Evolution As Science? Really...?

[Dannager]

You need to do some serious growing-up, get around a little more and watch the roses bloom. The presssure to be conformed to the accept conclusion proposed the theory of evloution in both the present sceintifc and academic communities is enormous, clearly defined and well regimented and clearly.

As just one example, a person working on a PHD in a field cannot even go through the programming without being mentored and guided through the requirements and processes by someone already accepted as a credible authoruty in the central organizing principle propositions that support the accepted theory of that discipline. If you have no clue as to what the central organizing principle or evolution is, refer back to the bolding provided in the OP.

In addition, that person's disertation and thesis must also be directly mentored and authorized by the mentor and must be based on the conclusions of proir theses that support the theory of the central organizing prinicple of that discipline.

If that is not sufficient, after having been thoroughly indocrinated into the prinicples that dictate the central organizing principles of that discipline the graduate joint a field of colleagues who have also undergone the same indocrination before entiring into the same areas of science. Now, tell me if there is not just a slight bit of educational, institutional and professional persuasions present in such a setting that may just excude the slightest hit of intimidation to remain with the persuasions of the collective mindset in which you make your living.

Now its your turn. In your own rules....Provide evidence that refutes this information or retract your accusation that they are lies immediately. ... (Thatsound intimidating. Where did you pick that up?) You will never honestly be able to provide such evidence because the is no modern educated PHD in the field of science or elsewhere science PHd or advanced, educated scientisit that exists that has not been reqiured to be subject to these conditions in order to get where he is. ....

------------------------------------

Honestly, are we going to have to go through another burden-of-proof argument? I just got finished doing this the other day with a poster in another thread. It just ended up with him becoming a laughing stock as his attempts to rationalize him placing the burden of proof on me became even more stretched. Burden of proof lies on the accusor. I have accused you of nothing. You have accused the scientific community of indoctrination. I haven't even accused you of lying here. I've simply asked that you provide evidence for your damning accusations that the scientific community is guilty of indoctrination. So you can juggle burden of proof all you want, but it's not going to shift it from you.

 

[Edmond]

Honestly, are we going to have to go through another burden-of-proof argument? I just got finished doing this the other day with a poster in another thread. It just ended up with him becoming a laughing stock as his attempts to rationalize him placing the burden of proof on me became even more stretched. Burden of proof lies on the accusor. I have accused you of nothing. You have accused the scientific community of indoctrination. I haven't even accused you of lying here. I've simply asked that you provide evidence for your damning accusations that the scientific community is guilty of indoctrination. So you can juggle burden of proof all you want, but it's not going to shift it from you.

You seem to have a very short memory. Refer to your post 151. You will discover you were the accuser. Acording to your own words...The burden of proof actually lies with you. You seem to have forgotten that you are the one who accured me of the false statement for which I just presented the material. You are the accuser. You're right, thanks, burden proof actually lies with you. ...

------------------------------------------------

 

[Valkhorn]

Edmond, if Evolution is not science, Creationism certainly is not.

So how can you even justify your argument?

 

[trunks2k]

You seem to have a very short memory. Refer to your post 151. You will discover you were the accuser. Acording to your own words...The burden of proof actually lies with you. You seem to have forgotten that you are the one who accured me of the false statement for which I just presented the material. You are the accuser. You're right, thanks, burden proof actually lies with you. ...

------------------------------------------------

No, post 151 was by Hairless Simian, not Dannager. As far as I have read Dannager has not accused you of anything, but asked for YOUR evidence for YOUR claim, as well as your qualifications.

 

[Edmond]

No, post 151 was by Hairless Simian, not Dannager. As far as I have read Dannager has not accused you of anything, but asked for YOUR evidence for YOUR claim, as well as your qualifications.

Sorry, post 160 was the post by Dannager... I answered that request. The ball is now in his court. ..

-----------------------------------

 

[Grummpy]

Originally Posted by: Edmond

You need to do some serious growing-up, get around a little more and watch the roses bloom. The presssure to be conformed to the accept conclusion proposed the theory of evloution in both the present sceintifc and academic communities is enormous, clearly defined and well regimented and clearly.

