Hey my friend jimmy
I would call it a news article
i thought it was noteworthy information and I presented this article to see what you think.
I do not think all science is wrong by the way. Science is the observation of the natural.
Im trying to see your position and see how you react to things.
Ill assume you are reffering to this below statement
"This theory is, exactly like all of the studies that Ioannidis investigates in his paper, a hypothesis based on some data. When there is new data his theory may prove to be robust, or he may too be disappointed and confused when new data shows that his findings were false."
You seem to be overlooking the substance of this article.
No, I was just making a poor joke.
I read the article, I don't really see how it's particularly relevant to what we're discussing so I didn't bother taking much time to address it. I'm not really interested in the issues involved in medical research.
"What the data shows is business as usual: that scientists can be biased (not news), and that most scientific theories, in the end, are thrown on the garbage heap." - Dr Sylvia McLain.
What do you think about this above statement?
I think it's a neat summation of Dr Mclain's opinion - "Theories give a best guess at what is going on based on things we observe (data), but they are not immutable. If you only have a few data points, then your working theory is more likely to turn out to be wrong. This is not news to science, this
is science." I quite agree.
This remark seeks to demonize and critize those you reject or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument.
Not really, I'm just commenting on a pattern we see in these discussions.
I do not have an explanation for the diversity of life on earth - other than it was created, sculptured, sung, spoken and painted into existamce by our Glorious God. Very easy and laxed position. God does not change.
Good for you (no sarcasm intended). Why then are you arguing against common descent / the theory of evolution?
New data is always emerging and theories have to be adjusted. What you hold true today, may not hold true tomorrow or years from now.
It matters to you though. The only things i need to know is who iam and where im going.
It doesn't matter to me that much, I'm just passing time by chatting on the internet. However, consider this.....
"The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences".
Link
I think it
extremely unlikely that evidence will emerge that will overturn the hypothesis of common descent, it can be considered a fact... that's good enough for me.
All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism, how do you account for all this diversity of life given we all share one ancestor?
I think that the theory of evolution accounts for it obviously.
So your rock is common descent. Interesting
This is a bandwagon argument, the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...sg=AFQjCNHs7ZaHDK3lJwsyAfv2B9vWBb7vLQ&cf=1
"He points out “disagreement is a core part of the scientific process” and should not be construed a weakness. Thus, Drury provides today’s idea: “Absolute certainty is confined to mathematical proof, and even there it is a bit dodgy.”
What are you hoping to achieve with this project?
“The ultimate aim is to understand better why there is disagreement in science, how experts can disagree on the same basic observational facts, but more importantly what implications this has for the public understanding of science and the feeding of science into policy."
It's not a bandwagon argument at all, I suggest that you refresh your understanding of logical fallacies.
"Ioannidis' theory is that most scientific studies are wrong as a result of bias and random error, based on "simulations that show for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true"
He's referring to medical research, didn't you read the article?
This remark seeks to demonize and critize those you reject or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument.
Yep, I was referring to propaganda wesites like Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute etc, their lies are well documented and they openly admit that they don't follow the scientific method. Why should I be interested in their contribution to a scientific debate.
G. A. Kerkut seemed interested enough. Why would a evolutionist admit something that could harm their arguement?
It's called intellectual honesty and what he said may have been true seventy years ago but it isn't now.
Could i claim uncertainty and ignorance like you did with my giraffe question?
No. You aren't ignorant of the facts, I presented them. If you don't think they evolved then why do they show such a sequence chronologically? You've spent all this time trying to say the the science is full of errors, you don't accept common descent but you've got literally nothing.
Common descent. Im suspicious - showing a cautious distrust. Interesting how you show a strong trust in common descent. I have no faith in evolution. You do.
Theories give a best guess at what is going on based on things we observe.
Common descent and the fossil record.
Common descent is a theory whixh trys to explain facts (fossils). This is mans explaination for what they see.
Ill refer you to my previous question before ie diversity and one ancestor.
"The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences".
Link
I know you like your news up to date. This is real fresh
This article has found a new discovery that human ancestors may have existed in Crete at the same time as they evolved in Africa.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...gggMAA&usg=AFQjCNENKQyuPck5iNshQx53G5tDWxAK9A
How do you reconcile your position with this news?
It's an interesting discovery, but why do you think I need to reconcile my position? We know ancient hominids have been wandering around for millions of years.
Some condylarths evolved to fill the niche, while others remained insectivorous. This may explain, in part, the tremendous evolutionary radiation of the condylarths that we can observe throughout the Paleocene, resulting in the different groups of ungulates (or "hoofed mammals") that form the dominant herbivores in mostCenozoic animal communities on land, except on the island continent of Australia.
Among recent mammals, Paenungulata(hyraxes, elephants, and sea cows),Perissodactyla (horses, rhinoceroses, andtapirs), Artiodactyla (pigs, deer, antelope,cows, camels, hippos, and their relatives),Cetacea (whales), and Tubulidentata(aardvarks) are traditionally regarded as members of the Ungulata.[1][7]
It shows a link begween Condylarths and horses. (Is that goal posts moving or a ball going through)
So? Why are you changing the subject?
To be honest i have no intention of doing that
Ive said what i wanted to say and now the ball is back to you friend.
Of course not, evidence is the kryptonite of the creationist. Meta-debate and obfuscation are much more effective avenues for discussing the merits of scientific theories.
So selective pressure guided the evolution of the giraffe and solved the problem of blood.pressure in the spine, when lowering and raisong the giraffe neck?
Have you got a better explanation?
This problem had a solution my dear!
Cheers hey
Lool forward to your reply
I'll be honest, I didn't enjoy replying to such a rambling and disjointed post. I explained why I accept common descent as the best explanation of life on Earth, if you don't like my reasons I can live with that.
If you can present any actual evidence to demonstrate what you believe I'll look forward to it, until then I'll dismiss Creationism as poor theology and even worse science.
