Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Belfast museum sued by DUP politician for not agreeing to Creationism exhibit

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    The theory of evolution is just a theory and again I do understand it, it could be false, but the evidence is there to suggest it does happen.

    "theory" "could be false" "suggest"

    Your words not mine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I don't know whether you're just trolling with one sentence replies tho :p

    Is that what the evidence suggests ? That to question the consensus makes one a troll.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is that what the evidence suggests ? That to question the consensus makes one a troll.

    No, but posting one sentence replies that people can't really argue because you aren't making a proper point is. Of course it's just a theory. But it's the best one we've got. That's why it's the current accepted science. That's all science is, it's not the definitive answer to everything, and like I said in my first reply to you - I never said it was.

    Scientists and academics go about questioning the science every single day. But there is a difference between asking 'why does this happen.. is the current model right?' to just saying with one sentence "can't prove evolution.".

    All we can do is observe the world around us, think about those observations, then form some ideas about the reasons those observed events occur in the way they do. Until you have a better idea about why those observed events occur (and some ideas certainly have more merit than others - the Romans believed in the four humors remember?) then I think it is best that we teach the most current and most accepted ideas and current understanding (even if that is fundamentally limited because there are limits to human perception and ultimately understanding - just like a mouse will never understand how a rocket works, we may never understand some other idea beyond our comprehension). Children should be taught to ask questions and not accept everything as truth.

    Still, I'm sure you will come back with a reply saying there is no such thing as a country, or something.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Children should be taught to ask questions and not accept everything as truth.

    Yet there is a lot of antagonism in this thread towards anyone who does.

    Accept that you evolved from green slime or accept condemnation seems to be the choice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Could be the blind leading the blind, but could you help me see what it is I am failing to see ?

    Evolution isn't "just a theory". Evolution is a scientific theory. In fact, evolution is such a well tested, well documented and consistently demonstrable theory it should be colloquially referred to as 'the fact of evolution'. Now, I'm not going to attempt to give you scientific proof of evolution by natural selection in 100 words or less on a message board, that would be ridiculous. However, as soon as you start to learn about DNA, fossils or rudimentary biology you'll soon discover that evolution is a superlative answer to the question of how we got where we are. What you need to do is go read one of the myriad of books on the topic. Try any of Richard Dawkins' books on the subject, they're both interesting and excellent.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yet there is a lot of antagonism in this thread towards anyone who does.

    Accept that you evolved from green slime or accept condemnation seems to be the choice.

    Who has ever told you that we evolved from green slime? Not one person I've ever met who understands the theory of evolution would describe evolution that way. I have heard Christian apologists use that fallacy though, and I've heard people uneducated on the topic of evolution, parrot it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Evolution isn't "just a theory". Evolution is a scientific theory. In fact, evolution is such a well tested, well documented and consistently demonstrable theory it should be colloquially referred to as 'the fact of evolution'. Now, I'm not going to attempt to give you scientific proof of evolution by natural selection in 100 words or less on a message board, that would be ridiculous. However, as soon as you start to learn about DNA, fossils or rudimentary biology you'll soon discover that evolution is a superlative answer to the question of how we got where we are. What you need to do is go read one of the myriad of books on the topic. Try any of Richard Dawkins' books on the subject, they're both interesting and excellent.

    Your certainty does not seem to be shared by the recent work of Michael Bird and Jeff Pigati in that field. Even Willard Libby is said to have had doubts about his work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who has ever told you that we evolved from green slime? Not one person I've ever met who understands the theory of evolution would describe evolution that way. I have heard Christian apologists use that fallacy though, and I've heard people uneducated on the topic of evolution, parrot it.

    What do the facts reveal to you what it was that you have evolved from ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who has ever told you that we evolved from green slime? Not one person I've ever met who understands the theory of evolution would describe evolution that way. I have heard Christian apologists use that fallacy though, and I've heard people uneducated on the topic of evolution, parrot it.

    It's a bit like that in a Star Trek episode once, when Q takes Picard to Earth like a couple of million years ago and is seeing two pools of chemicals react to create the first single celled life form. Lol.

    God of Schmuck I wouldn't say it's necessarily true that people either have to believe in the accepted science or be condemned, but due to rationalism I guess people would want to know what they believed and what their reasons were for believing it.

    When you are brought up in an education that seeks to find the 'best fit', someone can say "light goes in straight lines into our eyes"... then on from that "light travels in waves from a light source"... then on from that "light is made up of massless particles that exhibit wave behaviour".

