Are there any facts contrary to T.O.E?

[Astrid]

That the theory of evolution denies the existence of God. Why should I quote? You haven't said anything explanatory yet about your statement that it boils down to "God vs no God." That statement appears to echo the lie, but I can't tell because you haven't explained it.

Actually...nothing resembling a fact contrary to ToE has
been offered.

Religious faction questions and disputes have nothing to do.with physical science

 

[Astrid]

I'd really like to see this demonstrated. It would seem bad pedagogy to recycle a discredited term for something new.

I've read some of the related links. I don't recall whether they were from you or others. Nothing I've seen about EES makes it anything other then --- evolution.

It demonstrates a lack of discernment. And no I haven't trashed all of your links. Some I haven't even talked about.

These were in response to my identification of the author and institution and journal. As I have said before, it was ID all the way down. If someone is at an "institute" I've never heard of I'll look it up. Why don't you. I can't imagine you've ever heard of the Bythe Institute (or Broken Arrow, OK). It took me less than 10 minutes to sort this "institute" out. My question is why didn't you? How did you even find that article?

The problem is you weren't using science. You were quoting from or depending on a pseudo-science journal. If you are going to wade around in the pseudoscience swamp you are going to get some pseudoscience stink on you.

I'm not a linguistic analyst. I can't articulate what felt odd to me about the way it was written. It felt "off" and raised my motivation to find out who they were.

Again, these are not 'ad hominems'. I am identifying motivated reasoning, etc. in the source you gave me. BIO-complexity is a pseudo-science journal (a form of crypto-creationism called "intelligent design") Like I said there were many recognizable names from the world of ID all over the editorial staff/board of the journal.

You exhaust me. When you put your worst material first, I notice it first. It is a pattern.

A fellowship, eh? Do they have a ring?

I didn't say anything about this royalist fellowship promoting woo. I just informed you that it was a society and not a journal as you had claimed.

Never read it, or any other "royal society" journal. Not saying there is a problem with it, they just don't publish anything I use.

When you give me a six page post, I will likely respond to the first part first. This time that was from a pseudoscience institute in a pseudoscience journal. Do better vetting of your posted material and this won't happen.

We've never seen you resort to.ad hom.or strawman

 

[AV1611VET]

Religious faction questions and disputes have nothing to do.with physical science

Sounds good.

Science can take a hike.

 

[Astrid]

Posts whose purpose is to disparage science are contrary to forum rules.

 

[AV1611VET]

Religious faction questions and disputes have nothing to do.with physical science.

Sounds good.

Science can take a hike.

Posts whose purpose is to disparage science are contrary to forum rules.

I didn't disparage science, Astrid.

I put it in its place.

You said it first, when you said:

'Religious faction questions and disputes have nothing to do with physical science.'

I'm simply agreeing with you.

Miracles and science don't mix.

(And welcome back, by the way.)

 

[stevevw]

So what if we were to concede your point, that EES completely overturns the theory of evolution and rejects any evolutionary role for random variation and selection? After all, it's possible that you are right, even though the EES people themselves don't seem to think so. What's your next step?

I'm not saying it completely overturns the current theory. Like the article mentions random genetic variation is still a part but it becomes one of several means of variation. Natural selection still plays a role but its not the sole driver of fit to the environment. Other forces also contribute which can determine what is available for NS which is often well suited and heritable or can completely direct evolution.

I don't think anything should happen. Just let it be, allow the science to go the way of the evidence as to what best fits observations. Don't restrict the options to assumptions that don't really account for what is happening. I think that is all the researchers are saying.

The more data collected about the EES the further it will be verfieid and expand our understanding. Its like most things, when you restrict the view and options to a certain assumption sooner or later it no longer is adequate to explain whats happening. But with any change in assumptions it takes time because there is resistence in letting go.

So the onus is on those supporting a paradigm shift to provide enough evidence and reasoning until theres no denying. Or the old paradigm has accumulated too much baggage that things need to be revised.

 

[Astrid]

I'm not saying it completely overturns the current theory. Like the article mentions random genetic variation is still a part but it becomes one of several means of variation. Natural selection still plays a role but its not the sole driver of fit to the environment. Other forces also contribute which can determine what is available for NS which is often well suited and heritable or can completely direct evolution.

I don't think anything should happen. Just let it be, allow the science to go the way of the evidence as to what best fits observations. Don't restrict the options to assumptions that don't really account for what is happening. I think that is all the researchers are saying.

The more data collected about the EES the further it will be verfieid and expand our understanding. Its like most things, when you restrict the view and options to a certain assumption sooner or later it no longer is adequate to explain whats happening. But with any change in assumptions it takes time because there is resistence in letting go.

So the onus is on those supporting a paradigm shift to provide enough evidence and reasoning until theres no denying. Or the old paradigm has accumulated too much baggage that things need to be revised.

So you want to tell scientists how to do science.

 

[stevevw]

So you want to tell scientists how to do science.

How did you derive that out of what I just said. How does this sentence mean I am telling scientists what to do.
"I don't think anything should happen. Just let it be, allow the science to go the way of the evidence".

 

[Astrid]

How did you derive that out of what I just said. How does this sentence mean I am telling scientists what to do.
"I don't think anything should happen. Just let it be, allow the science to go the way of the evidence".

Unto whom do you seek to dispense your advice and insights?

 

[stevevw]

Unto whom do you seek to dispense your advice and insights?

Suggesting that the evidence should be followed isn't telling scientists or anyone what to do. Its just stating the obvious. Even if it was telling them what to do, so what. Its not controversial and is the right thing to say if one was to suggest how science should be done.

You seem to have a problem that people can comment on scientific methodology.

 

[Astrid]

Suggesting that the evidence should be followed isn't telling scientists or anyone what to do. Its just stating the obvious. Even if it was telling them what to do, so what. Its not controversial and is the right thing to say if one was to suggest how science should be done.

You seem to have a problem that people can comment on scientific methodology.

You ”seem to have a problem” just answering a simple question
about who it is you think needs your advice and guidance on basic science.

 

[AV1611VET]

You ”seem to have a problem” just answering a simple question
about who it is you think needs your advice and guidance on basic science.

His children?

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

 

[stevevw]

You ”seem to have a problem” just answering a simple question
about who it is you think needs your advice and guidance on basic science.

And you seem to have a problem understanding plain english. I did point out that theres nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious to anyone, whether thats scientists or non scientists. So surely you can derive from this that I was speaking about anyone including scientist. Anyone who attempts to do science. So it was about scientists or anyone. I made that clear.

But I am interested in why this is a problem. Why your upset that I have said such a thing like we are not suppose to say such things.

 

[Astrid]

And you seem to have a problem understanding plain english. I did point out that theres nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious to anyone, whether thats scientists or non scientists. So surely you can derive from this that I was speaking about anyone including scientist. Anyone who attempts to do science. So it was about scientists or anyone. I made that clear.

But I am interested in why this is a problem. Why your upset that I have said such a thing like we are not suppose to say such things.

We still don’t know who you think needs your guidanc.

Regarding English competency, your first sentence starts with a conjunction.
”English“ is a proper noun, so it should be capitalized.

Most of your sentences are sentence fragments.

”Your” is possesive, not a contraction for “ you are”.

Your statement that I am upset is a falsehood you made up.
it’s a rather moldy rhetorical trick used by a certain sort of person,
and almost always directed at women.

We won’t ask the why, nor again who is to benefit from
the science advice.

 

[stevevw]

We still don’t know who you think needs your guidanc.

But its not a statement about giving advice or guidence in the first place. Thats what your turning it into. I think because you think I am having a go at science or hate science.

It was a general statement, an obvious and commonsense statement. Like says doctors should use evidence based medicine. Or a mechanic should use a diagnostic machine to check the timing. Surely we are allowed to state the obvious. Its not controversial and its not telling anyone what to do.

Regarding English competency, your first sentence starts with a conjunction.
”English“ is a proper noun, so it should be capitalized. Most of your sentences are sentence fragments.
”Your” is possesive, not a contraction for “ you are”.

