Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

BCP1928 · Tuesday at 2:44 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
I'm not the type of person who likes others telling "this is how it is, you just have to believe us". So, I do my own investigating of the matter and the questions and comments and criticisms that I make are from what I gather from the scientific knowledge I read. Yes, I not that fluent in some of the scientific areas but if science is going to have us follow questionable theories, I want to have a basic understanding of the theories.

You're not required to "follow" them. If you're interested, you can find out what they say.

Hvizsgyak said:
When I was a programmer analyst, I broke my responses down to the not-so-familiar with the knowledge crowd so that a 10 year old could understand it. Why? Because, I don't want the wool pulled over anybody's eyes as to what's going on behind the scenes. We all have the right to know what is going on and in sciences case, they need to hire people to explain these things to a certain degree so all (who want) can participate in the discussion.

Those people are called "high school science teachers."

Hvizsgyak said:
Why do so many people like to tear down and rebuild car engines. Because they want to know how they work and they don't want to have to pay some mechanic (who rips them off sometimes because they are not fluent in knowing the car's inner workings) to fix their care. Same goes with science. If science were in a vacuum where it did influence everyday people and their lives, I wouldn't care less what it was discover and theorizing about. Unfortunately and/or fortunately, it touches all our lives sometimes for the good sometimes for the bad. So we have to have science explain it's works in the simplest ways so all can understand (that want to). Like our government has checks and balances built into its system so does science. So, when I see something that is possibly undermining the worlds view on everyday life, I am going to get to know it and if necessary expose it.

How does the theory of evolution undermine the "world's view?" In fact, it has enhanced it, giving us new insights into how life works and has led to advances in agriculture and medicine of incalculable value.

The Barbarian · Tuesday at 2:46 PM

AV1611VET said:
How many have you taken where that wasn't the case?

Pretty much all of them.

The Barbarian · Tuesday at 2:58 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
Whether this is the same group of scientists, it doesn't say. But if this is how science responds to their skeptics, well, I don't blame people for not believing sciences theories. Such a snobbish group of people at the National Center for Science Education. There seems to be alot of snobbery in the sciences.

The snobs who compiled that list of Scientists Who Doubt Darwin, didn't expect people to respond with a humorous debunking of their attempt. They hoped to impress us with that list of scientists, only to be overshadowed by a larger list of real biologists, all of them named "Steve." Their attempt to impress us falls apart when we find that they can only match up 0.3% of the Steves who accept evolutionary theory.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 3:07 PM

The Barbarian said:
Their attempt to impress us falls apart when we find that they can only match up 0.3% of the Steves who accept evolutionary theory.

Like trying to get through the eye of a needle, isn't it?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Tuesday at 3:21 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
You tried, I appreciate that. What can I say but that I'm just a ordinary common person. I'll do my best not to bother you anymore. I know I can be a pain.

I'm sorry, but this statement from the Abiogenesis thread:

Hvizsgyak said:
I'll be watching this thread. It sounds like possibly another hole in the "Hypothesis of Evolution"

Really calls into doubt any sincerity you put forward about wanting to understand science.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 3:25 PM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Really calls into doubt any sincerity you put forward about wanting to understand science.

Did you see the post where I used Barbarian's deck of cards and showed mathematically how evolution is impossible?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Tuesday at 3:30 PM

AV1611VET said:
Did you see the post where I used Barbarian's deck of cards and showed mathematically how evolution is impossible?

Your own birth is mathematically impossible. So is mine, so's anyones! If you crunch the numbers hard enough, EVERYTHING becomes mathematically impossible.

The Barbarian · Tuesday at 3:33 PM

Their attempt to impress us falls apart when we find that they can only match up 0.3% of the Steves who accept evolutionary theory.

AV1611VET said:
Like trying to get through the eye of a needle, isn't it?

They didn't expect anyone to call them out with real numbers.

The Barbarian · Tuesday at 3:35 PM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Your own birth is mathematically impossible. So is mine, so's anyones! If you crunch the numbers hard enough, EVERYTHING becomes mathematically impossible.

Innumerate people never realize that astoundingly unlikely things happen constantly. The trick is in predicting which one will actually happen.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 3:44 PM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Your own birth is mathematically impossible. So is mine, so's anyones! If you crunch the numbers hard enough, EVERYTHING becomes mathematically impossible.

Fair enough.

Math can take a hike then.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Tuesday at 3:44 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
Whether this is the same group of scientists, it doesn't say. But if this is how science responds to their skeptics, well, I don't blame people for not believing sciences theories. Such a snobbish group of people at the National Center for Science Education. There seems to be alot of snobbery in the sciences.

You don't know what snobbery is, do you?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Tuesday at 3:44 PM

AV1611VET said:
Fair enough.

Math can take a hike then.

I honestly wish it could. I had to retake my maths GCSE twice.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 3:47 PM

The Barbarian said:
They didn't expect anyone to call them out with real numbers.

You didn't get that, did you?

Actually, I'm glad you didn't.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 3:48 PM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I honestly wish it could. I had to retake my maths GCSE twice.

Okay ... you got me on that one! ^_^

Warden_of_the_Storm · Tuesday at 3:49 PM

AV1611VET said:
Okay ... you got me on that one!

Not even joking on that one. I managed to scrape by with a C grade.

sfs · Tuesday at 4:02 PM

The Barbarian said:
only to be overshadowed by a larger list of real biologists, all of them named "Steve."

Not all of the Steves are biologists -- I wasn't when I signed it (although I am now, more or less).

Hvizsgyak · Tuesday at 4:50 PM

River Jordan said:
Then you must be okay with science since scientists don't do that.

Have you read the responses from some of these posters? Some of them are very direct in saying "this is how it is" and I'm not talking about the "hypothesis and theory" understanding.

Larniavc said:
That is simply untrue. If you can use the internet you’re clever enough to read up on what a word means.

Are you still on the problem that I didn't remember the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" from 50 years ago learning about it. I said in my eyes and in most common peoples' eyes they are about the same meaning so we use them interchangeably. When I am talking about explaining better certain scientific theories, I mean like for example explaining in a common person's language why paleo archeologists (or whatever that scientific profession calls themselves) are not sure what genes may have been mixed with the Homo sapiens of Northern Africa or why there are large galaxy too close to when the Big Bang occurred. Alot of common people are interested in stuff like that but can only understand it when someone brings in down a notch scientifically. Many different scientists are interested in those topics too but they don't have the degree in that field or know the scientific jargon.

I would rather be a person who knows a certain amount of each scientific topic than one who is obesely absorbed in one scientific topic. One sees better when they have an overall view of any topic.

Ophiolite · Tuesday at 5:04 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
Are you still on the problem that I didn't remember the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" from 50 years ago learning about it.

The Bayeux Tapestry is a famous piece of fabric depicting scenes relating to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. If intended to engage those with a deep knowledge of the item, especially if I intended to challenge their views, I would make it a point to familiarise myself first, with the more important, current technical and historical information about it. Something I would learn, almost immediately, is that it is not a tapestry, but an embroidery. To proceed in any other way would be a woeful combination of foolishness and discourtesy.

I see parallels with the current case.

The Barbarian · Tuesday at 5:21 PM

AV1611VET said:
Math can take a hike then.

Reality is such an inconvenience, sometimes...

The Barbarian · Tuesday at 5:24 PM

AV1611VET said:
You didn't get that, did you?

That's rich. Everyone got it, I think. Going to be that hard for pharisees, too. But of course, they never think it applies to them.

Actually, I'm sorry you don't.

Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Similar threads