Page 24 of 37 FirstFirst ... 1420212223242526272834 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 554

Thread: solid proof of evolution

  1. #346 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    No it isn’t. Show me a peer reviewed document where that is assumed? The consensus in science is we simply don’t know the historical origins of life.
    Darth is confusing scientific consensus with a hypothesis. All scientists create and record exacting conditions any time they do any experiment, whether its drugs with phenotype interaction in a clinical trial or dropping an apple to demonstrate gravitational attraction.
    So if some weird scientist studying primordial soup has a recipe, that is to be expected. Why Darth thinks that scores him a point, I have no idea. By the same token scientists until success is achieved tweak
    the recipe and the hypothesis.

    That assumptions are made in science is a point?

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (04-22-2018), Mott the Hoople (04-22-2018), ThatOwlWoman (04-22-2018)

  3. #347 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Darth is confusing scientific consensus with a hypothesis. All scientist create and record exact conditions any time they do any experiment, whether its drugs with phenotype in a clinical tral or dropping an apple to demonstrate gravitational attraction.
    So if some weird scientist studying primordial soup has a recipe, that is to be expected. Why Garth thinks that scores him a point, I have no idea.
    If the history of science tells us anything, it’s to be wary of consensus.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  4. #348 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    fixed

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    If the history of science tells us anything, it’s to be wary of consensus religious dogma, bible-based pseudoscience, and any and all attempts to conflate religious belief with the scientific method.
    Last edited by Cypress; 04-22-2018 at 07:14 AM.

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    Micawber (04-22-2018), Mott the Hoople (04-22-2018), ThatOwlWoman (04-22-2018)

  6. #349 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    fixed
    Cute.

    Don’t be afraid, jump in lol.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  7. #350 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thing1 View Post
    Agreed. I have just never really understood how the concept of evolution threatened religious beliefs, or at least most religious beliefs. Most people I know are Christian, and most believe in evolution. I believe in god & in evolution.

    It's just strange to me that evolution is viewed that way, as though you have to believe in science OR religion.
    It's the creation aspect. Believers like the story of god molding the clay and then stealing a rib. Silly stuff but that's what they choose to believe

  8. #351 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Religious scientists must always be wondering if Jebuss is messing with the results.

  9. #352 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Religious scientists must always be wondering if Jebuss is messing with the results.
    Just the opposite, actually.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  10. #353 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    If the history of science tells us anything, it’s to be wary of consensus.
    What makes you think they aren’t? Have you ever been to a scientific conference?

    Consensus in science are extraordinarily difficult to reach and when they are it’s because there is an extraordinary body of research and fact upon which consensus is built. That doesn’t mean that scientists don’t consider what is known as tentative or that there is far more to be learned. It is a general consensus that what facts are known are widely agreed upon by independent scientists. Building a consensus in science is extremely difficult to do and it is equally absurd to dismiss them out of hand on the basis that we don’t know everything.

    Your argument is the god of the gaps argument that because there are gaps of knowledge in a scientific field that a scientific consensus agreeing about those facts which are known to have a high probability of being correct are some how invalid because they are widely agreed upon isn’t rational.
    Last edited by Mott the Hoople; 04-22-2018 at 07:12 AM.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mott the Hoople For This Post:

    Cypress (04-22-2018), ThatOwlWoman (04-22-2018)

  12. #354 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,287
    Thanks
    145,695
    Thanked 82,519 Times in 52,737 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    If the history of science tells us anything, it’s to be wary of consensus.
    Exactly. And that is precisely why science is far more to be trusted than the latest crackpot religious "intelligent design" type explanation. I personally find the ability to change one's POV once new evidence is in much more trustworthy than rigid clinging to disproven ideas, because once chosen it becomes some sort of emotional investment by the believer.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    Cypress (04-22-2018), Mott the Hoople (04-22-2018), rjhenn (04-23-2018)

  14. #355 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    What makes you think they aren’t? Have you ever been to a scientific conference?

    Consensus in science are extraordinarily difficult to reach and when they are it’s because there is an extraordinary body of research and fact upon which consensus is built. That doesn’t mean that scientists don’t consider what is known as tentative or that there is far more to be learned. It is a general consensus that what facts are known are widely agreed upon by independent scientists. Building a consensus in science is extremely difficult to do and it is equally absurd to dismiss them out of hand on the basis that we don’t know everything.

    Your argument is the god of the gaps argument that because there are gaps of knowledge in a scientific field that a scientific consensus agreeing about those facts which are known to have a high probability of being correct are some how invalid because they are widely agreed upon isn’t rational.
    There is consensus....and then there is consensus. Evolution is a foundational tenet of science. It is not a par with your garden variety theory. It has been so thoroughly tested and probed with multiple lives of evidence over the course of more than a century, that is has been basically elevated to the vaunted status of a scientific tenet or law. While interesting questions remain, the basic outlines are firmly established.