    If someone then comes along and says "I believe light is some divine being entering my soul" this way of understanding the scientific method that is based on evidence and proof does make people stop and say wtf because of the limitations of the scientific method (some phenomena are not observable, for example, which means they can never be tested).

    But like I said, it's the best we've got. I've criticised atheists before because some go too far and think they have an obligation to teach those who believe in God or whatever the 'true' way. But when you're teaching kids in a school how reproduction works I would rather they consult a physician than a priest. They are welcome to hold their own beliefs but with compulsory education it should be strictly secular, based on the science / analysis / observation of the world.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Your certainty does not seem to be shared by the recent work of Michael Bird and Jeff Pigati in that field. Even Willard Libby is said to have had doubts about his work.

    A) Links. B) Who are these people and what is their credibility in the field - if any of them turn out to be of Kirk 'God made bananas curved to fit in our hands' Cameron's ilk you've lost, you know that right?. C) The vast majority of credible scientists disagree with these people. D) The top scientists in the world disagree even more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A) Links. B) Who are these people and what is their credibility in the field - if any of them turn out to be of Kirk 'God made bananas curved to fit in our hands' Cameron's ilk you've lost, you know that right?. C) The vast majority of credible scientists disagree with these people. D) The top scientists in the world disagree even more.

    I was under the impression that Libby was almost a God to believers in evolution. I am wrong in your case. The Bird I refer to is the creator of ABOX.

    What is it that I stand to lose ?

    What criteria are you using for credible and top in your reference to scientists ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What do the facts reveal to you what it was that you have evolved from ?

    I think it's about time we established what exactly it is you believe about the nature of our origins?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do not know about you but I am not overwhelmed with the evidence.

    Up until recently, as one may have picked up on my previous posts on the 'Debate' board, I considered myself an agnostic. I was brought up in a 'Christian' household but as I matured, I found that my faith in the Bible (and other religious writings) had faltered. While I deeply admire the personality of Jesus Christ and feel that he is a pretty good example of how to live ones life with love and compassion for others, the rest of the Bible was becoming less and less relevant to me with its contradictions, innaccuracies and the pettiness it seemed to seed in the behaviour of so-called Christians.


    I knew about Darwin, natural selection and evolution to a small extent but with this being the 150th year since the first publication of his 'Origon of the Species', I have been reading many books and articles on the subject with deep interest, as well as watching a lot of TV documentaries.

    I have now come to believe that evolution IS the most likely way that life evolved on Earth. The evidence is so compelling.

    For instance, lets go back to the Galapagos islands where Darwin first encountered the animals that later lead to him developing his theories. Two neighbouring islands have two quite different environments. One is lush with vegetation, with food easily accessible to animals living on the ground, while the other is more like scrub land, with mainly small bushes and trees growing on it, with barren stony ground.

    On the 'lush' island, there is a bird with a slim, sharp beak suited for digging up worms, eating fruits and catching insects. However, on the more barren island, this SAME bird is identical in EVERY way EXCEPT for the shape of its beak, which is short, thick and stubby because it mainly only has access to seeds which its powerful beak can break open.

    Furthermore, a giant turtle on the 'lush' island, has no raised arch on its shell above its neck because all the food it needs is readily available on the ground. But the giant tortoise on the neighbouring barren island, exactly the same in every other way, has an arch above its neck in the shell because it must REACH UP to get food off the bushes and trees.

    This is a prime example of 'natural selection'. Tortoises who could not reach trees on the barren island would die out from starvation unless, by fluke of birth, they had slightly longer necks. Over time, as tortoises with longer necks survived and bred with other tortoises with longer necks, the heridary traits that ensure their best survival became the 'species' norm. Likewise, a bird with a short, sharp beak would die out on an island with only seeds and nuts available. Only those birds who happened to have been born with a stronger beak would survive and they would breed with other surviving birds with stronger beaks. And so on and so on.

    If God can't be be bothered to return us Maddie McCann, why on earth would he be bothered to create 'different' animals for 'different' islands when the islands are so close together? Why would he make eyeballs for blind fish that can't see in their deep, dark, underwater caves?

    Of course my writing and examples are entirely simplistic because I am not a scientist/biologist but these examples are contributory in my growing belief in Evolution. Darwin's book, 'The Origon of the Species' is an interesting book to read as the basis for further research. I would recommend it even though his ideas have been better developed by others since then. But take the time to do some proper research. You may be very surprised.