As just one example, a person working on a PHD in a field cannot even go through the programming without being mentored and guided through the requirements and processes by someone already accepted as a credible authoruty in the central organizing principle propositions that support the accepted theory of that discipline. If you have no clue as to what the central organizing principle or evolution is, refer back to the bolding provided in the OP.

In addition, that person's disertation and thesis must also be directly mentored and authorized by the mentor and must be based on the conclusions of proir theses that support the theory of the central organizing prinicple of that discipline.

If that is not sufficient, after having been thoroughly indocrinated into the prinicples that dictate the central organizing principles of that discipline the graduate joint a field of colleagues who have also undergone the same indocrination before entiring into the same areas of science. Now, tell me if there is not just a slight bit of educational, institutional and professional persuasions present in such a setting that may just excude the slightest hit of intimidation to remain with the persuasions of the collective mindset in which you make your living.

Edmond

Were I a Cartogropher student I would not expect to complete my map making education if I insisted the world was flat("Here I have a map, look, it's as flat as a pancake") and not a globe.
Were I an Astronomy student I would not expect to complete my training if I insisted that all the planets and stars were on spheres of crystal.
Were I a Math student I would not get anywhere if every time I saw a zero I discarded it because my religion said that zero was the devils number.

So why are you freaking because in biology you must accept the fact that evolution has occured throughout the history of life on Earth??? If you can't accept the facts of a scientific disipline, you cannot complete an education in that feild.

Grumpy

 

[TheBear]

No.

It's all fantasy, just like all those vaccines.

All Hollywood fairy-tales. It's a fun story line, but far removed from the reality of things.

 

[Edmond]

Edmond
Were I a Cartogropher student I would not expect to complete my map making education if I insisted the world was flat("Here I have a map, look, it's as flat as a pancake") and not a globe.
Were I an Astronomy student I would not expect to complete my training if I insisted that all the planets and stars were on spheres of crystal.
Were I a Math student I would not get anywhere if every time I saw a zero I discarded it because my religion said that zero was the devils number.

So why are you freaking because in biology you must accept the fact that evolution has occured throughout the history of life on Earth??? If you can't accept the facts of a scientific disipline, you cannot complete an education in that feild.
Grumpy

Hi Grimpy...I appreciate your effort at humor. I'm not freaking about anything. I have presented the fact that the ToE is the central organizing principle around which all modern biology is defined.
That statement has very far reaching and significant ramifications. It says that everything studied in the related field of biology is based on the presuppostions presented by ToE. No other possible conclusions are presumed or investigated. That is presenting only one side of a possible two sided alternative throughout the field of science that is used to define humankind. I personally resent that type of dogmatic dictation because myself and millions of other people who agree with my conclusion about humankind do not wish to be defined by 'objective science?' as being something we do not believe we are...thank you!

Does that begin to introduce just a small tip of the iceberg of what is happening through such intentionally narrowed views of this 'science'? This is nothing like a cartogropher, astronomer or mathmatician. They do not try to define or redefine what humankind is. Do you begin to see the distincts and ramifications present here? ...

------------------------

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

yes edmond, and we should also teach the alternative theory about gravity that angels push everything down towards the earth


evolution isn't presupposed to be the cornerstone of biology, 150 years of refining and new evidence to support the theory have established it so well that we can see its implications in every area of biology...


evolution is the conerstone of modern biology not because we say so, but because it is impossible to understand anything in biology without it

 

[Grengor]

Oh it's possible to understand things...just not correctly.

 

[Dannager]

Sorry, post 160 was the post by Dannager... I answered that request. The ball is now in his court. ..

-----------------------------------

No, post #160 is by you. How about you clear up this post number confusion by simply quoting my original accusation (that you claim I made)? That'd help things along.

 

[Gracchus]

I have presented the fact that the ToE is the central organizing principle around which all modern biology is defined.

First, evolution is not some arbitrary assumption that has biological facts glued to it. The theory of evolution explains biology and all its associated sciences. And biology and its associated sciences are the evidence that made the theory the best explanation we have for the observations we make.

