Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Chuck Swindoll once pointed out that there are two types of critics, re those who are running the race:

The coaches, who give advice to the runners so as to make them better.

And those who sit on the side line and take pot shots at them.

And you guys are DEFINITELY the latter.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not the science we're talking about. We're specifically talking about your claim that scientists, astronomers specifically, studying the stars and saying they're millions of light years away is linked to the liberal media. And we can even lump the theory of evolution into that mess too since that's what started this whole thing in the first place.

From AI Overview:

The perception of a "liberal media" bias in science coverage is a complex issue with no simple answer. While some studies suggest that scientists are, on average, more politically liberal than the general population, and that conservatives are more likely to distrust scientific findings, there's also evidence that journalists strive for objectivity. Furthermore, political divides emerge in how people perceive science news coverage, with Republicans more likely to find fault with media coverage.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Perceived Liberal Bias in Science:

Some research indicates that scientists tend to be more politically liberal than the general public. This perception has fueled criticism of science, particularly among conservatives.

Conservative Distrust of Science:

Studies have shown that conservatives are more likely than liberals to express distrust in scientific findings, particularly in areas like climate change and vaccines.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you guys are DEFINITELY the latter.

They deserve it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From AI Overview:

The perception of a "liberal media" bias in science coverage is a complex issue with no simple answer. While some studies suggest that scientists are, on average, more politically liberal than the general population, and that conservatives are more likely to distrust scientific findings, there's also evidence that journalists strive for objectivity. Furthermore, political divides emerge in how people perceive science news coverage, with Republicans more likely to find fault with media coverage.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Perceived Liberal Bias in Science:

Some research indicates that scientists tend to be more politically liberal than the general public. This perception has fueled criticism of science, particularly among conservatives.

Conservative Distrust of Science:

Studies have shown that conservatives are more likely than liberals to express distrust in scientific findings, particularly in areas like climate change and vaccines.

Wow... completely NOT what I asked for and completely NOT who I asked it.

Again: STOP ANSWERING FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They deserve it.

No they don't, especially by people who admit that they don't know a damn thing that they're talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

No they don't, especially by people who admit that they don't know a damn thing that they're talking about.

A little child should be able to look a scientist right in the eyes and tell him he's wrong (about some things).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A little child should be able to look a scientist right in the eyes and tell him he's wrong (about some things).

And people who don't know a damn thing about what they're saying is wrong should be wise and keep their mouth shut and learn.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There is a difference between seeing something right in front of you and seeing something millions of miles away or from millions of years in the past. The observation should not have the same weight of accuracy because of the distances involved. Many peripheral things could be altering the observation, and the observer would be clueless about them

You are really complaining about something about which you don't understand.

As far as the effectiveness of remote sensing...

Since I mentioned the Orion Nebula earlier, astronomers know what it is made of, how hot it is, what the density is, and where it gets its "glow". (Even further, they can map the temperature and density of the nebula.) This is all from "remote sensing" and knowing how atoms react to photons (measured in laboratories).

Meteorologists make the same kind of measurements of the temperature, winds, moisture of the atmosphere from satelites in orbit.

Neither "touches" the observed material (atmosphere, nebula), yet both can determine the properties of the things they observe.

 

[AV1611VET]

And people who don't know a damn thing about what they're saying is wrong should be wise and keep their mouth shut and learn.

What about those who do know a thing or two and are told to keep their mouths shut?

From AI Overview:

There are numerous historical and contemporary examples of scientists who faced pressure or were instructed to keep quiet about their research findings. These situations often arise due to political, economic, or ideological conflicts with the scientific discoveries or their potential implications.

Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865): This Hungarian physician discovered that handwashing drastically reduced mortality rates in maternity wards. However, his findings were largely rejected by the medical community of his time, who found it offensive to be accused of being unclean. Semmelweis struggled for years to gain acceptance for his idea and ultimately faced a tragic end, being committed to an asylum. His work was only fully recognized decades later with the advent of Louis Pasteur's germ theory.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That book has nothing to do with the criticism she has gotten. I have no interest in her thoughts on those subjects.

ok.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What about those who do know a thing or two and are told to keep their mouths shut?

From AI Overview:

There are numerous historical and contemporary examples of scientists who faced pressure or were instructed to keep quiet about their research findings. These situations often arise due to political, economic, or ideological conflicts with the scientific discoveries or their potential implications.

Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865): This Hungarian physician discovered that handwashing drastically reduced mortality rates in maternity wards. However, his findings were largely rejected by the medical community of his time, who found it offensive to be accused of being unclean. Semmelweis struggled for years to gain acceptance for his idea and ultimately faced a tragic end, being committed to an asylum. His work was only fully recognized decades later with the advent of Louis Pasteur's germ theory.

Can you think of anything that you have said that would conceivably and imaginably put you in the same ballpark as Ignaz Semmelweis? Because we're not talking about people like them, we're very specifically talking about people like you, the people who do not play the game but shout from the sidelines saying what should be done and then doing nothing at all when asked to participate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Confronting Creation's Complexities

Why should it matter to Catholics whether Darwinism survives or fades away? Hasn’t the Church tolerated evolution quite happily since it was first discussed at...

www.catholic.com

Ugg. This article is no different from standard DI propaganda with a little Catholacism thrown in to be publishable on that site:

Darwinist apologists often stress data that support their philosophy and ignore data that do not. Hence it appears that, for many Darwinians, protecting atheistic philosophy is more important than preserving scientific objectivity. Darwinism is precisely the sort of materialist-origins philosophy [Bishop of Rome Karol Wojtyla] warned us against in his oft-quoted address: “theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person” .

"Darwinist" and "Darwinian" are just creationist slurs against either actual scientists or people who accept science.

Yes, I know we are allowed to believe evolution but from what I have seen about these mutated evolution links between organisms, I just don't buy it. And there is no sin in believing what I believe because I place God as the Creator of the whole thing.

But how many people over the centuries lose their faith in God because (along with other information) they are tripped up by Darwinian Evolution. The Devil is always looking for ways to drive a wedge between man and God and when you have alot of atheists using evolution to drive that wedge, more and more people lose their faith in God. Now if science would admit to God being the prime Mover and Creator of man then we wouldn't have this problem but that is not the case.

I've heard a lot of statements from a lot of ex-Christians about why and few are because of evolution/creation and nearly all of those were fundamentalist, evangelical YECists. This wedge notion is just paranoia. Your holy book is far more problematic for causing departures than any science is.

 

[Bradskii]

This thread is beginning to remind me of the flat earth discussions that run on for months. Unsubscribing...

 

[BCP1928]

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.

This is the big lie of creationism and the reason for the pushback. It is a disgusting, sanderous falsehood. The theory of evolution does not deny that God created the universe. It doesn't even raise the issue.

 

[AV1611VET]

The theory of evolution does not deny that God created the universe. It doesn't even raise the issue.

The theory of evolution makes God out to be a liar.

 

[sfs]

No, you are right, and I'm not even sure where it comes from myself since it IS one long singular revelation not multiple different ones.

Well, if we're going to get pedantic, the name of the book is actually Άποκάλυψις ᾽Ιωάννου.

 

[BCP1928]

The theory of evolution makes God out to be a liar.

No, you are the one who does that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, if we're going to get pedantic, the name of the book is actually Άποκάλυψις ᾽Ιωάννου.

Next I suppose you're going to tell us Γιάννης wrote it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The theory of evolution makes God out to be a liar.

 

[public hermit]

Q.E.D.