Science isn't All That Reliable...

And the 'mountains of evidence' amount to nothing more than a molehill of evidence fabricated by the followers of that fairy tale myth. Following the dreams of a man who had an overactive imagination but an enhanced ability involving animal magnetism to attract those who were gullible enough to buy into his fairy tale myth. He knew he had no evidence to support his claim other than his own imagination.

 

Proof of this? Which parts are incorrect?

Explain it explicitly.

 

*Making fun of*

And your opinion is straight up stupid. Posting a website where dudes help a movie be more scientific doesn't mean that movies are a good source of information, sorry.

 

What "this" are you referring to?

"parts" of what are you talking about?

Explain what explicitly?

 

Riiiight, and obviously all of these scientists all over the world must just be starry-eyed bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ters. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, go back to the corner.

 

What? "Making fun of"?

So now you must resort to personal attacks and say that my opinion is "straight up stupid". Hello Moderators... here we have another personal attack. He is attempting to censor my right to express an opinion based entirely on his opposing opinion in the form of name-calling.

Who was it that inferred that scientists are not involved in the making of movies? Duh?

 

You can answer your own question, follow my reasoning.

- You stated evolution is nothing but a fantasy, no proof to support the theiry, etc.

- I asked for proof regarding your statement, and also requested an explicit explanation. I am not interested in one your lengthy posts that do not have a clear and concise point.

- So in reference to your post, what do you think "this" was referring to?

 

I'm making fun of your opinion because it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

HAH!

We are allowed to attack people's opinions, just not the poster themselves. This has been ruled on by the mods over and over again. I am NOT saying you are stupid. I am saying that your opinion is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid.

 

You know, the creationist obsession with trashing Darwin is rather bizarre. Scientific theories do not build their credibility upon the credibility of the first person who came up with it. That credibility is established by all the people who come after that person, verifying and refining it. The theory of evolution by natural selection in its modern form builds on the foundation he laid, but most of the house was built by other people. As you note, Darwin himself did not have all the necessary knowledge required to fully explain the process--but knowledge of how genetics actually works is not required to observe that something like genes must exist in order to explain heritability. The persuasive power of the theory of evolution is how amazingly well it fits the evidence and how powerful it is as a predictive tool. Not based on any personal magnetism on the part of darwin, who was long dead by the time the vast majority of work expanding and confirming evolution as a valid theory was conducted.

If the theory of evolution was only valid because of darwin's personal magnetism, why is it still so well regarded and well supported today, over a century after his death? The answer to that is that the theory stands on its own; that genetic mutations do exist and do create variations in genetic structures, that these genes are selected for and against by environmental pressures, and that creatures do in fact evolve over time by way of this process. What is the alternative being proposed? A clearly ludicrous and unsupported proposal that the Earth is far younger than radiometric dating suggests, that life has been here far shorter than the fossil record would allow, and that an as-yet-unobserved omnipotent deity intentionally 'designed' all life on Earth. That he designed an unchanging set of creatures on Earth that would never change, never appear or disappear, and which could not adapt to their environment. And that he purposely put fossils to represent other, nonexistant animals presumably in an effort to confuse people.

 

Let's see...which is more reliable. Something that updates itself frequently to match observations and experimental data? Or something that was written 2000 years ago by a bunch of inbred who never even heard of gravity much less explain it.

 

You have asked one question and I will answer that one question:

Because of the humiliation that would be suffered by the scientific community should the fact that they fell for a fairy tale be as energetically publicized as was the cover-up (rationalizations [making excuses in the form of fabricating evidence to support the fairy tale]) was publicized. That humiliation would cost the science industry uncountable dollars in tax-payer support through federal funding.

At the other emphasized text above, you stress the point that " knowledge of how genetics actually works is not required to observe that something like genes must exist in order to explain heritability." --- now let me rephrase that same statement --- "knowledge of how spirituality actually works is not required to detect that something like demons and gods must exist in order to explain spiritualism."

You and others are quick and ready to accept the fairy tale of such a man as darwin while knowing that when he wrote the material, he had no evidence to support his claim other than his imagination... yet, you more quickly reject the claims of other men who propose something that (at current time) is beyond the scope of science. Is it the fault of the Theists that science has placed upon its own shoulders the burden of self-limitation?
Holding a degree in computer electronics, it is easy to understand that I do not reject the theories (entirely) that science comes up with, yet at the same time, I do not allow that self-imposed restriction of science that is enacted upon itself, to be a burden to me from looking in other areas other than the physical realm. You might even say that I am more open-minded than the REAL SCIENTIST who is restricted in his/her cause.

 

STOP. Have you ever read On the Origin of Species? Be honest. Because you keep repeating this nonsense over and over again. There is plenty of evidence presented throughout the book.

 

I have a copy of it here at home. I have read it. What specific evidence are you speaking about? Please cite page and paragraph numbers.

 

Gee.. I guess then there is no need for me to say why Theists make fun of materialists who don't know what they are talking about when they speak on spiritual matters.

Sure you can attack the message, but when you say that the message is 'stupid' while knowing that the message came from the inner workings of the messenger, then you are likewise attacking the messenger.

 

I have no idea.. You also speak (write) in a convoluted manner similar to what you accuse me of.

 

Oh, I don't know, the entire chapter dealing with variation under artificial selection and under nature? The entire chapter dealing with geographic distribution? I don't know, when he discusses vestigial organs. I sincerely doubt you have read it if you have to ask such a question.

