What evolutionists have to say

[Non-ape Jase]

It might be because of all the stress trying to keep with all the the latest evolutionary theories.

 

[seebs]

How am I dishonest? I gave you the dates and citations. These are what some evolutionists have to say on the subject.

Er.

You gave a date within the last twenty years for something written by Darwin, uhm, some time earlier. Quite some time earlier.

That looked pretty misleading to me. I mean, what next? Quotes from Edison on electricity to debunk modern electronics? Science makes progress over time. We have more geological information than we did when Darwin was writing.

 

[Non-ape Jase]

(Quote: Originally Posted by: SBG

How am I dishonest? I gave you the dates and citations. These are what some evolutionists have to say on the subject.)


Er.

You gave a date within the last twenty years for something written by Darwin, uhm, some time earlier. Quite some time earlier.

That looked pretty misleading to me. I mean, what next? Quotes from Edison on electricity to debunk modern electronics? Science makes progress over time. We have more geological information than we did when Darwin was writing.

Er.

You probably should have researched that answer a bit more.

 

[SBG]

Er.

You gave a date within the last twenty years for something written by Darwin, uhm, some time earlier. Quite some time earlier.

I guess if you misread what I write, then I am the one dishonest, huh?

Try rereading it, it says:

"Charles Darwin in Origin of Species G. M. Dent, London, 1972"

Notice the Bold.

That looked pretty misleading to me. I mean, what next? Quotes from Edison on electricity to debunk modern electronics? Science makes progress over time. We have more geological information than we did when Darwin was writing.

Well I guess your mistakes are my fault.

Yes, we have more information now than when Darwin was around, that is true. I like what Dr Andrew Flue had to say, 'evolution cannot explain the human body.' This was just a few months ago too. Dr Flue was one of the biggest atheistic evolutionist supporters there is.

I see the term arrogant thrown around here often when someone quotes Bible verses as being the true accounts of what happened. Funny thing is, you evoutionists do the same thing with evolution. You just don't see that you are or rather you don't admit you are. You respond with comments such as pride before the fall, well that pertains to you as well concerning your prideful stance on evolution.

Personally, I believe the ardent stance on evolution held by scientists is all about money. There are too many careers riding on evolution being correct for them to allow anyone to come out and prove them wrong completely. If this were allowed to happen many careers would be seriously in jeopardy.

I am all fine if you, seebs, wish to call me dishonets because you did not read correctly what I wrote, or because you just don't like the fact that I posted what many have to say on the subject of evolution. Name calling is always the last resort for someone who knows the other is correct.

 

[Vance]

Do you know how much fame AND money would go to the person who could falsify the theory of evolution or the fact of evolutionary development?

Your theory shows a deep misunderstanding of how science works. It is a hugely competitive community, causing more disagreement for the sake of disagreement than solidarity for some "cause". Theories are developed, followed, constantly reinvestigated and tested and fought over, and eventually, the ones that don't work are thrown out. Extremely wide-held beliefs are forced out with regularity, no matter how many careers are made nearly worthless or life-works made superfluous. It is a cruel thing, but that is what happens when the community is SO big that no number of individual careers can stop the truth from eventually coming out.

I can guarantee you that countless scientists have been working since Darwin first published to falsify his theory. It would be THE breakthrough, bigger than Einstien overturning Newton. Ah, but that can not have happened according to your theory. Do you know how many scientific careers were based on Newtonian theory?

We have seen the toppling of geocentrism, the ether, the humours, the steady state universe, etc, etc, ad infinitum. There is no hesitation at all in the scientific community to topple an icon if the scientific evidence is there and the theory is shown to be falsified. But the longer it goes without any being able to falsify it, and the more evidence that continues to accumulate that it simply works, the more confidence that we have that it is, indeed, the correct explanation of the evidence.

Now, that does not mean it will not continue to be "discovered", as we find out more and more about how this complex process works. And, it is possible that someone WILL come up with a better variation of the basic concept that fits even better. But we will STILL have evolutionary development over billions of years. Even the Intelligent Design scientists accept that fact. It is only the mechanics of how that development happens that would change. So far, though, the mechanics described in the theory of evolution fit the evidence remarkably well.

 

[SBG]

Ah, so you believe that even though thousands upon thousands, ones who oversee peer reviews, would allow their careers to be destroyed so that one or few scientists can become rich?

I guess you can say science is a bit altruistic when comes to disproving evolution, many will give up all so one or very few can become rich.

 

[notto]

Ah, so you believe that even though thousands upon thousands, ones who oversee peer reviews, would allow their careers to be destroyed so that one or few scientists can become rich?

I guess you can say science is a bit altruistic when comes to disproving evolution, many will give up all so one or very few can become rich.

Their careers wouldn't be destroyed. They would still be scientists and would love to tackle a new hypothesis if it was one that had any scientific merit.

Relativity didn't destroy careers even though it revolutionized physics.

 

[Vance]

And it is not a matter of altruism at all. It is just the opposite. To the extent that work will have been wasted and careers are set back (although none really destroyed, as Notto points out), the scientific community seems unconcerned. New ideas replace old ones or variations develop all the time which have a negative impact on someone's career. Get the most recent edition of Discover magazine, which has the most important new development in science over the last year. When it is a new and dramatic discovery or approach, you can be sure that someone had spent a lot of time and energy establishing something else that is now obsolete. Too bad, the best explanation wins. Doesn't sound very altruistic to me.

The point is that the scientific community is SO big, that there is no block invested in a particular theory big enough to prevent the search for the best answers from moving forward and being recognized. It is not a perfect process, but we can see over the last 200 years that it has worked over and over again. Science has a great track record of accepting what is correct when the evidence is there. So, why not in this case? Are you sticking with some global atheistic conspiracy?