    Now, when wingnuts trot out this "consensus can be wrong!" argument, I can tell you exactly where that comes from: they have heard over the years that climate science consensus is wrong, because "science" used to think the sun went around the earth. Of course, the educated among us know that the pre-Coperincan view of the solar system was not based on the scientific method...it was based on religious dogma, speculation, and guesswork...which the scientific method and scientific consensus ultimately corrected.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    Mott the Hoople (04-22-2018), rjhenn (04-23-2018), ThatOwlWoman (04-22-2018)

  16. #356 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    It is fundamental to science that when an set of conditions is met, the result will be the same.
    If that was not the assumption, there would not be the requirement of replication.
    If the result can not be replicated then nothing has been discover, except that the experiment has been shown to be invalid.
    If the recipe only has the same result for some percentage, that is reported with the understanding that something is unknown
    that is knowable. Never is it thought some religious pixie dust is lacking from the procedure, despite the joy it may
    bring god in the gaps crowds.

    Once god was on high riding a winged horse, now he has to hide in quantum fuzziness or inside black holes.
    We are winning, bigly.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    rjhenn (04-23-2018)

  18. #357 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    What makes you think they aren’t? Have you ever been to a scientific conference?

    Consensus in science are extraordinarily difficult to reach and when they are it’s because there is an extraordinary body of research and fact upon which consensus is built. That doesn’t mean that scientists don’t consider what is known as tentative or that there is far more to be learned. It is a general consensus that what facts are known are widely agreed upon by independent scientists. Building a consensus in science is extremely difficult to do and it is equally absurd to dismiss them out of hand on the basis that we don’t know everything.

    Your argument is the god of the gaps argument that because there are gaps of knowledge in a scientific field that a scientific consensus agreeing about those facts which are known to have a high probability of being correct are some how invalid because they are widely agreed upon isn’t rational.
    No, my argument is that an assumption is an assumption.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    PostmodernProphet (04-22-2018)

  20. #358 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    There is consensus....and then there is consensus. Evolution is a foundational tenet of science. It is not a par with your garden variety theory. It has been so thoroughly tested and probed with multiple lives of evidence over the course of more than a century, that is has been basically elevated to the vaunted status of a scientific tenet or law. While interesting questions remain, the basic outlines are firmly established.

    Now, when wingnuts trot out this "consensus can be wrong!" argument, I can tell you exactly where that comes from: they have heard over the years that climate science consensus is wrong, because "science" used to think the sun went around the earth. Of course, the educated among us know that the pre-Coperincan view of the solar system was not based on the scientific method...it was based on religious dogma, speculation, and guesswork...which the scientific method and scientific consensus ultimately corrected.
    I think it was stretch who was trying to drag me down by comparing me to Aristotle or some other ancient braintrusts. It made me think about
    the geocentric view of the universe and how these brilliant scientists had to make fantabulous mathamatic equations to explain the bizarre apparent motion
    of planets with all the perturbations and reversals of course, when if they but held a heliocentric view, the math would be much simpler. Sadly, if the said or did so,
    they'd have been burnt at the stake. Makes me wonder how many knew but did those exotic math equations anyway just to stay alive.

    "So Pope in 1400, uh, venus goes retrograde, then flips a bitch, does a 180, then shoots straight upwards at double time, then......." -court scientist

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    Cypress (04-22-2018)

  22. #359 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    It is fundamental to science that when an set of conditions is met, the result will be the same.
    If that was not the assumption, there would not be the requirement of replication.
    If the result can not be replicated then nothing has been discover, except that the experiment has been shown to be invalid.
    If the recipe only has the same result for some percentage, that is reported with the understanding that something is unknown
    that is knowable. Never is it thought some religious pixie dust is lacking from the procedure, despite the joy it may
    bring god in the gaps crowds.

    Once god was on high riding a winged horse, now he has to hide in quantum fuzziness or inside black holes.
    We are winning, bigly.
    Yet, you just can’t seem to find that knock out punch lol.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  23. #360 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    There is consensus....and then there is consensus. Evolution is a foundational tenet of science. It is not a par with your garden variety theory. It has been so thoroughly tested and probed with multiple lives of evidence over the course of more than a century, that is has been basically elevated to the vaunted status of a scientific tenet or law. While interesting questions remain, the basic outlines are firmly established.

    Now, when wingnuts trot out this "consensus can be wrong!" argument, I can tell you exactly where that comes from: they have heard over the years that climate science consensus is wrong, because "science" used to think the sun went around the earth. Of course, the educated among us know that the pre-Coperincan view of the solar system was not based on the scientific method...it was based on religious dogma, speculation, and guesswork...which the scientific method and scientific consensus ultimately corrected.
    The reigning consensus is that life will form under the proper conditions plus sufficient time: it’s why life is *assumed* to exist on other planets in the galaxy.

    How is it ‘scientific’ just to accept that assumption at face value?
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

Similar Threads

  1. If the case against Trump is so solid
    By Darth Omar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 07-22-2017, 09:59 AM
  2. APP - Why Trump supporters are still solid
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-24-2017, 06:16 AM
  3. Solid Journalism
    By BRUTALITOPS in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-11-2014, 07:47 PM
  4. FINALLY! some solid evidence of voter fraud!
    By ZappasGuitar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-19-2012, 07:08 PM
  5. Proof of evolution!!
    By WinterBorn in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-16-2011, 09:46 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •