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.
Why? Scientists are a subset of the general population but not an evenly distributed one.Prove it:
my sources say 46% of general population hold to creationism:
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
I would expect similiar results had gallup pole surveyed scientists.
Here is a list of 1343 (as of 7/7/14) Doctorate-level scientists who accept the evidence for evolution, all named Steve or some variation thereof.those who are employed in the field of empirical sciences (at the phd level)
Why? Scientists are a subset of the general population but not an evenly distributed one.
Here is a list of 1343 (as of 7/7/14) Doctorate-level scientists who accept the evidence for evolution, all named Steve or some variation thereof.
What been overturned "multiple times as-naseum?" The theory of evolution? I must have missed the memo on that. I sure haven't seen that here in this forum.
By what? What "enterprise?" Its a scientific theory, not a cabal.
The only bullying going on is by ID proponents who want special treatment. When they don't get special treatment they cry "persecution." Where is the testable I.D. hypothesis? Where are the experiments designed to test the predictions of I.D.? Where are they? They don't exist. I.D. proponents have done nothing but publish in the public sphere and try to politic to get public support, when they should be trying to convince their scientific colleagues with real research. Darwin didn't get special treatment, and neither should Behe.
it has been overturned, multiple times ad-naseum.
And frankly people are being bullied and intimidated by peer review societies
I have a short list of famous scientists who were shunned from peer review boards because of their nonconformity views. They did later get nobel prizes, but not after losing face with their jobs, their peers and others.
If you stopped watching at the two minute mark, how can you possibly say anything about what he says?link doesn't work, try reposting without the S in the hyper link, I tried it and it works that way. Before I mention this what do you do with the 60% of graduate degree peoples, and scientists (30-40%). So my point is that WHY is there still 30-40% that believe? Also note that he doesn't show what makes up an elite scientist, versus a non elite scientist. I stopped watching at about 2 minutes into it.
If you stopped watching at the two minute mark, how can you possibly say anything about what he says?
I'm sensing some anti-science here...
Could you tell me what a "peer review society" is?
In my years of being a peer reviewer for a number of journals as well as having my work peer reviewed, I don't believe I've run across a "peer review society".
Would you care to enlighten those of us who are not as skilled in the sciences as you?
Did they win their Nobels for the topics which they were "Shunned" over? And when you say "shunned" are you sure you aren't confusing that with "skepticism" on behalf of everyone.
Because if everyone just threw up their arms and accepted every revolution in science without question we'd all be really angry that no one had made a cold-fusion car yet.
Just sayin'.
Which specific errors are you referring to?
Evidence that scientists aren't evenly distributed among the general population? Are you serious? Only 1.5% - 3% of Americans have a PhD. How do you think that could be representative of the general population?evidence? I presume it is due to preconceptions from youthful learning experiences that have proven false, what is your answer?
I sense some fighting tones here so , no reply on my part. Thanx for the conversation.
for one he doesn't distinguish between hard and soft science. Secondly, He doesn't distinguish between empirical, forensic, or origin science. He throws all science into one category. Thirdly he doesn't define elite scientists, (in the two minutes I watched anyway, which he probably should have defined terms at the get go). So there you have it, thanks for the comment.
I already saw your poor attempts at denigrating the list of Steve's. For some reason you don't turn that laser-like critique on the DfD list. I mean, you seem to be OK with mathematicians, electrical engineers, and astronomers pontificating outside their areas of expertise but somehow being named Steven or Stephanie is a problem for the list of Steves.Not all the names signed to project steve are in fact steve, secondly not all the names signed are in fact empirical scientists, and thirdly project steve uses vague terminology and does not address the same claims as the Dissent from Darwin statement (which 800 scientists have signed).
snip due to the eye-watering bad choice of colors from the crayon box.
Yes, you most certainly did, right here;I didn't. It was a waist of my time frankly, too many errors to correct in the alloted time, so why continue?
How you can possibly know whether he defines an elite scientist if you only watched 2 minutes of a 9:26 video?Also note that he doesn't show what makes up an elite scientist, versus a non elite scientist. I stopped watching at about 2 minutes into it.
What do you believe the differences are between the three?Secondly, He doesn't distinguish between empirical, forensic, or origin science. He throws all science into one category.
What do you believe the differences are between the three?
What do you believe the differences are between the three?
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?