Hello again,
If I believed that biology was hocus pocus, I'd NEVER let a medical doctor NEAR ME.. But, some people are hypocrites, or are so dumb that they don't know that biology is BASED on evolution...
excon
|
Hello again,
If I believed that biology was hocus pocus, I'd NEVER let a medical doctor NEAR ME.. But, some people are hypocrites, or are so dumb that they don't know that biology is BASED on evolution...
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Actually there is.
Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It makes little difference one way or the other as far as science and religion are concerned.
Of course it fits in well with Darwinists preconceptions so it qualifies as fact .Quote:
Is Archopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test
Religion is about people, science is about the search of facts. I see it as two different classrooms.
"it is easy enough to make up stores of how one gave rise to the other......"Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The use of the word "stories" sounds a bit strange. Is this quote from a scientific source? It doesn't sound like the language of science. Is it a wiki quote?
It is logic, who needs wiki leaks for logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
In what ways would you say the actual quote is logical?
Until you start to try to disprove religion and find you cannot come up with the facts, or shall we call it something different, an alternative explanation that is based in factQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
"Religion" and "facts" don't belong in the same sentence (and yes, I am a preacher's kid).Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
"it is easy enough to make up stories of how one gave rise to the other......"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
I think it was 'Lucy' where they found different bones to different species and then claimed that it proved the neanderthal. Darwin's whole theory was about making up stories that caused giving rise to another. Theories are theories and that is how the made up stories come to be.
Sorry forgot to reference... it is a quote from Colin Patterson . He was a paleontologist at the British Museum and author of several books on evolution. Here is another pertinent quote from Patterson .It was in a private letter to creationist Luther Sunderland, who had asked Patterson why no transitional fossils were illustrated in his book:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." He later went on to explain :
Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.
Exactly
Theories are actually evidence that fits the observations at the time. Nothing more and nothing less.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I don't know who would have said anything about proving the whole theory. No evolutionary biologist with any credibility would say such a thing. As far as science is concerned there is no amount of observational evidence that proves any theory in its entirety. No scientist should ever make such a claim. If they do then they are not doing science.
Confusion over transitional records and evolution is sometimes caused by thinking of evolution as progression along a linear scale.
yes that would be a consensus orthodoxy .Quote:
No scientist should ever make such a claim. If they do then they are not doing science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Theories are supported by the evidence, usually observational in nature. Some commentators of science get this wrong. They don't seem to realize that science is more than happy to acknowledge that it must always be an open question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
A private letter. That would explain the terminology.
If that were truly the case then why do we have so many that still cling to the global warming theory ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Good question. The answer is probably because they are human. Other practical reasons may well be that it provides a good paycheck each week. Even the great Einstein refused to accept the evidence of quantum mechanics. "God does not play dice". Interestingly enough there are still a few mainstream scientists are still hostile towards quantum mechanics.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
When you start to talk about the implications of quantum mechanics a few soon becomes many. I guess it is just human nature.
Truly a good question and the answer lies in human nature, we want to believe that the answers we have come up with are the whole truth because our egos won't allow us to consider that we might be wrong until the weight of contrary evidence is overwhelming. In Global Warming we have a partial truth that has been blown out of proportion for political purposes. Yes there is or maybe some impact from the burning of fossel fuels, but it isn't the entire reason, examination of the evidence has shown other factors. Volcanos have both a warming effect and a cooling effect, the Earth's orbit is eliptical, the solar cycle, deforestationQuote:
Originally Posted by cdad
You left out that the model was flawed to begin with and the model was made to show a desired outcome as well as the way they went about monitoring things by putting the measuring devices they used next to known heat sources to support the theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
well I wasn't trying to debunk the work of the scientific community, just point out that they hadn't considered all possibilities before prognosticating. Al Gore used select data to demonstate a problem existed but his extrapolations were flawed, others made similar errors or just didn't use clean data, and they failed to identify all the variables but the whole debate had been around longer than that and was subject to political exploitationQuote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Everybody has a theory. From ancient man to modern man. Maybe future man will add a piece of the puzzle until the true picture emerges. There will probably be those that say its wrong regardless.
Yes no doubt ancient man had a theory as to why climate change caused the ice age to end, the point is every scientific advance has been demonstrated to be only a small part of the puzzle in the light of later advances. We have advanced greatly though the use of vaccines and antibiotics but we may have actually provided our own demise. We have advanced greatly through the use of energy and machines but we may have provided our own demise. We are the sorcerers apprenticeQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
If this were happening then it would be considered scientific fraud. This is somewhat a different question.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Well tutt there was actually scient6ic fraud in some of the findingsQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Tut, I don't have the link handy but it is absolutely true that a sizeable number of monitoring stations were placed near heart sources and in heat sinks.