At first the theory had weaknesses. Until the work of Gregor Mendel was rediscovered, it was thought inherited characteristics were blended. And this was a serious reason to doubt. But that doubt vanished when it was discovered that genetic inheritance was particulate in nature.

In embryology we discovered that structures that give rise to gills in fish, give rise to jawbones in reptiles, and the bones of the ear in mammals.

Paleontology showed us species being replaced over time with other similar species.

Retroviruses that insert themselves into the genome and are inherited by descendents have verified the results of genetic mapping.

We have observed evolution in the field and in the lab.

After one hundred fifty years, evolution is a stronger theory now than when it was first proposed.

That statement has very far reaching and significant ramifications. It says that everything studied in the related field of biology is based on the presuppostions presented by ToE.

Evolution is not a presupposition. It is an accepted theory because of its explanatory power, because of its successful survival of a century and a half of challenge, and because it is testable, and makes useful predictions. Just so, planetary mechanics has stood the test of time. Would you say that the heliocentric theory is a "presupposition"?

No other possible conclusions are presumed or investigated.

Other theories have been investigated. If you have a single testable theory that you think explains the facts of biology, embryology, genetics and paleontology better than evolution, and explains observations that evolution does not explain, TROT IT OUT! Your Nobel Prize awaits, along with fame.

That is presenting only one side of a possible two sided alternative throughout the field of science that is used to define humankind.

Show us your alternative. Show us how it explains biology better than evolution. But it is going to have to be better than "God poofed a miracle, which we can’t prove, but which we have to believe because some neolithic goat herders told stories around a campfire which bronze age theocrats wrote down to support their government."

I personally resent that type of dogmatic dictation because myself and millions of other people who agree with my conclusion about humankind do not wish to be defined by 'objective science?' as being something we do not believe we are...thank you!

There we have it. You don’t want to believe it! We are to ignore facts, history, and reason because you don’t want to believe it!

Does that begin to introduce just a small tip of the iceberg of what is happening through such intentionally narrowed views of this 'science'?

Evolution narrows the field of science in the same way the Pythagorean theorem narrows the views of plane geometry. We don’t have to consider the possibility that the cube of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the cubes of the other two sides.

We don’t always have to consider the proposition that 2+2=7. We are somewhat beyond that stage. The wheel has been invented. We don't have to keep considering whether a square wheel is better.

This is nothing like a cartogropher, astronomer or mathmatician.

It is exactly like a cartographer, astronomer, or mathematician.

They do not try to define or redefine what humankind is.

But cartographers have moved man from a floating plate under a blue bowl to a globe, and astronomers have moved that globe from the center of the universe to a planet orbiting a star in a galaxy of billions of stars, in a universe of billions of galaxies. As we learn we often have to redefine our reality. That’s what learning is! It changes how we see things. It is hard. It isn’t easy. If you are to lazy to learn, that’s fine.

Do you begin to see the distincts and ramifications present here?

We have seen it from the beginning. Evolution makes you uncomfortable. You don’t understand it, and you feel threatened, because your faith is a will’o’wisp that vanishes in the light of learning and reason. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork!" But you will never comprehend that glory because you are cowering in a corner with your eyes shut tight and your hands over your ears shouting "I DON’T WANT TO BELIEVE IT!"

 

[Nathan Poe]

Hi Grimpy...I appreciate your effort at humor. I'm not freaking about anything. I have presented the fact that the ToE is the central organizing principle around which all modern biology is defined.

And for good reason.

That statement has very far reaching and significant ramifications. It says that everything studied in the related field of biology is based on the presuppostions presented by ToE. No other possible conclusions are presumed or investigated. That is presenting only one side of a possible two sided alternative throughout the field of science that is used to define humankind.

You would think that since modern biology, with evolution as it central tenet, actually works, would be a sign of which side of your "two sided alternative" is the correct one, and which side is in error.

I personally resent that type of dogmatic dictation because myself and millions of other people who agree with my conclusion about humankind do not wish to be defined by 'objective science?' as being something we do not believe we are...thank you!

Well then, you and millions of people who agree with your conclusion would probably be best off not entering into careers which involve "objective science."

