Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[EternalDragon]

In other words you were spreading falsehoods again. If you cannot support a claim you should not make the claim.

It happens on here all the time.

It was an article that passed peer review. But then found to have implications towards creationism. The publisher got death threats, angry emails, and threats against his job. He was not even a Christian.

Why would I say something that is false? Or quote something I never read? I read it but it was years ago. There are also other such incidents.

Academic Persecution of Scientists and Scholars Researching Intelligent Design is a Dangerous and Growing Trend - Evolution News & Views

 

[mzungu]

It was an article that passed peer review. But then found to have implications towards creationism.

How could it have passed peer review and later found to have creationist implications? Who did the reviews? Were they real scientists of the same field? Please clarify.

 

[Black Akuma]

I read it but it was years ago.

You ever consider that either a) you're not remembering it correctly or b) the article in question was full of it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It happens on here all the time.

It was an article that passed peer review. But then found to have implications towards creationism. The publisher got death threats, angry emails, and threats against his job. He was not even a Christian.

Why would I say something that is false? Or quote something I never read? I read it but it was years ago. There are also other such incidents.

Academic Persecution of Scientists and Scholars Researching Intelligent Design is a Dangerous and Growing Trend - Evolution News & Views

LOL, to defend his claim he uses a lying creationist source.

Sorry, but I do not give articles from debunked sources very much credence.

Try again.

LOL, I checked out his article a little bit and what did they link to ? Other articles from lying creationist sources, sometimes their own. What a joke!

 

[EternalDragon]

LOL, to defend his claim he uses a lying creationist source.

Sorry, but I do not give articles from debunked sources very much credence.

Try again.

LOL, I checked out his article a little bit and what did they link to ? Other articles from lying creationist sources, sometimes their own. What a joke!

So no one is being threatened or called liars? and yet here you are calling them lairs. That's the joke.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So no one is being threatened or called liars? and yet here you are calling them lairs. That's the joke.

It's not a "threat" to call a liar a liar -- it's the truth.

 

[stevevw]

This is what i find ridiculous. Its like a catch 22 situation. The sites that will mostly question some of the claims made by evolution are from sites that may have a connection to religion. The main scientific section and especially the more academic boards and groups are not going to question these things in the ways needed sometimes. They are not in the business of doing this.

So when you are left with using some of these sources they are immediately rejected because of the association even if they have a point and even if they have qualified people making those points. A lot of the time the content isn't even read. Shouldn't it be based on the content and not the sauce. Shouldn't you read what they have to say before rejecting it out of hand.

Its an unfair advantage you are giving yourself by saying that you can use anything so long as it comes from something associated with science even if it is not verified by peer review or maybe making some unsubstantiated claims. Yet reject all references that are connected to religion not because its right or wrong but because its connected to religion. This to me shows a bias and prejudgement of what they have to say.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is what i find ridiculous. Its like a catch 22 situation. The sites that will mostly question some of the claims made by evolution are from sites that may have a connection to religion. The main scientific section and especially the more academic boards and groups are not going to question these things in the ways needed sometimes. They are not in the business of doing this.

What we actually want to see is real scientific research that challenges currently held scientific theories. That is not found on creationist sites. The material presented by the authors of the articles on creationist sites is not scientific work done by them.

Creationists have nothing to challenge anything with. All they have are propoganda sites that twist and misrepresent the work of others.

A lot of the time the content isn't even read. Shouldn't it be based on the content and not the sauce. Shouldn't you read what they have to say before rejecting it out of hand.

Why don't you cite the actual papers instead of the lies that professional creationist sites tell about them. When you quote someone talking about another person's paper, you have cited the wrong person. Cite the person who did the actual scientific research.

Its an unfair advantage you are giving yourself by saying that you can use anything so long as it comes from something associated with science even if it is not verified by peer review or maybe making some unsubstantiated claims. Yet reject all references that are connected to religion not because its right or wrong but because its connected to religion. This to me shows a bias and prejudgement of what they have to say.

