The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[amariselle]

You don't think you can figure out certain things about people, based on what they say on this forum?

What I don't think is that you can label someone unintelligent because of what they say on this forum.

Not everyone is good at clearly articulating their thoughts in writing, for instance.

And as for me, well, so I'm not some kind of technology expert, does that make me unintelligent overall?

 

[USincognito]

Interesting judgement on someone else'a intelligence when you don't even know them.

Says the person who thinks they've been reading my mind since the very start of this thread.

The same person who has spent most of this thread talking about me, rather than the topic, which is evidence for evolution. Were you ever going to address said evidence?

 

[amariselle]

Says the person who thinks they've been reading my mind since the very start of this thread.

The same person who has spent most of this thread talking about me, rather than the topic, which is evidence for evolution. Were you ever going to address said evidence?

Now that's hyperbolic. I have NOT spent "most of this thread" talking about you. Nice try.

And as for "reading your mind", I asked you to clarify, and you refused.

Your choice.

 

[florida2]

Maybe you shouldn't just trust "religious" people, maybe you should trust only God.

Mankind has twisted religion too. And money has motivated religious people to lie as well. (And yes, that includes Christians, and it continues to happen to this day)

That's life, people love money, people are motivated by money.

Yep, that's true. No field of human endeavour is perfect, but that doesn't mean everyone in it is tainted.

If you think people are never motivated by money in this life, I'm not sure where you've been.

Please show me where I said that in my post. (You'll find that I didn't)

It may be true that "science isn't for them", but there HAVE been scientists motivated by money nonetheless. (And also motivated by the desire for recognition)

THAT is what is truly "pathetic."

Yes, and?

I included some links earlier to information on 3 or 4 scientists that were in fact motivated by money or fame and recognition. They were motivated by the need to get published and to get paid.

Yes I am well aware that when you have hundreds of thousands of people working in any field there are going to be a few bad apples.

I can understand why many people may not want to admit this actually happens in the scientific world, but it does. (And we actually do not know to what extent, because it's safe to say there are some that have not been caught)

Who are these people who don't want to admit there have been some dishonest scientists? I certainly don't and I haven't seen anyone on this thread who would say that either.

Also, in the field of science (as in religion) it is not just about one scientist here or there being fraudulent. That fraudulent scientist has a potential impact on the work of countless other scientists.

In the cases I mentioned, the scientists were highly recognized and had had their work published in highly accredited scientific journals. They were highly respected in their field. Other scientists in their field were using their work for years to do their own studies. Which obviously calls into question the results of any subsequent studies done relying in any way on the fraudulent and inaccurate studies. It's an obvious trickle down effect.

There have been fraudulent and much worse religious leaders as long as there has been religion. Many of them were highly respected and led their followers for years. It's an obvious trickle down effect.

Let me ask you a question. Who were the people who discover dishonesty in science? Is it creationists? Nope, it's other scientists who find them out.

So, it is only wise to question what goes on in science (and yes, in religion) today. We should never blindly accept what someone else says as correct or true.

That too would be "pathetic".

Never said anything about blindly accepting anything. You do have a bit of a habit of trying to shove words into people's mouths. I don't blindly accept anything. I review the evidence and reach a rational conclusion.

Your responses to this thread have just been trying to poison the well. You haven't addressed a single bit of evidence but instead said that because there have been a few dishonest scientists (caught by scientists) that means you can just handwave away any evidence you don't like. This thread was about evidence which was posted in several posts at the start of the thread. If you want to discuss that, great. It would be cool to be able to discuss the scienctific evidence at some point on this thread.

 

[USincognito]

Now that's hyperbolic. I have NOT spent "most of this thread" talking about you. Nice try.

And as for "reading your mind", I asked you to clarify, and you refused.

Your choice.

And yet here you are continuing to talk about me rather than the topic of the thread.

 

[amariselle]

Yep, that's true. No field of human endeavour is perfect, but that doesn't mean everyone in it is tainted.

I never said "everyone in it is tainted."

Please show me where I said that in my post. (You'll find that I didn't)

Which is why I said IF

Yes, and?

And what? It's pathetic, just what I said, no "ands" about it.

Yes I am well aware that when you have hundreds of thousands of people working in any field there are going to be a few bad apples.

It's the far reaching effect of those "few bad apples" that concerns me. (And all the "bad apples" that may never be discovered) They are not ALL caught obviously, and some have gotten away with their fraud and falsifications for years.

Who are these people who don't want to admit there have been some dishonest scientists? I certainly don't and I haven't seen anyone on this thread who would say that either.

I didn't say you did. I was asked by others why I have concerns about modern science, and I have given some of my reasons. I wasn't accusing any one particular person of saying no scientists are ever dishonest, I was simply saying it concerns me that a number of scientists are.