    Having said all that, I can't still can't get my head around what/who started the 'Big Bang' and how the initial spark of life came out of nothing but a boiling, caustic sea of swirling chemicals and poisonous gasses in atmosphere. But as to how its developed from there? I'm pretty certain its evolution, natural section and survival of the fittest.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A) Links. B) Who are these people and what is their credibility in the field - if any of them turn out to be of Kirk 'God made bananas curved to fit in our hands' Cameron's ilk you've lost, you know that right?. C) The vast majority of credible scientists disagree with these people. D) The top scientists in the world disagree even more.
    Willard Libby: Chemist specializing in radioactivity
    Jeff Pigati: Geologist
    Michael Bird: I'm struggling to find this one. It's possibly someone who has written books that include "The Saving Righteousness of God" and "How Did Christianity Begin?" and appears to contribute to a blog about New Testament studies. I'm struggling to see what his area of expertise is though.

    Woefully disappointing selection of experts there. Of course if he wants to post the actual arguments that they make, rather than just the names of people he's heard have said something that might be interpreted as posing a problem for evolution (I can find no such arguments), and just assumed it was true due to a complete ignorance of the subject and undelying bias caused by religious beliefs (just a hunch), then that would be great.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's about time we established what exactly it is you believe about the nature of our origins?

    That sounds like the Inquisition ! You are not a closet Christian in denial by any chance ?

    I know nothing about the nature of our origins.

    It COULD be that a creator started it all with the Garden of Eden.

    It COULD be that single cell life (or green slime) has evolved into CptCoatHanger et al.

    It COULD be that Thetans are the reason ( I Thetan therefore I am, so to speak).

    It COULD be ..............
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Michael Bird: I'm struggling to find this one. It's possibly someone who has written books that include "The Saving Righteousness of God" and "How Did Christianity Begin?" and appears to contribute to a blog about New Testament studies.

    I am unclear as to what you are talking about.Your sense of hypothesising could make many a scientist proud.
    Woefully disappointing selection of experts there. Of course if he wants to post the actual arguments that they make, rather than just the names of people he's heard have said something that might be interpreted as posing a problem for evolution (I can find no such arguments), and just assumed it was true due to a complete ignorance of the subject and undelying bias caused by religious beliefs (just a hunch), then that would be great.

    I mentioned those particular scientists because they are/were in the field of (claimed) knowledge I thought we were discussing. I am not aware of any arguments these people made. (Do you equate science with argumentation ?).The recent work of Bird and Pigati have shown inaccuracies with the previous assumptions of carbon dating (which itself was based on a number of assumptions).

    As for my ignorance, I do not think it is complete. Not far off, admittedly. However that, in my opinion, is a wise realisation. Imagine if those expert scientists (whoever they may be) you appear to show so much love for did the same. They may limit themselves to their observations instead of philosophising about the unknown.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That sounds like the Inquisition ! You are not a closet Christian in denial by any chance ?

    I know nothing about the nature of our origins.

    It COULD be that a creator started it all with the Garden of Eden.

    It COULD be that single cell life (or green slime) has evolved into CptCoatHanger et al.

    It COULD be that Thetans are the reason ( I Thetan therefore I am, so to speak).

    It COULD be ..............
    It could be that the Tooh Fairy exists. However I know it doesn't, and so do you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    It could be that the Tooth Fairy exists. However I know it doesn't, and so do you.

    Well knowledge is a subjective thing isn't it :p I'm not saying I don't agree with you, and I come back to the original point that when you are laying down the foundations for what people understand about the earth we have to based it on rational science (basing things on observations rather than speculation), then when people have this they can come up whatever ideas they want on top of that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That sounds like the Inquisition ! You are not a closet Christian in denial by any chance ?

    Yeah, I'm a massive bible-bashing Christian-face.
    I know nothing about the nature of our origins.
    Nothing at all. Really? You couldn't possibly make an educated guess about which of the various explanations of our orgins might be most likely?
    It COULD be that a creator started it all with the Garden of Eden.

    It COULD be that single cell life (or green slime) has evolved into CptCoatHanger et al.

    It COULD be that Thetans are the reason ( I Thetan therefore I am, so to speak).

    It COULD be ..............

