests. They can do this because of a vested interest, to protect their jobs or reputations or to promote an agenda they believe in or support.

This is how humans operate and to say that even scientists are not subject to these weaknesses in human behavior is just being unreal. Its like because someone has mentioned that scientists of all people could even think like this is sacrilegious in itself. They are subject to these things like any of us.

 

[biggles53]

I completely agree. And that was the problem with biggles53. He assumed that I was having a go at science itself and he also assumed that I was saying that all scientists are bad when I stated over and over again that I was referring to some scientists.

No....my objection was, and still is, that you are making sweeping statements without any evidence...!

My point was like you have indicated that it doesn't matter about the vehicle such as science or the hammer its the person behind it. Humans have a weakness to manipulate things on occasions and misrepresent things. They can take correct data and use it in the wrong places or they can take incorrect data that has been done by a scientists who hasn't performed the tests properly or use the wrong information or criteria to perform the tests. They can do this because of a vested interest, to protect their jobs or reputations or to promote an agenda they believe in or support.

This is how humans operate and to say that even scientists are not subject to these weaknesses in human behavior is just being unreal. Its like because someone has mentioned that scientists of all people could even think like this is sacrilegious in itself. They are subject to these things like any of us.

Put.
Up.
Your.
Evidence....!

And no, evidence does NOT consist of "well, everybody knows that...."....

So far, you have shown NOTHING to indicate where scientists in general, or the particular scientist you focused upon, have done ANYTHING to warrant being labelled as 'misleading' or 'alarmist' or 'dishonest'...

All you HAVE done is to act as the mouthpiece for the vested interests who WOULD like to pull those people down...

And you're too foolish or pig-headed too see it..

By the way, where's the apology...? I've now clearly shown you your quote in which you spoke mistruths.....going to man up...?

 

[biggles53]

Really what about just answer the original point before we all got side tracked. That would trim it down nicely.
For the 6th time, Do you think that people can use science to manipulate things to advance their own personal opinions or agendas. Do you think people and even some scientists can use science to misrepresent things by using the data and stats wrongly. Do you think that people and even some scientists can falsely portray things with science.

Not without any EVIDENCE, I don't....!

 

[biggles53]

No you havnt proved that Tim Flannery is as honest as you say.

Do you understand ANYTHING..!? It's not up to ME to show that someone is innocent.....it's up to YOU to show that he's done something wrong....the onus is on the accuser...!

Good grief, am I explaining this to an adult...!?

Why we are focusing on him anyway is beyond me.

What...!?

Because YOU raised his name...!!

As its not about Tim Flannery. You have decided to hijack the point I was making by focusing on a single man. I am talking about different people and even organization who have mislead or miused scientific data and info for an agenda they have supported. Lets say we forget about Flannery and agree to disagree for the sake of getting this debate back on track.

No...let's say YOU own up to your lying...!

I am not throwing mud its the many other people who are doing it

.

Oh, so now we add cowardice to the lies...? Be an adult, for Pete's sake...! When you repeat the mud that others throw, then YOU are equally responsible...

No this is what you continue to say and you keep misquoting me for some reason. I have said about 5 times now that I am not accusing all scientists and the majority are fine and Ok. The point is some misuse and misrepresent science for their own means. But you keep denying that and make out they are perfect and never act like humans.

The point is that, if you are going to make those claims, you have to back them up with that stuff you fundies hate......EVIDENCE...!

Remember once again. Some people including scientists can and will misuse and misrepresent science to support their own personal agendas. Just like when you accused religion of misleading children I said science can do the same. You then side tracked it from that point and here we are now 15 or 20 pages down the track debating about an irrelevant point which is really a waste of time. But then your good at that avoiding the questions.

Please show where I made any such comment about religion and children.....

 

[stevevw]

No....my objection was, and still is, that you are making sweeping statements without any evidence...!

Well this is where it gets a bit difficult. Because I believe I have given you evidence and you believe I havnt. So what can we do. I can give more evidence but then you will say I haven't given any again. And so it goes round and round. By the way writing it bit wont make it any more correct.

Put.
Up.
Your.
Evidence....!

And no, evidence does NOT consist of "well, everybody knows that...."....

So far, you have shown NOTHING to indicate where scientists in general, or the particular scientist you focused upon, have done ANYTHING to warrant being labelled as 'misleading' or 'alarmist' or 'dishonest'...

This is where you keep changing the goal posts. First you accused me of say I said that all scientists were dishonest. Then it was scientists in general and now its scientists in general or particular scientists. I have always said and for the 7th time that I am only saying that some scientists are guilty of this. Just like some policemen are guilty of misrepresenting or misusing things like their position. I have said time and time again that most are good. You dont seem to be getting this. There is a big difference. One is trying to tar all and make it an extreme statement. The other is a more balanced point of view. But you seem to want to take it into the extreme side of things so that it makes me out to be extreme. I would say that most people would agree that there are some scientists who misrepresent things. They may very well believe what they say and the way they have done it on occasions as well. But that doesn't mean they are right. It also doesn't mean that some purposely misrepresent science as well.

All you HAVE done is to act as the mouthpiece for the vested interests who WOULD like to pull those people down...