Yeah, there is no obvious difference between something that relies on corporeal facts and something that requires incorporeal indoctrination of the mind.

Sorry, still following the rules, go ask any mod.

 

And I seriously doubt that you have read it either because of your inability to cite page and paragraph from a book that you hold to such high esteem. On the other hand, you do realize that I can quote you just about any passage of scripture you desire to read. Guess my Holy Book holds more precedence in my mind than your holy book holds in your mind.

Are you suggesting that your mind has not been subjected to indoctrination? I would be willing to bet that your mind has been indoctrinated...! Wanna bet?

 

Here is another interesting read on the subject of "Science isn't all that reliable." See for yourself and you be the judge.
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html

And another relating to safety factors used in scientific research:
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0701/17.php

And here is the icing on the cake:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html

 

You have certainly out done yourself, the lack of understanding in that Q&A is astounding.

 

I'm on vacation so I don't have the book in front of me and I don't memorize every word of Darwin's book since much of what Darwin taught was wrong. Doesn't mean that the theory was wrong, he just didn't have our modern understanding of biology. For Christ's sake, he didn't even know about DNA, so I don't understand why you rely on Darwin as a crutch for your arguments. Like animal life, our understanding of evolution has evolved as well. But here, because you obviously haven't read the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing, here are some passages that stick out.

The first (*)(*)(*)(*)ing chapter for Mohammad's sake:

Referencing evidence from artificial selection.

"This point, if could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural species for instance, of the many foxes inhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view."

He also has an entire section on pigeons that is rather boring, but still it references the artificial selection of the bird.

Domestication of sheep and cattle.

"The great power of this principle of selection is not hypothetical. It is certain that several of our eminent breeders have, even within a single lifetime, modified to a large extent some breeds of cattle and sheep."

Chapter Eleven:

"In considering the distribution of organic beings over the face of the globe, the first great fact which strikes us is, that neither the similarity nor the dissimilarity of the inhabitants of various regions can be accounted for by their climatal and other physical conditions. Of late, almost every author who has studied the subject has come to this conclusion. The case of America alone would almost suffice to prove its truth: for if we exclude the northern parts where the circumpolar land is almost continuous, all authors agree that one of the most fundamental divisions in geographical distribution is that between the New and Old Worlds; yet if we travel over the vast American continent, from the central parts of the United States to its extreme southern point, we meet with the most diversified conditions; the most humid districts, arid deserts, lofty mountains, grassy plains, forests, marshes, lakes, and great rivers, under almost every temperature."

Random:

Discussing a possible flaw with his theory. Since the book, no irreducibly complex organ has been shown.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

Rudimentary/Vestigial organs

"Some of the cases of rudimentary organs are extremely curious; for instance, the presence of teeth in foetal whales, which when grown up have not a tooth in their heads; and the presence of teeth, which never cut through the gums, in the upper jaws of our unborn calves. It has even been stated on good authority that rudiments of teeth can be detected in the beaks of certain embryonic birds. Nothing can be plainer than that wings are formed for flight, yet in how many insects do we see wings so reduced in size as to be utterly incapable of flight, and not rarely lying under wing-cases, firmly soldered together!"

"We have plenty of cases of rudimentary organs in our domestic productions, as the stump of a tail in tailless breeds, the vestige of an ear in earless breeds, -- the reappearance of minute dangling horns in hornless breeds of cattle, more especially, according to Youatt, in young animals, and the state of the whole flower in the cauliflower. We often see rudiments of various parts in monsters."

Wow. I just wasted my time to prove you wrong. Happy? Evidence provided for his theory by Darwin. No overly excited "imagination."

I have been taught, and I have been skeptical. It is easy to accept a theory when there is a massive amount of evidence. Nothing else explains the diversity of life on this planet, or how bacteria develop the ability to digest nitrate or nylon. No other scientific theory. It is an acceptance to the facts. There is no evidence of God, you have taught yourself faith. Faith, blind following without evidence. That is what I consider the difference.

 

At the emphasized text: Thank you... you just proved my point. Yet 70 - 80 years later, scientists are still following his lead. Even though his lead was wrong from the onset.
BTW:

You don't memorize the writings of Darwin, you are on vacation and don't have his book with you, you don't show a link where those quotations came from, yet you were able to place them in quotation. So much for your integrity.

 

No, they are not. They look at modern evidence to validity Darwin's assertion.

 

You speak in the present tense. 70 - 80 years after Darwins death would be back in the 50's and 60's.... that would be past tense. "They look at..." , again present tense... not past tense like I suggested. Quit trying to misconstrue what I said.

 

He was wrong about MANY things, but his theory on its merits was not wrong. By the way, try 150 years. Man, you really are not doing good here.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Wow, considering you didn't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing recognize the quotations, that shows that you REALLY haven't read the book.

 

His theories were based on his imagination. Whether or not they later proved to be wrong or correct is irrelevant to the point of discussion relating to the time when he wrote those theories and how he persuaded others to follow after his dreams. He fed the flock some hallucinogenic drug (smooth words) and they fell head over heels in love with his imagination. That is the point.



http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Wow, considering you didn't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing recognize the quotations, that shows that you REALLY haven't read the book.[/QUOTE]

Wow, considering that you failed to post a link to your quotations shows how dishonest you can be in your dealings. Did I suggest that your quotations were incorrect? No! Did I make any suggestive comment that would have led you to believe that you were not quoting the citations from memory? No? Then you are living up to your screen name "grasping for straws".