Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Looks like one to me.FYI that's not an anti-evolution statement. All it says is they are skeptical that all of life's history can be attributed to mutation and selection, which I promise you every evolutionary biologist agrees with.
You need to show where the scientists who do origins research have said "you have to believe us" as you claimed.
Your claim is a little strange since usually creationists complain when scientists use words like "possibly" and "most likely". That's why it would help a lot if you could post a specific example of what you're referring to.
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.Project Steve here we go.
Your repeated avoidance of my requests for you to give an example of scientists saying something like "you have to believe us" makes me believe that my initial assessment of your posts was accurate. Basically all you're doing is complaining that scientists have reached conclusions you don't like.Looks like one to me.
Your repeated avoidance of my requests for you to give an example of scientists saying something like "you have to believe us" makes me believe that my initial assessment of your posts was accurate.
Come on, dude. What experience do you have with people in the sciences? (I'm going to guess: none.)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 terms used in this thread are first taught at about age 15 in school (that’s when I first learnt what a hypothesis was) so if the terms are too technical for you that’s on you.I want to have a basic understanding of the theories.
Come on, dude. What experience do you have with people in the sciences? (I'm going to guess: none.)
"Snobbery" isn't an issue in science. Most sceintists I know prefer to be addressed by their first names by even their underlings including graduate students. (Sometimes you have to do a bit of "deprogramming" to get them to call you "Hans" instead of "Dr. Blaster". If I don't respect someone I'll insist on "Dr. Blaster", but that is exceedingly rare.) Some years ago I had an office in an organization where our group shared a floor with computer science people and some IT support people. It was interesting that the CS related groups kept putting "Dr." on their placards, where as there we none at all in our group. You couldn't tell the difference between the group leader and the undergraduates (other than office quality).
That is simply untrue. If you can use the internet you’re clever enough to read up on what a word means.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.
Whereas I find it's still the tiny fringe it's always been. I base my conclusion on working with thousands of scientists from dozens of countries over the last 40 years while you base yours on reading something on a site dedicated to attacking evolution, right? Have you tried applying any critical analysis to that report? Is there any evidence there that this is a growing trend, for example? What fraction of the list actually represents biologists? What fraction actually work as scientists? Does the institution listed for them represent their employer or where they got a degree?I beg to differ. I am finding more scientific people each day questioning evolution or Darwinism.
Last time I compared the number of scientists in Project Steve with the list of "Scientists who doubt Darwin", it turns out that about 0.3% of people named "Steve" or some variant of the name, with PhDs in biology or a related field, doubt evolutionary theory. Not 3%; 0.3%. Three for every thousand.Project Steve here we go.
Please stop saying that. The common person understands far more than YOU, are giving them credit for.but to the common person
This happens every day when gametes are built up from molecules in the body or organisms.Now let's see if some one can do the same non-living materials coming together to create a living organism.
Last time I looked, they included mathematicians, "security specialists" and the like.What fraction of the list actually represents biologists? What fraction actually work as scientists? Does the institution listed for them represent their employer or where they got a degree?
Not all of them. If you include scientists working in industry, then a small fraction of them.Scientists aren't teachers?
How many university classes have you taken where that was the case?Either you believe what your professor tells you, or you'll fail his course.
This is one of my favorite pictures:
View attachment 368469
In it, the professor is exercising his right to deny the validity of the formula, based on the interjection of a miracle.
(Believe it or not!)
How many university classes have you taken where that was the case?
Indeed they do, but that is the business of public school science teachers. The most important thing they are supposed to teach is how science reaches its conclusions. Any science teacher who teaches that scientific conclusions are "a fact" should be sacked.And it seemed very redundant and meaningless to me back then (some 50 years ago) as it does to me today. It sounds like some say "world salad", to a true science at heart person it makes sense but to the common person, a theory and a hypothesis are just an idea - same words, same meaning. As I mentioned in another post, when I explain somewhat complex topics to people, who aren't affluent in the area, I break it down so even a 10 year old can understand it (if necessary). Science needs to start communicating with the common man world better.
All of them.
Ya -- and I'm Genghis Khan.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?