OK thankyou, I was not very good at reading, writing and comprehension at school. A bit dyslexic.

Your statement that I am upset is a falsehood you made up.
it’s a rather moldy rhetorical trick used by a certain sort of person,
and almost always directed at women.

Wow how did you get that out of what I said. I genuinely was wondering why you were upset about thinking I was trying to tell people or scientists how to do their job. I could not figure out why else you were upset that you would raise such a thing.

I mean its not as if I said scientists should follow their gut or follow their biases. That would be controversial. What I said that scientists or whoever is persuing the facts and truth should follow the evidence is a 'Good thing' to say. Its not controversial.

In fact from memory this whole episode is the result of someone aksing what should happen if what I have been saying is correct. I didn't call for the theory to be struck down. I said business as usual in going about allowing the evidence to speak for itself. If that revises and changes the theory than so be it. Don't allow personal bias to stand in the way.

We won’t ask the why, nor again who is to benefit from
the science advice.

OK thats good we can move on with discussions about actual topic.

 

[Astrid]

But its not a statement about giving advice or guidence in the first place. Thats what your turning it into. I think because you think I am having a go at science or hate science.

It was a general statement, an obvious and commonsense statement. Like says doctors should use evidence based medicine. Or a mechanic should use a diagnostic machine to check the timing. Surely we are allowed to state the obvious. Its not controversial and its not telling anyone what to do.

OK thankyou, I was not very good at reading, writing and comprehension at school. A bit dyslexic.

Wow how did you get that out of what I said. I genuinely was wondering why you were upset about thinking I was trying to tell people or scientists how to do their job. I could not figure out why else you were upset that you would raise such a thing.

I mean its not as if I said scientists should follow their gut or follow their biases. That would be controversial. What I said that scientists or whoever is persuing the facts and truth should follow the evidence is a 'Good thing' to say. Its not controversial.

In fact from memory this whole episode is the result of someone aksing what should happen if what I have been saying is correct. I didn't call for the theory to be struck down. I said business as usual in going about allowing the evidence to speak for itself. If that revises and changes the theory than so be it. Don't allow personal bias to stand in the way.

OK thats good we can move on with discussions about actual topic.

Theres no “we”. Youve nothing to contribute on topic.

 

[stevevw]

Theres no “we”. Youve nothing to contribute on topic.

How very individual of you lol. There is a 'We' in human existence. Theres lots and we would be lost without them, in chaos. Of course you don't have to agree with the 'we' determinations thats your right. But don't pretend theres no 'we' in being human beings.

The 'we' in science is the methodology. Its agreed upon and followed. Which is empiriclism. Which is following the evidence. Thats a 'we; thing. Of course you don't have to follow this. But then it wouldn't be science.

 

[loveofourlord]

Do you have proof that the evolution theory is true or disproof in the God theory? We all make claims of what we think are true but it all stems from a belief system. This is why I don't argue about something that happened many moons ago; we really don't know.

non sequitor, what does god have to do with evolution?

 

[loveofourlord]

Can you point me to a source with evidence that doesn't use the words, that may have, possibly, and all the other adjectives of uncertainty about the hypothesis on the monkey to man theory? I don't reside in a camp so I can honestly say I don't know what happened eons ago, or why all the discussions on ToE if it is backed by evidence.

it gets discussed people people like you would rather accept one interpetation of the bible rather then look into evolution.

 

[Astrid]

Do you have proof that the evolution theory is true or disproof in the God theory? We all make claims of what we think are true but it all stems from a belief system. This is why I don't argue about something that happened many moons ago; we really don't know.

There is proof such as the American legal
system refers to as beyond reasonable doubt.

Data from chrmistry, physics, geology, biology, in
quantity far beyond anyones capacity to read.

Not one datum point contrary to ToE.

Data far far beyond any doubt that is reasonable,
or even sane.

IF, that is, a person has any education.

I tried to convince a peasant lady that the earth is round.

She lacked the knowledge basic knowledge to be able
to grasp the non Intuitive.