There have been fraudulent and much worse religious leaders as long as there has been religion. Many of them were highly respected and led their followers for years. It's an obvious trickle down effect.

I've never said otherwise. In fact, if you read my comments and threads I've started elsewhere on this forum, you will see that I am very much aware of that.

And, as I've said before, this actually concerns me MORE than fraud and dishonesty in science.

I do wonder though, why it is that when a Christian brings up honest and valid concerns regarding dishonesty and fraud in science, instead of those concerns being properly addressed, the accusation is turned back on them in regard to religion.

The problem is with people. People can be dishonest, no matter what their field of study, career or interest.

Let me ask you a question. Who were the people who discover dishonesty in science? Is it creationists? Nope, it's other scientists who find them out.

Sometimes it just might be creationists. But even when it IS other scientists, that does not dismiss the outright deceit that's been perpetrated, nor does it diminish it's far reaching and potentially damaging influence and affects on other scientific studies and research findings.

If a police officer finds out that another police officer has been committing crimes on the job, does that excuse the guilty police officer of his or her crimes, or somehow cancel out the damage he or she may have done to others or to the reputation of the police force as a whole? Hardly.

Never said anything about blindly accepting anything. You do have a bit of a habit of trying to shove words into people's mouths. I don't blindly accept anything. I review the evidence and reach a rational conclusion.

Your responses to this thread have just been trying to poison the well.

Have you ever considered that maybe "the well" IS poisoned?

You haven't addressed a single bit of evidence but instead said that because there have been a few dishonest scientists (caught by scientists) that means you can just handwave away any evidence you don't like.

I've said nothing of the sort, if you think I have, quote me. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

This thread was about evidence which was posted in several posts at the start of the thread. If you want to discuss that, great. It would be cool to be able to discuss the scienctific evidence at some point on this thread.

Fair enough. You're right. We HAVE gone off topic long enough.

 

[amariselle]

And yet here you are continuing to talk about me rather than the topic of the thread.

Ha ha! Seriously! You directly accused me of talking about you. So, of course I'm going to address your accusation.

Really, this is absurd. Get over it already.

 

[USincognito]

Ha ha! Seriously! You directly accused me of talking about you. So, of course I'm going to address your accusation.

Really, this is absurd. Get over it already.

Well, let's see what evidence has gone unaddressed so far.

- Physiology, embryology and genetics supporting whale evolution
- Diversity of globin genes in modern vertebrates to do whole genome duplication in ancestral population.
- Common ancestry for animals and fungi.
- A hominid skull that none of the Creationists could tell if it was 'fully ape' or 'fully human'.
- Genetic evidence showing that lungfish are the closest sarcopterygian to tetrapods.
- Feathers and hair evolving from scales.
- Image of a series of hominid skulls.
- Homologous genetic section between humans and chimpanzees.
- Photos of three transitional fossils.
- Embryology, and specifically Evolutionary Development.
- ARHGAP11B and human brain evolution.
- The evolution of sexual reproduction in primordial red algae.

And yet there's (almost 370) posts to this thread.

 

[amariselle]

Well, let's see what evidence has gone unaddressed so far.

- Physiology, embryology and genetics supporting whale evolution
- Diversity of globin genes in modern vertebrates to do whole genome duplication in ancestral population.
- Common ancestry for animals and fungi.
- A hominid skull that none of the Creationists could tell if it was 'fully ape' or 'fully human'.
- Genetic evidence showing that lungfish are the closest sarcopterygian to tetrapods.
- Feathers and hair evolving from scales.
- Image of a series of hominid skulls.
- Homologous genetic section between humans and chimpanzees.
- Photos of three transitional fossils.
- Embryology, and specifically Evolutionary Development.
- ARHGAP11B and human brain evolution.
- The evolution of sexual reproduction in primordial red algae.

And yet there's (almost 370) posts to this thread.

Looks like you'd better try to get someone else in here to address your concerns then.

 

[USincognito]

Looks like you'd better try to get someone else in here to address your concerns then.

 

[amariselle]

So basically, you started a thread but are not interested/get offended when anyone addresses you.

See? I can bold that word too.

Ha ha, understood.

Goodbye.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Hmmm....maybe because I don't care?

It seems that you don’t care enough to even learn about the theory you are attempting to critique.

I don't think modern day science is trustworthy in any overall sense. And when I said that in my initial post, I was asked to give reasons to support such a statement, so I did.

You threw the baby out with the bathwater. No one here claimed that science was infallible. You asserted that it’s “rife with fraud,” implying that deliberate dishonesty was widespread. Yet the examples you provided are not sufficient to justify that conclusion. Moreover, as I noted earlier, the issues you alluded to -- the “publish or perish” culture, for example -- are being discussed within the scientific community, with a view to reforming such practices in order to improve science.

I don't think modern day science is trustworthy in any overall sense.