Does that begin to introduce just a small tip of the iceberg of what is happening through such intentionally narrowed views of this 'science'? This is nothing like a cartogropher, astronomer or mathmatician. They do not try to define or redefine what humankind is. Do you begin to see the distincts and ramifications present here? ...

Yes. Science is science, not religious egoism. Your attempts to marginalize cartography, astronomy, and mathematics notwithstanding, all branches of science have fundamental impacts on our world and how we view it, as well as our place in it.

Get over yourself, Edmond, all you have are petty squabbles with the implications of a well-established and working scientific theory.

 

[Edmond]

And for good reason.


You would think that since modern biology, with evolution as it central tenet, actually works, would be a sign of which side of your "two sided alternative" is the correct one, and which side is in error.

Actually works....Tell me what "evolutionary" biology has produced that 'actually works' that any other type of biology would not have produced. Be specific with non-quasi authoritative references please.

Well then, you and millions of people who agree with your conclusion would probably be best off not entering into careers which involve "objective science."

Yes. Science is science, not religious egoism. Your attempts to marginalize cartography, astronomy, and mathematics notwithstanding, all branches of science have fundamental impacts on our world and how we view it, as well as our place in it.

Get over yourself, Edmond, all you have are petty squabbles with the implications of a well-established and working scientific theory.

I have no problem with true science. I have a lot of trouble with a lie about where humankind came from. That is the lie of evolution. True science does not lie. ...

------------------------------------------------------

 

[Dannager]

Hey, what about that accusation you said I made? Still waiting on that quotation.

 

[notto]

[/size][/font][/font][/font]
Actually works....Tell me what "evolutionary" biology has produced that 'actually works' that any other type of biology would not have produced. Be specific with non-quasi authoritative references please.

An explaination for ERV's that actually fits the evidence.

 

[Caphi]

[/size][/font][/font][/font]
Actually works....Tell me what "evolutionary" biology has produced that 'actually works' that any other type of biology would not have produced. Be specific with non-quasi authoritative references please.

A viable hypothesis that fits evidence and uses a minimum of unknown or unproven assumptions (like, say, an invisible, intangible and inactive supernatural being).

I have no problem with true science. I have a lot of trouble with a lie about where humankind came from. That is the lie of evolution. True science does not lie. ...

------------------------------------------------------

And who gets to define True Science (tm), Edmond? Not you, clearly. We have this thing called "peer review" for a reason.

 

[Edmond]

[/color]

A viable hypothesis that fits evidence and uses a minimum of unknown or unproven assumptions (like, say, an invisible, intangible and inactive supernatural being).

That response does not address the question I asked. Stated again...

"Actually works....Tell me what "evolutionary" biology has produced that 'actually works' that any other type of biology would not have produced. Be specific with non-quasi authoritative references please.

And who gets to define True Science (tm), Edmond? Not you, clearly. We have this thing called "peer review" for a reason.

The 'Peer reviews'..? By all means...Would you like to sample a 'peer review' of what Stephen Jay Gould concluded about Darwin's hypothesis of evolution? Read Gould's essay Opus 200. You will find the 'peer review' to have been very poor. So poor, in fact, that Gould had to come up with an 'alternative' explanation for biological evolution in an attempt to rescue the quote, 'validity of the theory.

Please don't try to sell me on the proposed infallablilty of the biological evolution of humankind. It is a lie. Its theory will remain a lie. It hypothesis is based on its ideology, not on TRUE science. Read Gould...the grope for a viable mechanism to affirm evolution in the past goes on. Read the 'peer reviews'. They may make interesting news for you but certainly not what I conclude you would wish to hear.

By the way..if you think he may have been just some small time paleontologist, I'd suggest you also read his bios and the history of his contrubutions and influence to science. ...

----------------------

 

[TeddyKGB]

I have no problem with true science. I have a lot of trouble with a lie about where humankind came from. That is the lie of evolution. True science does not lie. ...

Yeah, that's what life science disciplines encompassing hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of practitioners do - lie. All of them liars who wish to bury the truth of special creation and a 6000-year-old Earth for... for... some nefarious purpose.

Do you ever worry about the sins you potentially commit yourself when you accuse the entire world of deception?

 

[invisible trousers]

Bearing false witness for Christ