Don't like the implications?

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution is a scientific theory that is confirmed by the facts.

And mind you all, scientific theory only means it is scientific opinion, nothing more.

 

[Kenny'sID]

A scientist is someone who actual does science. Doing research, performing experiments, publishing papers.

And as the OP points out, a scientist may also be someone with agenda, as in:

'We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!’

And an agenda, especially one as strong as that could very well cause their theories (opinions) to move in a faulty/unrealistic direction,

The same theories (opinions) that they base there findings that evolution is fact. Yes, you and I know it isn't a fact (I think, I lose track) but some even on this thread are calling it that.

In the end, evolution is often based on biased opinion that, just like a biased racists, where they don't think clearly/logically due to that bias, their opinion/theory ends up being wrong.

 

[sfs]

And mind you all, scientific theory only means it is scientific opinion, nothing more.

Right. It's just scientific opinion that makes your computer work, and let's GPS tell you where you are, and guided humans to the moon, and eliminated smallpox, and on and on. That's the funny thing about scientific theories: they work. You can call them opinions until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that they work. And one of those theories is the theory of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

And as the OP points out, a scientist may also be someone with agenda, as in:



And an agenda, especially one as strong as that could very well cause their theories (opinions) to move in a faulty/unrealistic direction,

The same theories (opinions) that they base there findings that evolution is fact. Yes, you and I know it isn't a fact (I think, I lose track) but some even on this thread are calling it that.

In the end, evolution is often based on biased opinion that, just like a biased racists, where they don't think clearly/logically due to that bias, their opinion/theory ends up being wrong.

A statement like that is indefensible but, as has been pointed out, it was not directed against Armitage for publishing papers about the triceratops horn, but for trying to teach young-Earth creationism to students and before he published the papers. The university screwed up; there were less confrontational and offensive means at their disposal for getting rid of him.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And as the OP points out, a scientist may also be someone with agenda...
And an agenda, especially one as strong as that could very well cause their theories (opinions) to move in a faulty/unrealistic direction,
The same theories (opinions) that they base there findings that evolution is fact.

One tactless atheist doesn't falsify evolution... The facts are there for anyone to check, regardless of religious persuasion.

 

[juvenissun]

Now, what exactly was your point? What does this question have to do with all of the examples of well-understood local adaptation that you've already been given?

Great. When are you going to ask such a question?

The point is very simple. We would never know what suggested by evolution is true or not.
You study human. So it is real easy to make you say "don't know" if I asked question about animals. I won't do that because that won't make me learn anything.
Here is another question about human that I have never had a good answer yet: If human evolved from apes (DON'T pick me on this. I am not an ape), then why do I lose my body hair? I could not see any advantage of this change.

Hope you could give me a better answer than I had before.

 

[Kenny'sID]

One tactless atheist doesn't falsify evolution...

And you really believe that is all there is to it? There is just one?

You know better, I mean I would hope you have better sense, most of you seem to.

 

[Kenny'sID]

A statement like that is indefensible but, as has been pointed out, it was not directed against Armitage for publishing papers about the triceratops horn, but for trying to teach young-Earth creationism to students and before he published the papers. The university screwed up; there were less confrontational and offensive means at their disposal for getting rid of him.

The fact remains scientists are not all impartial.

And I'd guess the problem is a lot worse than we know...non christian, in a field that is out to prove evolution? Then add a little common sense and you can see just how bad the problem could be and how much it could sway wrong conclusion/affect findings

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The point is very simple. We would never know what suggested by evolution is true or not.
You study human. So it is real easy to make you say "don't know" if I asked question about animals. I won't do that because that won't make me learn anything.
Here is another question about human that I have never had a good answer yet: If human evolved from apes (DON'T pick me on this. I am not an ape), then why do I lose my body hair? I could not see any advantage of this change.

Humans have been loosing body hair ever since we started creating clothing to protect us and keep us warm, thus eliminating the need for thick body hair.
And you don't like being called an ape? Tough toenails. You are one. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Hope you could give me a better answer than I had before.

