Real Science making a comeback!

[dawg80]

You cannot fairly compare evolution and creation.

They both require a certain amount of faith to accept as truthful. And, if you say, well, creationism requires more faith, I'll say you are right. But, to me, creationism is not science, it's faith-based. It's religion. And as such, it doesn't have to meet the same standards of science that evolution does.

Creationism meets ALL the requirements called upon to be what it is: religious faith.

Evolution fails miserably at meeting the requirements of science. And therefore, those who accept it as some undeniable "truism" are using faith as well.

[turbodawg]

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

[Guisslapp]

They both require a certain amount of faith to accept as truthful. And, if you say, well, creationism requires more faith, I'll say you are right. But, to me, creationism is not science, it's faith-based. It's religion. And as such, it doesn't have to meet the same standards of science that evolution does.

Creationism meets ALL the requirements called upon to be what it is: religious faith.

Evolution fails miserably at meeting the requirements of science. And therefore, those who accept it as some undeniable "truism" are using faith as well.

http://www.greensboro.com/news/schoo...3b23fae7d.html

[dawg80]

This thread is not intended to simply compare religion to science. Although I understand how the two concepts cross paths often when discussing "real science." For instance regarding the origin of the universe, the so-called Big Bang Theory*, which is really a mere hypothesis, since it does not measure up to the level of a theory. Creationism says God created the universe, as described in Genesis. Yet, there are two scientific laws: Conservation of Matter and Conservation of Energy that lead credence to matter/energy "always being." So! there is science to support the contention that nothing was created, because it didn't have to be created, because matter/energy has always been.

* an aside...have a friend who teaches physics in college tell me she asked her class "What is the Big Bang Theory?" Of course several replied, "a TV show!" She smiled and said yes, but what is the theory? Blank stares. She asked again....nothing. Finally one student, from the back of the class, said, "it has something to do with how the universe started....or something." What has happened to science in our schools? High school grads, those capable of getting into college (especially this one where she teaches), and they are woefully ignorant of science.

Of course, all this fake science, like evolution and global warming, which are both rooted in a political agenda, have made matters worse. We have to get back to REAL SCIENCE.

Speaking of which, Punxy Phil just saw his shadow, so 6 more weeks of winter this year. Can't get more scientific than that, eh!

[dawg80]

http://www.greensboro.com/news/schoo...3b23fae7d.html

Exactly my point. That's why idiots like this Tyson have got to stop promoting pseudo-science as real science.

I understand why certain people, so-called "scientists," promote fake science. For many their grants of taxpayer money is tied to a political point of view and therefore they have to go along with the hoax, or lose their precious funding. For others they don't want to be held to any moral standard, as promoted by religion. So, they have to destroy religion, discredit it, render it moot in our societal fabric. In both groups, their motivation is obvious.

I may be just a voice screaming in the wilderness, but I will continue to advocate for REAL SCIENCE. And challenge those who promote fake science by asking, "what are you afraid of?" Why do you not simply stick to REAL SCIENCE and let the facts take us wherever they lead us?

[Bearpaw]

I am not relying on statistical analysis of opinion, but the quality and quantity of evidence. Only fringe lunatics that are trying to justify their inconsistent-with-evolution religious views even try to argue a distinction between micro and macro evolution - a false dichotomy that they themselves created. Their arguments never even begin to address the actual evidence for evolution, and the pattern of these pseudo-critics is to construct strawmen that they can appear to slay, such criticism only being persuasive to like-minded extremists inside their echo chamber.

This community is not much different than the holocaust denying community. This is dark web, alt-rightish nonsense.

Guisslapp, have you asked every scientific expert their opinion? And to answer that, no you have not. You have been spoonfed from your teachers, mentors, friends, and those articles you have read that evolution is the dominant, more logical position. You don't actually know its true, you only believe what you have been told. Guisslapp, you do realize that evolution, i.e. the theory of its existence, is only a false theory. It is not what is actually, objectively happening, only a possible/partially true, objectively false interpretation. Thus, it is false; as you agreed in our prior discussion, such things need refining over time. All theories made by subjective beings are pseudo-true, and can only be proved to be true by an objective being.