    Yeah, it could be my knob-cheese that brought the universe into existence. Of course, not all explanations hold equal weight. Still, don't let having to think about a subject which doesn't have an absolutely certain answer get in the way of expressing a non-opinion on the matter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am unclear as to what you are talking about.Your sense of hypothesising could make many a scientist proud.

    I mentioned those particular scientists because they are/were in the field of (claimed) knowledge I thought we were discussing. I am not aware of any arguments these people made. (Do you equate science with argumentation ?).The recent work of Bird and Pigati have shown inaccuracies with the previous assumptions of carbon dating (which itself was based on a number of assumptions).

    As for my ignorance, I do not think it is complete. Not far off, admittedly. However that, in my opinion, is a wise realisation. Imagine if those expert scientists (whoever they may be) you appear to show so much love for did the same. They may limit themselves to their observations instead of philosophising about the unknown.

    You use an awful lot of words when saying absolutely nothing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As for my ignorance, I do not think it is complete. Not far off, admittedly. However that, in my opinion, is a wise realisation. Imagine if those expert scientists (whoever they may be) you appear to show so much love for did the same. They may limit themselves to their observations instead of philosophising about the unknown.

    I missed this bit. There is a difference from a scientist saying 'there is no God' which I agree is unknown and unknowable really, and from a scientist saying 'based on our observations of different species we believe that the most likely cause of complex life forms is evolution of more basic life forms into more complex ones in order to better adapt to their environment'.

    Of course there are problems with extrapolation, it could be the case that God created everything in 4000BC and then things evolved from there, but scientific rationalism argues that you don't introduce new factors. So we understand (from observation) evolution has occured for at least the past few hundred years. Therefore, we make the assumption that this has continued as a process for the years before that (because, we have no evidence to indicate otherwise).

    That assumption could be wrong, but it is the best assumption we have right now. So it is either say 'we don't know. end of.' or 'this is our best guess to date'.

    It's not like these theories (which is why they're called theories, they're not facts) were coined in a pub one day, Physics especially is all based on observations, they model it as complex as they can and then that provides a groundwork for ideas about how things happen. The Church argued for hundreds of years that a Human skull was the same as that of an apes, in that the jaw consisted of two discrete bones.

    It would only take someone 20 minutes doing an autopsy to observe that's wrong. Which is what science does, it makes the observation, then it makes the conclusion. That's why it is the best system for guessing we have. You're right in that it's still just best guess, but saying that is neither here nor there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am unclear as to what you are talking about.Your sense of hypothesising could make many a scientist proud.
    I'm saying that the only Michael Bird I could find on Amazon Books was one who only seemed to write about Christianity. I can only judge from that that if this bloke is the one you're talking about (which you still haven't clarified, because you haven't even linked to a single piece of evidence he puts forward, despite claiming he has something important to say that would cast doubt on a 150 year old theory) then he has no expertise in the field of evolutionary biology.
    I mentioned those particular scientists because they are/were in the field of (claimed) knowledge I thought we were discussing. I am not aware of any arguments these people made. (Do you equate science with argumentation ?).The recent work of Bird and Pigati have shown inaccuracies with the previous assumptions of carbon dating (which itself was based on a number of assumptions).
    Link to the work then. You claim that they've shown inaccuracies on the one hand, and then claim that you're not aware of their arguments. Which is it? Either you have read their arguments or you haven't? And if you haven't, then you can't cite them as an example of something that will bring a 150 year old scientific fact crashing down. Hell, you still haven't even told us who Michael Bird is. You don't have to be a genius to realise that's gotta be a pretty common name. Which method of carbon dating btw? There are many.
    As for my ignorance, I do not think it is complete. Not far off, admittedly. However that, in my opinion, is a wise realisation. Imagine if those expert scientists (whoever they may be) you appear to show so much love for did the same. They may limit themselves to their observations instead of philosophising about the unknown.
    Why should someone admit ignorance of something they know about? Just because you're ignorant of evolution, doesn't mean that an evolutionary biologist or geneticist is. Scientists are the first to admit they don't know something, but don't expect them to say they don't know something just because you don't know it. If they can be bothered to do the work, and you can't even be bothered to read their work, then they have nothing to defend their work against. Thankfully, other scientists will pick holes in their work. And so far, after 150 years, nobody has picked a big enough hole to sink the theory of evolution. If you know differently, then link to it. And what unknown are they philosophizing about? Evolution is known. They have every right to have a museum display explaining it in a science museum.

