The tip of the ice berg

[Bungle_Bear]

Went extinct, did they?

No, taken out of circulation

Do you know nothing about money?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, taken out of circulation

Do you know nothing about money?

Does the Bank of England?

The Darwin £10 is almost extinct – just one week to go

 

[ruthiesea]

If you are not an evolutionist you generally can say goodbye to a career in science.

So, if you don’t accept a valid scientific theory then you won’t have a career in science? Until a theory is scientifically invalidated then a scientist must accept it with the condition that science continually questions the validity of theories. There is no 100% certainty in science except that we don’t know everything. We don’t know what might be discovered tomorrow. Theories cannot be proven but they are testable and, if wrong, can be invalidated.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, taken out of circulation

Do you know nothing about money?

To be fair to AV, the US Treasury hasn't demonetized any circulating US currency or coinage in his lifetime. I got a $1 1957 Silver Certificate in change a few years ago. The backside of the note is identical to the $1 notes still being printed. A contemporary of Darwin (born on the same day) has been on the US $5 note since 1914 and the 1 cent coin since 1909 (their shared 100th birthday).

 

[Astrid]

So, if you don’t accept a valid scientific theory then you won’t have a career in science? Until a theory is scientifically invalidated then a scientist must accept it with the condition that science continually questions the validity of theories. There is no 100% certainty in science except that we don’t know everything. We don’t know what might be discovered tomorrow. Theories cannot be proven but they are testable and, if wrong, can be invalidated.

Must accept it?

 

[ottawak]

Must accept it?

Don't forget the conditions, which boil down to, this is the best explanation we have come up with so far, but it may change tomorrow. Plus the corallary, need not accept it if possessed of a convincing alternative.

 

[Astrid]

Don't forget the conditions, which boil down to, this is the best explanation we have come up with so far, but it may change tomorrow. Plus the corallary, need not accept it if possessed of a convincing alternative.

That is far from compulsion

 

[Aussie Pete]

So, if you don’t accept a valid scientific theory then you won’t have a career in science? Until a theory is scientifically invalidated then a scientist must accept it with the condition that science continually questions the validity of theories. There is no 100% certainty in science except that we don’t know everything. We don’t know what might be discovered tomorrow. Theories cannot be proven but they are testable and, if wrong, can be invalidated.

The reality is that if you want a career in science, you don't admit to rejecting evolution. There are always exceptions, but they are rare. Professor James Tour advises his students not to admit to rejecting evolution. Attached is an interview with a researcher that confirms that point of view.

 

[ottawak]

The reality is that if you want a career in science, you don't admit to rejecting evolution. There are always exceptions, but they are rare. Professor James Tour advises his students not to admit to rejecting evolution. Attached is an interview with a researcher that confirms that point of view.

On the other hand, a person who is willing to reject 200 years of evidence-based science out of hand in favor of an eccentric and unconvincing interpretaton of an ancient religious text can hardly be trusted to do good science in any field.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Does the Bank of England?

The Darwin £10 is almost extinct – just one week to go

The Bank of England used an incorrect metaphor to make a point. Something you're fond of doing.

If you bothered looking beyond the end of your nose you'd see that the Darwin £10 can still be exchanged. So no, not really extinct, just no longer in circulation.

 

[Astrid]

The reality is that if you want a career in science, you don't admit to rejecting evolution. There are always exceptions, but they are rare. Professor James Tour advises his students not to admit to rejecting evolution. Attached is an interview with a researcher that confirms that point of view.

The reality is you just made that up, about rejevting ToE v a csreer
in science.

ToE as such has nothing to do with p- chem, analytical ot
physical, geology, physics ( theoretical or applied )! Ete.

A problem might come up in denying all the evidence of course-
One would have to be deranged to deny all of it. So the department
might choose a more sane candidate.


A couple of opinions like yours dont demonatate anything
except that to those minds that are made up and set in concrete,
any evidence will confirm, nothing can change it.

 

[Astrid]

On the other hand, a person who is willing to reject 200 years of evidence-based science out of hand in favor of an eccentric and unconvincing interpretaton of an ancient religious text can hardly be trusted to do good science in any field.

If thats what they do. Deep time, for example, is key to
evolution. A person can see that the earth is ancient,
not accept ToE, and be a good chemist.

A full blown yec, though, has to go far beyond the limits
of even ordinary good sense, so much denial, cog dis,
etc that it surely would make for poor resesrch.

As yecs typically are from low socio economic
backgrounds where they are taught to shun education,
very few have a chance to miss a research job by showing
how ill suited they are.

 

[ruthiesea]

Must accept it?

Yes, “with the condition that science continually questions the validity of theories”. In other words, in order to not accept it then a scientist must provide evidence that the theory is invalid (wrong). You can say that a theory is wrong forever but without evidence to support that contention then you are accomplishing nothing.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, “with the condition that science continually questions the validity of theories”. In other words, in order to not accept it then a scientist must provide evidence that the theory is invalid (wrong). You can say that a theory is wrong forever but without evidence to support that contention then you are accomplishing nothing.

I might agree with you but your wording seems off.
I dont see the compulsion you speak of.

People who did not accept the Missoula flood or
" continental drift " theories hardly disproved them.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bank of England used an incorrect metaphor to make a point.

I guess Bloomberg did too, didn't they?

U.K.'s Darwin Banknotes to Become Extinct in March 2018

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I guess Bloomberg did too, didn't they?

U.K.'s Darwin Banknotes to Become Extinct in March 2018

Now you're getting it.

How does it feel to learn something?

 

[ruthiesea]

I might agree with you but your wording seems off.
I dont see the compulsion you speak of.

People who did not accept the Missoula flood or
" continental drift " theories hardly disproved them.

Creationists believe that no scientists is ‘allowed’ to speak against evolution. My point is that you cannot effectively speak against evolution without scientific evidence. Without that you have to accept theories. “I just don’t believe in it” is a non-starter. A theory cannot be rejected out of hand or based on religious beliefs. Only science can be used to argue science.

There is no evolution conspiracy.

 

[AV1611VET]

My point is that you cannot speak against evolution without scientific evidence. Without that you have to accept theories. They cannot be rejected out of hand or based on religious beliefs. Only science can be used to argue science.

Whoever made those rules can take a hike: a long one on a short pier.

 

[Astrid]

Creationists believe that no scientists is ‘allowed’ to speak against evolution. My point is that you cannot effectively speak against evolution without scientific evidence. Without that you have to accept theories. “I just don’t believe in it” is a non-starter. A theory cannot be rejected out of hand or based on religious beliefs. Only science can be used to argue science.

There is no evolution conspiracy.

As i said, agreed but for a nuance or two in wording

 

[Aussie Pete]

The reality is you just made that up, about rejevting ToE v a csreer
in science.

ToE as such has nothing to do with p- chem, analytical ot
physical, geology, physics ( theoretical or applied )! Ete.

A problem might come up in denying all the evidence of course-
One would have to be deranged to deny all of it. So the department
might choose a more sane candidate.


A couple of opinions like yours dont demonatate anything
except that to those minds that are made up and set in concrete,
any evidence will confirm, nothing can change it.

ToE has already been demonstrated to be false. Evolutionist refuse to accept any evidence that refutes evolution. You are just as unwilling to accept the fact that the scientific community is biased against those who reject evolution. It's not my opinion. You obviously are ignorant of the problems facing researchers who (justifiably) reject evolution.