We reject creationist sites as being legitimate scientific sources for the same reason that you reject the Enquirer as legitimate journalism. Cite the original research and be done with it. There is absolutely no need to quote a creationist site that isn't even the original source for the information.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is what i find ridiculous. Its like a catch 22 situation. The sites that will mostly question some of the claims made by evolution are from sites that may have a connection to religion. The main scientific section and especially the more academic boards and groups are not going to question these things in the ways needed sometimes. They are not in the business of doing this.

So when you are left with using some of these sources they are immediately rejected because of the association even if they have a point and even if they have qualified people making those points. A lot of the time the content isn't even read. Shouldn't it be based on the content and not the sauce. Shouldn't you read what they have to say before rejecting it out of hand.

Its an unfair advantage you are giving yourself by saying that you can use anything so long as it comes from something associated with science even if it is not verified by peer review or maybe making some unsubstantiated claims. Yet reject all references that are connected to religion not because its right or wrong but because its connected to religion. This to me shows a bias and prejudgement of what they have to say.

I agree. I have asked people to show where these papers lied and that has been the case. The lies were not there and the material was accurate, they just interpreted the material differently.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree. I have asked people to show where these papers lied and that has been the case.

Give us a specific article that fits this thread and I am sure that we can oblige.

 

[stevevw]

What we actually want to see is real scientific research that challenges currently held scientific theories. That is not found on creationist sites. The material presented by the authors of the articles on creationist sites is not scientific work done by them.

Creationists have nothing to challenge anything with. All they have are propoganda sites that twist and misrepresent the work of others.



Why don't you cite the actual papers instead of the lies that professional creationist sites tell about them. When you quote someone talking about another person's paper, you have cited the wrong person. Cite the person who did the actual scientific research.



We reject creationist sites as being legitimate scientific sources for the same reason that you reject the Enquirer as legitimate journalism. Cite the original research and be done with it. There is absolutely no need to quote a creationist site that isn't even the original source for the information.

Thats fine and if it is applied across the board but its not. Quite often evolutionists wont supply peer reviewed support and either make statements with their own opinion or supply a site that may have a personal view about something and make unsubstantiated claims. So what you are saying is that the only sources that are truly qualified are the peer reviewed ones.

Yet some of the religious sites will have scientists who are very bit as qualified and even use peer reviewed support. Some of the things they may point out are in agreement with scientific sites but still it is rejected out of hand. Though you claim that your side is above board with using fair unbiased support you cant tell me there is not an element of unfair tactics involved here, i have seen it with my own eyes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thats fine and if it is applied across the board but its not. Quite often evolutionists wont supply peer reviewed support and either make statements with their own opinion or supply a site that may have a personal view about something and make unsubstantiated claims. So what you are saying is that the only sources that are truly qualified are the peer reviewed ones.

It's just common sense. If you are going to claim that you have science supporting your position then it is common sense to cite the article written by the actual scientists who did the research. It just so happens that scientists publish these articles in peer reviewed journals which ensures the reader that other knowledgeable scientists have read over the article. Those peer scientists determine if the conclusions are consistent with the results and methodologies in the paper, and that the paper properly addresses the other research within that field.

Yet some of the religious sites will have scientists who are very bit as qualified and even use peer reviewed support.

Go to the peer reviewed sources and show that their conclusions are supported.

Some of the things they may point out are in agreement with scientific sites but still it is rejected out of hand.

Show that they are in agreement.

Though you claim that your side is above board with using fair unbiased support you cant tell me there is not an element of unfair tactics involved here, i have seen it with my own eyes.

No one is claiming that peer review guarantees an absolute lack of bias. Peer review is just the first hurdle that any scientific findings must cross. If you disagree with the conclusions in a peer reviewed article then cite that article, and explain why you disagree. This gives us some insurance that you are familiar with the material and can discuss it with us.

When you cite material from creationist sites all you see is the conclusions made by the author of the article at the creationist site, and then quote it if it agrees with your own opinions. Chances are, you have no idea how the sources they are referencing support their arguments, or if they do at all. We are here to discuss these topics with YOU, so it is you that needs to be prepared to discuss your position. That is why we ask that you use the peer reviewed papers that contain the actual science.