    Anyway, this is a completely fallacious argument. Do you have an alternative scientific theory? If so, you can display it in the museum. Science has no problems showing when there is a genuine controversy about something. Go into the natural history museum and look at the display on all of the alternative hypotheses of how the dinosaurs became extinct to see what I mean. Just like the creationism in schools argument. You can teach it in religious education, not in science, because it's a scientific theory. Similarly, a museum dedicated to science should only contain scientific displays. And creationism isn't a scientific theory. Not even close.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm saying that the only Michael Bird I could find on Amazon Books was one who only seemed to write about Christianity. I can only judge from that that if this bloke is the one you're talking about (which you still haven't clarified, because you haven't even linked to a single piece of evidence he puts forward, despite claiming he has something important to say that would cast doubt on a 150 year old theory) then he has no expertise in the field of evolutionary biology.

    The Michael Bird to whom I refer is accredited with creating the ABOX method of supposedly making more accurate the process of carbon dating, which Libby was original accredited with the introduction of in the 50s.I have no idea if he has written any books about Christianity or, for that matter, what his beliefs are. That is the point that I have apparently failed to make thus far. A scientist's beliefs should not be relevant in the field of science.
    Link to the work then. You claim that they've shown inaccuracies on the one hand, and then claim that you're not aware of their arguments. Which is it? Either you have read their arguments or you haven't? And if you haven't, then you can't cite them as an example of something that will bring a 150 year old scientific fact crashing down. Hell, you still haven't even told us who Michael Bird is. You don't have to be a genius to realise that's gotta be a pretty common name. Which method of carbon dating btw? There are many.

    Why do you keep bringing up arguments ? The collected data is just that. Once you start to argue about it then surely you are leaving the field of science and entering debate/philosophy.

    "Science" has numerous definitions (even among scientists). My contention is that science should be solely about facts and not speculation, even if the speculation is about the known data.
    Why should someone admit ignorance of something they know about? Just because you're ignorant of evolution, doesn't mean that an evolutionary biologist or geneticist is. Scientists are the first to admit they don't know something, but don't expect them to say they don't know something just because you don't know it. If they can be bothered to do the work, and you can't even be bothered to read their work, then they have nothing to defend their work against. Thankfully, other scientists will pick holes in their work. And so far, after 150 years, nobody has picked a big enough hole to sink the theory of evolution. If you know differently, then link to it. And what unknown are they philosophizing about? Evolution is known. They have every right to have a museum display explaining it in a science museum.

    Sorry,I am confused about your ramblings here. The first sentence alone makes no sense to me. Surely,if someone knows something they would not be ignorant ?

    You say evolution is known. I would say that the majority of "evolutionary science" that I have studied is in the area of speculation (even though it may be based on actual scientific data).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Michael Bird to whom I refer is accredited with creating the ABOX method of supposedly making more accurate the process of carbon dating, which Libby was original accredited with the introduction of in the 50s.I have no idea if he has written any books about Christianity or, for that matter, what his beliefs are. That is the point that I have apparently failed to make thus far. A scientist's beliefs should not be relevant in the field of science.



    Why do you keep bringing up arguments ? The collected data is just that. Once you start to argue about it then surely you are leaving the field of science and entering debate/philosophy.

    "Science" has numerous definitions (even among scientists). My contention is that science should be solely about facts and not speculation, even if the speculation is about the known data.

    Sorry,I am confused about your ramblings here. The first sentence alone makes no sense to me. Surely,if someone knows something they would not be ignorant ?

    You say evolution is known. I would say that the majority of "evolutionary science" that I have studied is in the area of speculation (even though it may be based on actual scientific data).

    Again, lots of words used; questions dodged; allusions made; nothing said. It reminds me of GCSE philosophy - you've just learnt that nothing can be proved absolutely and so have indulged in the belief that every explanation holds equal weight. It's ridiculous, any smacks of lazy-thinking.

    I'll imagine your smug non-answer to save you the bother of writing it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Michael Bird to whom I refer is accredited with creating the ABOX method of supposedly making more accurate the process of carbon dating, which Libby was original accredited with the introduction of in the 50s.I have no idea if he has written any books about Christianity or, for that matter, what his beliefs are. That is the point that I have apparently failed to make thus far. A scientist's beliefs should not be relevant in the field of science.
    So you don't have a link to his work, or even who he is? Then why not just say so then, rather than being dishonest about it? The fact that he has written books about Christianity is completely irrelevant. The point is that he hasn't written anything about science, or I can't find it, and you still, after 3 times of asking, refuse to link to anything. I'm starting to think you're just parroting names you heard elsewhere. You wouldn't be the first person to attempt to discredit evolution by simply repeating what you've heard elsewhere with absolutely no inquiry to the claims.
    Why do you keep bringing up arguments ? The collected data is just that. Once you start to argue about it then surely you are leaving the field of science and entering debate/philosophy.