No, you were given many good answers. It's no-one's fault but your own that you have done nothing but demonstrate a walking example of the Dunning-Kruger effect and have also repeatedly refused to have a legitimate talk with the people on this thread.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And you really believe that is all there is to it? There is just one?

You know better, I mean I would hope you have better sense, most of you seem to.

OK, pick a number; a million tactless atheists don't falsify evolution.

I thought you'd see the fallacy you're demonstrating.

 

[Speedwell]

The fact remains scientists are not all impartial.

And I'd guess the problem is a lot worse than we know...non christian, in a field that is out to prove evolution? Then add a little common sense and you can see just how bad the problem could be and how much it could sway wrong conclusion/affect findings

But ultimately science has to pass the test of evidence.

 

[Kenny'sID]

OK, pick a number; a million tactless atheists don't falsify evolution.

Nor do they help the case.

Hey, if you refuse to see a real world good point, that's up to to you. this is one of those things that are hardly worth arguing.

How much difference do these facts make? IDK, and neither do you. So what good is further argument going to do us? We have no stats direct from the hearts of these men/women, so....

 

[Kenny'sID]

But ultimately science has to pass the test of evidence.

Yes, the same way all the tests that lead up to that are tested.

 

[sfs]

The point is very simple. We would never know what suggested by evolution is true or not.

I thought the point was that you could easily ask a question about evolution that we couldn't answer. As for knowing, we know some things about the evolutionary past and we don't know other things. The facts that we do know aren't going to go away just because you'd rather we not know them.

You study human. So it is real easy to make you say "don't know" if I asked question about animals.

Actually, I mostly study viruses and malaria parasites these days.

I won't do that because that won't make me learn anything.
Here is another question about human that I have never had a good answer yet: If human evolved from apes (DON'T pick me on this. I am not an ape), then why do I lose my body hair? I could not see any advantage of this change.

There are speculations, but no one really knows. Even knowing when we lost our body hair (or more accurately, when our body hair became so thin -- we still have it) is difficult, since we have no record of it. As I said, some things we know and some we don't.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually, I mostly study viruses and malaria parasites these days.

Does your faith to evolution help you any on the study of them?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Our children in public schools are spoiled exactly by fictional teaching like this. Sorry, I am not a child. So save this, many be, for your son.

Travel through a continent from equator to the north pole or the south pole, how many "race" could you find, if elements you listed are the determining factors?

Depends on how you measure race, I suppose. Science doesn't actually recognize race, so I gave you an explanation for why all humans don't look the same, and why people primarily of ancestry from specific areas tend to have similar traits to each other.
The concept of race is more of a human invention centered around these physical traits and cultural backgrounds. By that dynamic, the number of "races" world wide are in the multi hundreds, perhaps thousands.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Does your faith to evolution help you any on the study of them?

How do you think vaccines are developed? We have to predict how the, say, flu virus is going to change over the course of a year, because vaccines take too long to make to wait and see what the virus going around is like before we make them. If evolutionary theory had no predictive power, there'd be no point to flu vaccines.

 

[sfs]

Does your faith to evolution help you any on the study of them?

Invalid premise: I have no faith in evolution. The reality of evolution certainly helps.

 

[Armoured]

And mind you all, scientific theory only means it is scientific opinion, nothing more.

It's hard to have a conversation about something with someone who misunderstands he basic concept so completely. Scientific theories are not mere opinion.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's hard to have a conversation about something with someone who misunderstands he basic concept so completely. Scientific theories are not mere opinion.

Just as it is with someone who misunderstands plain English.


theory
noun the·o·ry \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Definition of theory for Students
plural
theories

1. 1 : an idea or opinion that is presented as true <Nobody knows where he went, but each of us has a theory.> <Perhaps they were formulating their own theories about how Cedric had died. — J. K. Rowling, Goblet of Fire>
   
   
2. 2 : a general rule offered to explain a scientific phenomenon <the theory of gravity>
   
   
3. 3 : the general rules followed in a science or an art <music theory>