No all I have done is posted links from reputable sites and organizations. And if you want to go on about Mr Bolt then I wont even include his in my support. But all the others are from decent people and organizations. There is even support from science itself that will backup that some scientists misrepresent science.
False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-epidemic-of-false-claims/

And you're too foolish or pig-headed too see it..

another ridicule. It only shows you up. I can see where your coming from and I am not to big a man to admit when I'm wrong. Are you.

By the way, where's the apology...? I've now clearly shown you your quote in which you spoke mistruths.....going to man up...?

So you thought the two links I included before didn't state that some scientists contradict each other. That link was from the United Nations climate report the IPCC.
The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

We first have to establish whether you believe that scientists can misrepresent or misuse science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dont you think now they teach evolution in schools as 100% correct . . .

They teach the theory of evolution just like they teach every other theory, such as the germ theory of disease, the theory of atoms, the theory of gravity, quantum theory, etc.

and dont have any alternatives as being indoctrinated.

What other scientific alternatives are you proposing? Do you have the scientific research and consensus to back it up?

Some of the things they say have not been proven and have no evidence that they are correct yet they have their nice little pictures filling in all the blank spaces of creatures and how they looked showing how they all are linked to each other through evolution.

You are aware that we have transitional fossils, correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

But those who use science can twist things as well, ie global warming for example.

The data from global warming has not been twisted by the scientific community. It is the anti-science denialists who are twisting the data.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is and was the use of stats that some scientists used which were wrong to make a case for governments who were for and against the issue and they were on their pay roll.

Examples?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well the governments here used scientists who were on their pay roll to push their agendas. The scientists were scientists who had all the qualifications of being an expert in their field. If you go into most subjects you will find some scientific statistics that will back both sides of the argument. People will then decide to push whatever side they want to make. If you look at diet for example some people were saying sugar was bad and even fat wasn't as bad as being made out. Still the heart foundation with all their medical experts and scientists who said that this product and that products was OK.

Tons of allegations. Zero evidence to back it up.

 

[Loudmouth]

See now you are calling me a liar. This is where you get into trouble. Making accusations like that all the time is not going to get you far.

Isn't that your entire argument? That scientists are lying?

 

[Loudmouth]

talk about science misleading us:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Scientific_method

A quote from a friend of yours.

"See now you are calling me a liar. This is where you get into trouble. Making accusations like that all the time is not going to get you far."--stevew

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok so lets get back to the original point I made when responding to biggles53 in which he side tracked. He said religion was guilty of misleading and badly influencing people and especially children. I said so does science.

What did you do next? You went to a known lying anti-science sight and directly pulled misquotes and misrepresentations from it. You did the very thing you are accusing scientists of. Even worse, you still can't present any evidence that scientists are misrepresenting evidence as it relates to the theory of evolution. So you have a failed tu quoque fallacy that is nested in a red herring fallacy.

The point got side tracked with focusing on a single person who we disagreed was completely honest or had mis represented science data and figures to promote the governments campaign against global warming and promote its carbon tax.

We completely agree that you misrepresented what scientists have actually said in an attempt to make them look dishonest. You are accusing scientists of wrongdoing, and the best you can do is go to a website of known lies and repeat them. Don't you think that you should present actual wrongdoing if you are going to make such wild accusations?

The heart foundation of Australia who give their tick of approval to sugary breakfast cereals. It costs good money to get the heart foundations tick of approval and gives a product an extra boost in sales by claiming its healthy and good for you.

Last week, Nestle announced that it had secured a Heart Foundation tick on 44 of the 46 breakfast cereals it sells in Australia. The line-up of tick-approved products will now include some of the highest sugar breakfast cereals on sale in Australia. Milo and Milo Duo (both 29.7% sugar), Uncle Toby’s Oats Temptations (up to 34% sugar) and Uncle Toby’s Healthwise for Heart Wellbeing (30% sugar) will join the Kellogg’s Just Right (31.1% sugar) on the list of cereals the Heart Foundation says you should be eating.

The heart foundation doesn't think high sugar content is bad according to their scientific analysis.

The science says that (one of the ways) fructose makes us fat is by interfering with our appetite control over decades of continuous consumption. The cumulative effect of this is steadily increasing weight and concurrent metabolic dysfunction (which make us prone to Type II Diabetes and Heart Disease).
Heart Foundation says sugar isn’t relevant. | David Gillespie

Speaking of climate change.
The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science.
How could two teams of scientists come to such obviously contradictory conclusions on seemingly every point that matters in the debate over global warming?
The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science - Forbes

Now if scientists are getting these things wrong how do we trust them with teaching our kids evolution in schools. How do we trust all the info they have claimed is showing transitions and that evolution is a fact and totally proven.

Red herring. We are talking about evolution.

 

[biggles53]

By the way, where's the apology...? I've now clearly shown you your quote in which you spoke mistruths.....going to man up...?

So you thought the two links I included before didn't state that some scientists contradict each other. That link was from the United Nations climate report the IPCC.

No...I'm talking about you using the word "NEVER" when you falsely quoted Tim Flannery....I've shown you EXACTLY where you used it, despite your denials that you had..

So, where's your apology or retraction...?

 

[biggles53]

Steve, even if your position is now "some scientists are guilty if this", you still need to provide some evidence that they have done what you claim....!

You have failed to do this....every specific example you've tried has been debunked, so all you are left with is a general, unsupported claim about "some scientists"...

It's sloppy at best, dishonest at worst.....