    "Science" has numerous definitions (even among scientists). My contention is that science should be solely about facts and not speculation, even if the speculation is about the known data.
    The known data shows that evolution happened. The known data shows the genetic link between all life in a precise family tree. These are facts. Science is the use of those facts to explain those facts and make predictions. Science is exactly about speculation. You propose a hypothesis, and use the scientific method to ascertain whether your hypothesis is correct. If you don't think this is science, then you don't know what science is by any definition anyone has ever come up with. And one thing is certain. Creationism isn't a testable hypothesis, and so isn't science. Evolution is a tested hypothesis, and so is science.
    Sorry,I am confused about your ramblings here. The first sentence alone makes no sense to me. Surely,if someone knows something they would not be ignorant ?
    Exactly. But you seem to be of the opinion that scientists should admit that they're ignorant. Your failure to understand what they are saying (quite clearly) isn't evidence that they are making claims about anything other than their observations.
    You say evolution is known. I would say that the majority of "evolutionary science" that I have studied is in the area of speculation (even though it may be based on actual scientific data).
    Of course it's speculation. It's the job of scientists to speculate. However, once they've tested their speculations, they become at least more likely to be able to seperate fact from mere speculation. And in the case of something that has been tested and retested over 150 years (and every new area of research, such as genetics has reinforced the findings of evolution, rather than refuting them), to the stage that the principles are used in things like vaccinations and GM crops, it is quite clearly as close to fact as anyone can reasonably be (as factual as the fact that I'm typing this right now or that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Again, lots of words used; questions dodged; allusions made; nothing said. It reminds me of GCSE philosophy - you've just learnt that nothing can be proved absolutely and so have indulged in the belief that every explanation holds equal weight. It's ridiculous, any smacks of lazy-thinking.

    Hehe, I love GCSE philosophy. Next he'll be on here telling us that there's no such thing as countries. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hehe, I love GCSE philosophy. Next he'll be on here telling us that there's no such thing as countries. :p
    Oh, fucking hell, don't even go there... :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hehe, I love GCSE philosophy. Next he'll be on here telling us that there's no such thing as countries. :p

    Haha, at least Klintock'd give us some meat to argue with. Debating this guy's like trying to fight a cloud. :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hehe, I love GCSE philosophy. Next he'll be on here telling us that there's no such thing as countries. :p
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Oh, fucking hell, don't even go there... :D
    Haha, at least Klintock'd give us some meat to argue with. Debating this guy's like trying to fight a cloud. :D

    I would say it was more akin to being in the playground surrounded by bullies. Not to worry, I am a big boy.
    So you don't have a link to his work, or even who he is? Then why not just say so then, rather than being dishonest about it? The fact that he has written books about Christianity is completely irrelevant. The point is that he hasn't written anything about science, or I can't find it, and you still, after 3 times of asking, refuse to link to anything. I'm starting to think you're just parroting names you heard elsewhere. You wouldn't be the first person to attempt to discredit evolution by simply repeating what you've heard elsewhere with absolutely no inquiry to the claims.

    Here are a couple of Bird's papers:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-45GNR8N-D&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c2e4577b1bb5b099e0f7cff96fbbd3e

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2023775

    And here is an article that touches on Bird's ABOX method :

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s990775.htm

    As you would probably conclude if you read the literature Bird appears to be an "evolution scientist". Why you keep mentioning Christianity books, God only knows ( or perhaps he does not !).

    Where have I tried to discredit evolution ?

    When all around are claiming certainity, I merely warned that the smell of hubris was in my nostrils.
    The known data shows that evolution happened. The known data shows the genetic link between all life in a precise family tree. These are facts. Science is the use of those facts to explain those facts and make predictions. Science is exactly about speculation. You propose a hypothesis, and use the scientific method to ascertain whether your hypothesis is correct. If you don't think this is science, then you don't know what science is by any definition anyone has ever come up with. And one thing is certain. Creationism isn't a testable hypothesis, and so isn't science. Evolution is a tested hypothesis, and so is science.