 

[mzungu]

This is what i find ridiculous. Its like a catch 22 situation. The sites that will mostly question some of the claims made by evolution are from sites that may have a connection to religion. The main scientific section and especially the more academic boards and groups are not going to question these things in the ways needed sometimes. They are not in the business of doing this.

So when you are left with using some of these sources they are immediately rejected because of the association even if they have a point and even if they have qualified people making those points. A lot of the time the content isn't even read. Shouldn't it be based on the content and not the sauce. Shouldn't you read what they have to say before rejecting it out of hand.

Its an unfair advantage you are giving yourself by saying that you can use anything so long as it comes from something associated with science even if it is not verified by peer review or maybe making some unsubstantiated claims. Yet reject all references that are connected to religion not because its right or wrong but because its connected to religion. This to me shows a bias and prejudgement of what they have to say.

Science does not deal with the unfalsifiable (supernatural). Any papers that include a variable based on the unfalsifiable will immediately be discarded by science. The reason for this is to eliminate from science any quackery, pseudo-science, and the unfalsifiable. If Science were to relax these rules then we will revert back to the days where superstition ruled the day like when the first sewing machines were considered to be of the Devil's and a mob destroyed them.

Surely you can see the reasoning behind this. Imagine if someone tried to publish a new translation of the Bible that included the Gods of Olympus and was given for peer review to the pertinent Biblical scholars; would they not dismiss it even though it contained Biblical facts?

 

[stevevw]

It's just common sense. If you are going to claim that you have science supporting your position then it is common sense to cite the article written by the actual scientists who did the research. It just so happens that scientists publish these articles in peer reviewed journals which ensures the reader that other knowledgeable scientists have read over the article. Those peer scientists determine if the conclusions are consistent with the results and methodologies in the paper, and that the paper properly addresses the other research within that field.



Go to the peer reviewed sources and show that their conclusions are supported.



Show that they are in agreement.



No one is claiming that peer review guarantees an absolute lack of bias. Peer review is just the first hurdle that any scientific findings must cross. If you disagree with the conclusions in a peer reviewed article then cite that article, and explain why you disagree. This gives us some insurance that you are familiar with the material and can discuss it with us.

When you cite material from creationist sites all you see is the conclusions made by the author of the article at the creationist site, and then quote it if it agrees with your own opinions. Chances are, you have no idea how the sources they are referencing support their arguments, or if they do at all. We are here to discuss these topics with YOU, so it is you that needs to be prepared to discuss your position. That is why we ask that you use the peer reviewed papers that contain the actual science.

As Iv'e said many times before and keep repeating myself that people who support evolution do not always use peer reviewed support for what they say. I can go and find a 100 posts that will make statements unsupported by peer review. So the criteria has to apply to both sides. Yet when some from your side do present their evidence without peer support no one from your side says a thing because you all accept it because you have already made up your minds.

If you have 1 or 2 of a group of 10 scientists normally the minority is made to feel outcasts and this has been shown in the past. This is a human trait that happens and just because they are scientists doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Its almost a boys club that you have to belong to and they look down on those who rock the boat against the majority of thought.

There is a list of over a 1000 scientists that state “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Major scientists around the world agree with them and many of them have not yet signed on to the dissent although they have gone on record that mutations and natural selection did not produce evolution.

They have been labelled radicals, crackpots, backwoods yokels, even a few snake handlers and flat earthers mixed in) dug up by pushy creationists to promote their cause. So there is disagreement within the very sector and it isn't unanimous as some try to make out.
Almost a Thousand Major Scientists Dissent from Darwin!

Heres some examples of bias and that there are scientists with peer review papers who question evolution.
https://medium.com/lessons-learned/4daaccd38726
Intelligent Design Research Lab Highlighted in <i>New Scientist</i> - Evolution News & Views
Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the <em>Journal of Molecular Biology</em> "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design" - Evolution News & Views
Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors
Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds

 

[Black Akuma]

The sites that will mostly question some of the claims made by evolution are from sites that may have a connection to religion.

Well, let's be realistic - not just any religion. Most religions have absolutely no problem with evolutionary theory - evolution is generally accepted with Hinduism, Buddhism, even Judaism. Out of the major religions, it's mostly Christianity and Islam that have any objection to it, and even then, predominately among practioners who adhere to a strict literal interpretation. Pretty much, the further you get away from people who want a literal interpretation of Genesis, the further you get away from evolution rejection.