I doubt you’re actually serious about this. When you are ill, although you may pray for healing, you nevertheless take your medicine. Why would you do so if you felt that medical science could not be trusted to produce drugs with tangible therapeutic benefits?

But hey, by all means, continue putting your faith in science, but don't be surprised that not everyone is willing to do so. It is, after all, a highly flawed field of study, and so, it should quite rightly be questioned.

Compared to what? Shall we compare the ethos of science to that of religion?

But, no matter, I am not willing to uphold science as such a marvelous and nearly flawless field of study, as some are.

This is a strawman. No one here claimed that science is “flawless.” Scientists are, however, cognisant of these flaws and are seeking ways to overcome them.

I can understand why many people may not want to admit this actually happens in the scientific world, but it does. (And we actually do not know to what extent, because it's safe to say there are some that have not been caught)

So you concede that your earlier point — that fraud is rife in the scientific community — is unsupported? After all, if we do not to what extent it occurs, how can you say that it is rife?

 

[amariselle]

It seems that you don’t care enough to even learn about the theory you are attempting to critique.

You threw the baby out with the bathwater. No one here claimed that science was infallible. You asserted that it’s “rife with fraud,” implying that deliberate dishonesty was widespread. Yet the examples you provided are not sufficient to justify that conclusion. Moreover, as I noted earlier, the issues you alluded to -- the “publish or perish” culture, for example -- are being discussed within the scientific community, with a view to reforming such practices in order to improve science.

I doubt you’re actually serious about this. When you are ill, although you may pray for healing, you nevertheless take your medicine. Why would you do so if you felt that medical science could not be trusted to produce drugs with tangible therapeutic benefits?

Compared to what? Shall we compare the ethos of science to that of religion?

This is a strawman. No one here claimed that science is “flawless.” Scientists are, however, cognisant of these flaws and are seeking ways to overcome them.

So you concede that your earlier point — that fraud is rife in the scientific community — is unsupported? After all, if we do not to what extent it occurs, how can you say that it is rife?

I concede nothing, and I am very serious. I do not trust all of science and what goes on in the scientific world.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I concede nothing, and I am very serious. I do not trust all of science and what goes on in the scientific world.

You would have to concede, given that what you admitted (that we do not know to what extent fraud occurs) clashes with your claim that fraud is rife. Either we do not know to what extent fraud occurs or we know that it is rife. Which is it?

 

[amariselle]

You would have to concede, given that what you admitted (that we do not know to what extent fraud occurs) clashes with your claim that fraud is rife. Either we do not know to what extent fraud occurs or we know that it is rife. Which is it?

You have picked the part of my posts that suits you. Therefore, you are able to dismiss what I was actually saying.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have picked the part of my posts that suits you. Therefore, you are able to dismiss what I was actually saying.

You claimed that fraud was rife in the scientific community. That conclusion was not warranted by anything you've presented to date. You later admitted that we don't know the actual extent of such practices. The context is available for those who'd like to check for themselves.

 

[amariselle]

You claimed that fraud was rife in the scientific community. That conclusion was not warranted by anything you've presented to date. You later admitted that we don't know the actual extent of such practices. The context is available for those who'd like to check for themselves.

We know that it is very extensive and ongoing (rife) and we don't know how much worse it is. What we know is bad enough. That was my point.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We know that it is very extensive and ongoing (rife) and we don't know how much worse it is. What we know is bad enough. That was my point.

But you never established that it was rife in the first place. On what was that judgment based? What prevalence data did you supply? What percentages did you present for consideration? As I recall, you found some notable cases of outright fraud, and from that concluded that fraud was rife in the scientific community. Yet that conclusion isn't warranted given the information you've supplied.

 

[amariselle]

But you never established that it was rife in the first place. On what was that judgment based? What prevalence data did you supply? What percentages did you present for consideration? As I recall, you found some notable cases of outright fraud, and from that concluded that fraud was rife in the scientific community. Yet that conclusion isn't warranted given the information you've supplied.

Then you should actually read the links I provided. If you think it was just a few isolated cases that had no affect beyond the one fraudulent scientist in question, that would be incorrect.

And furthermore, I said that such issues (among others that I've addressed elsewhere) are why I don't put my faith and trust in science as I do in God.

Why do you care if I choose to trust God more than science? Does it really matter to you what personal choice I make in my own life in this regard?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then you should actually read the links I provided. If you think it was just a few isolated cases that had no affect beyond the one fraudulent scientist in question, that would be incorrect.

And furthermore, I said that such issues (among others that I've addressed elsewhere) are why I don't put my faith and trust in science as I do in God.

Why do you care if I choose to trust God more than science? Does it really matter to you what personal choice I make in my own life in this regard?

I'm more interested in how you justify this choice given that the existence of the scientific community is not in doubt, but the existence of god is.