Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I could say the same to you. We are Christians here and we believe God created the Universe. Were you expecting no one to push back with your Theory of Evolution on a Christian Website? You are here because you feel you have to set the record straight on your Theory of Evolution. We may not have as much "knowledge" as you do on the subject but we know enough not to give in to it.

It's not a question of not expecting pushback. I mean, this is the Creation & Evolution subforum... it's to be expected. Your comment of "...forcing me to respond and then you'll respond to my response." sounds like you don't even want to have a dialogue with anyone.

And it's not MY theory of evolution. It's just the theory of evolution, which describes the processes we see in studying God's creation in the natural world.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Since your stance is that you won't believe any of it no matter what, your evaluation of the material isn't meaningful.

But they gave it the old school try.

 

[AV1611VET]

And it's not MY theory of evolution.

It's yours by subscription.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's yours by subscription.

... Eh, I'll give you that one.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

It would still be incorrect since truth is something that only philosophy deals with, not science. Once again: science deals with evidence.

Then you guys must be the Guardians of "Evidence" (no matter how flimsy and faulty it is).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then you guys must be the Guardians of "Evidence" (no matter how flimsy and faulty it is).

I work in retail, so I'm only a guardian of the tills. The other members of this site who are actual scientists are the 'guardians', and again: just because you say it's 'flimsy and faulty' does not mean it is, and you've never once shown how it could be.

 

[Larniavc]

You know what I mean, upfront and close (right at your fingertips while they were alive).

Why is that more informative than looking at the same thing through a telescope?

Exactly how for away (in miles please) does something need to be before it cannot be trusted?

 

[Larniavc]

Just because you don't agree with it,

Silly goose! The word you should use is ‘understand’.

 

[Larniavc]

Some of your evidence is very questionable and speculative.

No. No it’s not. You have conflated ‘questionable’ and ‘speculative, with ‘too hard’.

Do you see now?

 

[Larniavc]

We may not have as much "knowledge" as you do on the subject but we know enough not to give in to it.

Hang on. You are very definitely ‘giving it’ when you make your anti science arguments. Cogent much?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Silly goose! The word you should use is ‘understand’.

I'm inclined to say it's both.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've read Smolin's book. He criticized string theory and to an extent the larger area of fundamental particle theory for focusing on string rather than other ideas that might be fruitful (particularly LQG, his preferred theory). He has some more useful discussion about hiring (particularly as he knows it in theory) the same as she has some legitimate complaints from her personal experiences. The difference is that Smolin didn't attack all of science wasteful and she did. Nor did he even attack all of physics (but she did). Her initial complaint about theory seemed fine, but her broader attacks are now just providing cover for anti-science forces, particularly in culture and politics.

Yes, I understand. Part of the difference between her and Lee Smolin is that while she has the degree, she intentionally focuses on philosophical practicalities that intersect Physics and Social Life, while Smolin has focused on criticizing the institutions of Physics research. It should probably have been known that this is the case being that she titled her recent book, "Existential Physics" rather than "Problems with Physics." I can understand her existential concerns. Whether I fully agree or not with her viewpoints is another issue.

A Scientist's Guide To Life's Biggest Questions Existential Physics Existential Physics

Existential Physics -- A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions

existentialphysics.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

The debate is still out on whether the scientists really know what they are doing with nuclear fission.

Seriously? There is a whole industry built around nuclear fission. The basics have been handed over to engineers. Engineers!

Ok, I'll give it to you, I shouldn't have called some science answers Science Fiction.

No it shouldn't.

Maybe it should go under, ummm, religious belief or folklore.

FYI: Read the rules of this sub-forum.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

You saying it is doesn't mean it is so. But let's entertain you: if the evidence is 'very questionable and speculative', why is it accepted as evidence in science?

You guys are sometime delusional?

Why is that more informative than looking at the same thing through a telescope?

Exactly how for away (in miles please) does something need to be before it cannot be trusted?

Less than one foot is preferable and with the right pieces of equipment (some of which have not even been created yet).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You guys are sometime delusional?

Let's try again with an actually serious answer: if the evidence is 'very questionable and speculative', why is it accepted as evidence in science?

Less than one foot is preferable and with the right pieces of equipment (some of which have not even been created yet).

Wow. Just... wow. And you call scientists delusional.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Only if you don't accept that events in the past left evidence.

It's all in reading the evidence correctly and with absolute truth, not just "I think this looks like something that fits between this and that on the evolutionary chain. What do you think, Hans?" And after the to agree it gets publish in the world by the liberal media and then new laws and policies are created around "the new discovery".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's all in reading the evidence correctly and with absolute truth, not just "I think this looks like something that fits between this and that on the evolutionary chain. What do you think, Hans?" And after the to agree it gets publish in the world by the liberal media and then new laws and policies are created around "the new discovery".

To copy a post above: Wow. Just... wow. And you call scientists delusional.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Let's try again with an actually serious answer: if the evidence is 'very questionable and speculative', why is it accepted as evidence in science?



Wow. Just... wow. And you call scientists delusional.

What can I say, if the right tools aren't there to analyze the thing in question, maybe we should wait until they are. But if they must speculate on them because they just want to, place that information under "religious belief and folklore" so that the liberal media doesn't take it and create all sorts of stories from it as fact.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What can I say, if the right tools aren't there to analyze the thing in question, maybe we should wait until they are. But if they must speculate on them because they just want to, place that information under "religious belief and folklore" so that the liberal media doesn't take it and create all sorts of stories from it as fact.

But they have the right tools, there's no speculation involved, the information cannot in anyway shape, form or sense be called 'religious belief and folklore' and you've even yet to show it could, and the liberal media (which is 100% telling about you) is not involved in the slightest.

You are just delusional on this whole matter.

 

[River Jordan]

You are just delusional on this whole matter.

It's become Poe's Law in action. "Weird" doesn't even begin to describe it.