The main scientific section and especially the more academic boards and groups are not going to question these things in the ways needed sometimes.

Who gets to decide 'the way it's needed'? You?

Shouldn't you read what they have to say before rejecting it out of hand.

Does a doctor really need to read every book and pamphlet on homopathic medicine before he concludes that it's a crock? Does a geologist need to study up on hollow earth theory for a few weeks before he dismisses? Does an astrologer need to read 'Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right'?

No. So why should biologists waste their time doing the same thing with creationists?

Its an unfair advantage you are giving yourself by saying that you can use anything so long as it comes from something associated with science even if it is not verified by peer review or maybe making some unsubstantiated claims.

It's not unfair, it's realistic. Scientists have lives to. They do not have the time or inclination entertain the countless passing fantasies that are dreamed up day after day after day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As Iv'e said many times before and keep repeating myself that people who support evolution do not always use peer reviewed support for what they say. I can go and find a 100 posts that will make statements unsupported by peer review. So the criteria has to apply to both sides. Yet when some from your side do present their evidence without peer support no one from your side says a thing because you all accept it because you have already made up your minds.

If you have 1 or 2 of a group of 10 scientists normally the minority is made to feel outcasts and this has been shown in the past. This is a human trait that happens and just because they are scientists doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Its almost a boys club that you have to belong to and they look down on those who rock the boat against the majority of thought.

There is a list of over a 1000 scientists that state &#8220;We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.&#8221; Major scientists around the world agree with them and many of them have not yet signed on to the dissent although they have gone on record that mutations and natural selection did not produce evolution.

That article was signed by less than 0.01% of the scientists in the relevant fields:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think that 0.01% of biologists is a significant number?

They have been labelled radicals, crackpots, backwoods yokels, even a few snake handlers and flat earthers mixed in) dug up by pushy creationists to promote their cause. So there is disagreement within the very sector and it isn't unanimous as some try to make out.

Many of them are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Heres some examples of bias and that there are scientists with peer review papers who question evolution.
https://medium.com/lessons-learned/4daaccd38726
Intelligent Design Research Lab Highlighted in <i>New Scientist</i> - Evolution News & Views
Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the <em>Journal of Molecular Biology</em> "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design" - Evolution News & Views
Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors
Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds

This is a strange grouping of papers. The first one seems to be a complaint on how peer review can go wrong. The next several are from an extremely biased source that has bee known to lie in the past and the last few were possibly real papers that seemed to have nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Black Akuma]

There is a list of over a 1000 scientists that state &#8220;We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.&#8221; Major scientists around the world agree with them and many of them have not yet signed on to the dissent although they have gone on record that mutations and natural selection did not produce evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&list=PLEBDE4D7DB15BED77&index=7

Steve, many of the people on that list weren't even aware they're on that list.

But regardless, do you know how small a number that is in comparison to the number of scientists that DO accept evolutionary theory?

Do you really want to play the numbers game with this? Because I guarantee you will not like how it turns out.

Major scientists around the world agree with them and many of them have not yet signed on to the dissent although they have gone on record that mutations and natural selection did not produce evolution.

Absolutely, positively, NOT TRUE. I challenge to support this sentence with any objective data, whatsoever.

 

[stevevw]

That article was signed by less than 0.01% of the scientists in the relevant fields:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think that 0.01% of biologist is a significant number?



Many of them are.

Thats typical of what i am talking about. You barley would have had time to read anything but come back in an instance with a rejection. That in itself shows intolerance and bias. Like i said you have already made up your mind.

Some of the links show definite bias and that a lot of what is put forward is not correct. Like i said you insist on us using peer review backup but you can use a lot of these sites that promote unfounded stories that they have made up to fit the theory.

There have been case where bones have been mixed from sites to ensure they have the right connections to make transitions because they have already decided that it is true and need to make it fit.

 

[Black Akuma]

There have been case where bones have been mixed from sites to ensure they have the right connections to make transitions because they have already decided that it is true and need to make it fit.

Care to be specific?