U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources, Critics Say | Fox NewsQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
But there's a problem: Nearly every single weather station the U.S. government uses to measure the country's surface temperature may be compromised. Sensors that are supposed to be in empty clearings are instead exposed to crackling electronics and other unlikely sources of heat, from exhaust pipes and trash-burning barrels to chimneys and human graves
Read more: U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources, Critics Say | Fox News
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Pictures worth a thousand words.
Odd sites
Intentional or accidental, the data must be recollected with stricter guidelines and better procedures. A clear lack of quality control, and that's unacceptable.
Yes it seems the researchers like collecting data in cities and on tops of volcanoes, just about anywhere but way out in the middle of nowhere where their equipment is a little inaccessibleQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
FYI, from a Yale study on science comprehension:
So with the religious folks there is a "modest negative correlation" when it comes to science that is no big deal. Look what else he found though...Quote:
The respondents, btw, consisted of a large, nationally representative sample of U.S. adults recruited to participate in a study of vaccine risk perceptions that was administered this summer (the data from that are coming soon!).
Both science literacy and CRT have been shown to correlate negatively with religiosity. And there is, in turns out, a modest negative correlation (r = -0.26, p < 0.01) between the composite science comprehension measure and a religiosity scale formed by aggregating church attendance, frequency of prayer, and self-reported "importance of God" in the respondents' lives.
I frankly don't think that that's a very big deal. There are plenty of highly religious folks who have a high science comprehension score, and plenty of secular ones who don't. When it comes to conflict over decision-relevant science, it is likely to be more instructive to consider how religiosity and science comprehension interact, something I've explored previously.
What was that? Tea Partiers know their science?Quote:
In my paper, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, I found that the Cogntive Reflection Test did not meaningfully correlate with left-right political outlooks.
In this dataset, I found that there is a small correlation (r = -0.05, p = 0.03) between the science comprehension measure and a left-right political outlook measure, Conservrepub, which aggregates liberal-conservative ideology and party self-identification. The sign of the correlation indicates that science comprehension decreases as political outlooks move in the rightward direction--i.e., the more "liberal" and "Democrat," the more science comprehending.
Do you think this helps explain conflicts over climate change or other forms of decision-relevant science? I don't.
But if you do, then maybe you'll find this interesting. The dataset happened to have an item in it that asked respondents if they considered themselves "part of the Tea Party movement." Nineteen percent said yes.
It turns out that there is about as strong a correlation between scores on the science comprehension scale and identifying with the Tea Party as there is between scores on the science comprehension scale and Conservrepub.
Except that it has the opposite sign: that is, identifying with the Tea Party correlates positively (r = 0.05, p = 0.05) with scores on the science comprehension measure:
I know, it doesn't matter, you'll hammer your silly flat earther narrative regardless of the facts.
speech there is no correlation between research and comprehension, just a perfect correlation between research and funding. What do they say in academic circles; publish or perish?
What I comprehend from the research is that even if we stop all emissions immediately we will suffer climate change for at least the next century, so environmentalists want us to go back to the stone age for nothing. Now that hypothesis only tells us the further research is futile since the science is settled. The view of religion and science is in total accord; shiite happens
The point being science indicates the narrative about right wingers being scientific illiterates is false and meaningless.
You should read the comments from peers, they aren't fans of the process that arrived at that conclusion.
And that should surprise me? How dare he go against the consensus pulled out of thin air by really, really smart people that conservatives are anti-science flat earthers?
P.S. The groupthink that automatically dismisses any scientist that goes against the grain in this ridiculous narrative that defies logic should be your first scientific clue it's wrong.
The report is rather interesting. It certainly says that conservatives are not flat earthers when it comes to science. While being knowledgeable in science I am wondering if they are less likely to allow science to influence their political, religious and cultural beliefs in general?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Or fiscal prowess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Who knows? If you got the hypothesis then it is possible to work the data.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You mean like understanding you can't spend unlimited amounts of money you don't have and that eventually you run out of other people's money?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
10-15% debt is a nice number for government to work around, but incurring a 24 billion dollar bill and screwing with the national economy didn't help us any. Government shutdowns like you guys want ain't the way to grow an economy, or create jobs for FACT.
Quite the opposite. Stick to your hollering points and win a few more elections and keep your hands off the money until you get the votes.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:01 AM. |