    Please explain to a schmuck like me how you can test a hypothesis from an alleged millions of years ago better than say 6000 years ago ( if I am correct on the creation dates?) ?
    But you seem to be of the opinion that scientists should admit that they're ignorant. Your failure to understand what they are saying (quite clearly) isn't evidence that they are making claims about anything other than their observations.

    Yes I think I have failed to understand what they are saying. Throughout the Darwin celebrations, I have repeatedly heard, seen and read people, who claim to be from from the scientific community, make assertations about events they claim happened thousands and even millions of years ago. How they KNOW is beyond my comprehension. These are the folks you want to be let loose on children ?
    Of course it's speculation. It's the job of scientists to speculate. However, once they've tested their speculations, they become at least more likely to be able to seperate fact from mere speculation. And in the case of something that has been tested and retested over 150 years (and every new area of research, such as genetics has reinforced the findings of evolution, rather than refuting them), to the stage that the principles are used in things like vaccinations and GM crops, it is quite clearly as close to fact as anyone can reasonably be (as factual as the fact that I'm typing this right now or that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister).

    If you are going to use GM crops,and especially vaccinations, as examples of proof and fact then you can count me out. Testable hypotheses shown to be flawed (and unhealthy) unless it is in order to make a healthy profit for the seller.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would say it was more akin to being in the playground surrounded by bullies. Not to worry, I am a big boy.
    Oh grow up. If you can't take criticism, don't put your opinions on view for everyone to see. If I think you're arguments are immature and simplistic, I'll say so.
    Here are a couple of Bird's papers:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-45GNR8N-D&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c2e4577b1bb5b099e0f7cff96fbbd3e

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2023775

    And here is an article that touches on Bird's ABOX method :

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s990775.htm

    As you would probably conclude if you read the literature Bird appears to be an "evolution scientist". Why you keep mentioning Christianity books, God only knows ( or perhaps he does not !).

    Where have I tried to discredit evolution ?

    When all around are claiming certainity, I merely warned that the smell of hubris was in my nostrils.
    Don't try and make out that I was attempting to discredit your sources. You had no sources, so I went on all you gave me, and that led me to someone who writes about religion. Don't try and blame others for you failing to put your argument across clearly.

    Right, so you've finally established that the person you were talking about has actually done some scientific work. So maybe now, you can explain to us all why his findings pose problems for the fact that evolution happened? Because that's what we're talking about here. Not that every single detail is as accurate as it could be. I don't have access to those websites, so I can't read the conclusions of any experiments. But since you've read them all, you can give us the jist?
    Please explain to a schmuck like me how you can test a hypothesis from an alleged millions of years ago better than say 6000 years ago ( if I am correct on the creation dates?) ?
    You really are revealing yourself as someone who doesn't have a clue about this subject, you know. Okay, hypothetis 1: if evolution is correct, fossil A will be between fossil B and fossil C in age. We can test that. Hypothesis 2: if evolution is correct, DNA sample A will have the following genes in common with sample B, but fewer genes in common with sample C. We can test that. You make a prediction based on the theory, and you test it. And the tests always confirm the theory, no matter what field of science you happen to be working in. Incidentally, you aren't suggesting that we haven't seen evolution occur with our own eyes are you? Maybe you should go to the dog tracks sometime to see the results of utilising it.
    Yes I think I have failed to understand what they are saying. Throughout the Darwin celebrations, I have repeatedly heard, seen and read people, who claim to be from from the scientific community, make assertations about events they claim happened thousands and even millions of years ago. How they KNOW is beyond my comprehension. These are the folks you want to be let loose on children ?
    And courts make judgements on things they weren't there to see. It's a little thing called evidence. If there's a fossil of a dinosaur, it is reasonable to ascertain that a dinosaur once lived. You don't need to be there to see it. If you know the principle of carbon dating (of which there are many different types, all pointing to the same results) from chemistry, you can then say how long ago this fossil was a living. Every piece of evidence that arises is exactly as it would be if evolution was true.

    But you're completely ignoring the actual issue of this topic. What is your opinion? What should we teach to our children in science lessons, and to the wider community through museums?

    You say you're not convinced by the evidence for evolution. From this thread, I would say that you're not convinced because you have a woefully poor understanding of it, and the scientific process in general.
Sign In or Register to comment.