And you can compare evolution to creation. Creation could have happened with an intelligence in mind. Even if evolution has been the case since, which we can never actually "prove" only interpret our observations, does not give proof that creation did not happen. It may allow interpretations that everything which is here now may have evolved from something else, but those "something else's" could have still been created by an intelligent being. You Guisslapp believe in evolution, you do not have proof in its existence, but you blindly believe your small observations, and the interpretations of the observations of those before you.

You blindly believe in what you have not seen. To include DNA, which we cannot actually see with our own eyes, but we use human, and fallible, instruments to detect its patterns and visualize its makeup. Thus, without actually seeing, tasting, touching, hearing, or smelling DNA, you blindly believe in its existence. I've gotta say, that blind belief sure sounds pretty "illogical to me", as "illogical" as you call those who believe and want a relationship with an objective being...

[Bearpaw]

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

I agree Turbodawg, the bible is a subjective interpretation of God's objective mystery. It helps us to foster a loving relationship with him. Science is a subjective interpretation of a subjective observation. Both search for truth, the former offers an objective truth, the second offers a subjective truth. Science is a great tool, but both areas of human experience are based on belief. Guisslapp firmly, yet blindly, believes that science provides all the answers. I firmly, yet blindly believe that science offers some answers, but God offers the whole picture.

A theory is not proof, only a fallible, and thus pseudo, truth.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

Anyone who believes in God doesn't embrace science according to Tyson and people like him. I actually attended a college with strong science departments and received a degree in a field of study called chemical engineering. Many of my professors, the majority, were Christians and professed their faith openly. And the students who attend Christian based schools are mostly receiving better educations in science than those who don't. I'm not talking about Jerry Baldwin money makers but schools like Episcopal where my niece attends. She is most definitely getting more and better science education than someone at the public school where she would be zoned.

[Bearpaw]

I am not relying on statistical analysis of opinion, but the quality and quantity of evidence. Only fringe lunatics that are trying to justify their inconsistent-with-evolution religious views even try to argue a distinction between micro and macro evolution - a false dichotomy that they themselves created. Their arguments never even begin to address the actual evidence for evolution, and the pattern of these pseudo-critics is to construct strawmen that they can appear to slay, such criticism only being persuasive to like-minded extremists inside their echo chamber.

This community is not much different than the holocaust denying community. This is dark web, alt-rightish nonsense.

And I have to say, when Guisslapp lacks evidence to fight my position, he attempts to fling insults by comparing my critical analysis of his opinion to those of hate groups. Guisslapp, please provide firm evidence that the majority (i.e. >50%) of scientists hold evolution to be proved, or more likely than creation, and that they cannot coincide. And I mean on the planet..

[JuBru]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...12/darwin-day/

[Dawgonit]

You cannot fairly compare evolution and creation.

Agreed. It's a weird thing happening in this country equating religion with science. They are two separate fields and should be kept that way. Science is based on evidence and reason, and the main religions of the country are based upon believing old books to be true. And that's perfectly fine, nothing wrong with either but it's wrong to put them together. A chef may believe a tomato is a vegetable for culinary purposes but he shouldn't tell a scientist he's wrong when the scientist proves that logically it's a fruit in the scientific world. They are two separate fields, keep them seperate.

Scientists have found different pieces of evidence from different fields and come up with the theory of evolution. It's the most comprehensive and logical explanation for all the evidence. They find the evidence and then develop the most logical explanation for it. Evolution is the most logical explanation. However what many religious people do is the opposite. They have an explanation first (the books) and then try to find evidence to support it. This process goes against scientific reason, you don't develop a conclusion first and then try to support it. If you can develop a more logical, comprehensive conclusion from the evidence, make one and get it peer reviewed and published. Religious people shouldn't see evolution as a threat, it's the best explanation in the scientific world. It's only a threat when people try to put religion into the scientific world.

[PawDawg]

How long does science say it took for DNA to evolve?

Did human emotion also evolve?

[Bearpaw]

Agreed. It's a weird thing happening in this country equating religion with science. They are two separate fields and should be kept that way. Science is based on evidence and reason, and the main religions of the country are based upon believing old books to be true. And that's perfectly fine, nothing wrong with either but it's wrong to put them together. A chef may believe a tomato is a vegetable for culinary purposes but he shouldn't tell a scientist he's wrong when the scientist proves that logically it's a fruit in the scientific world. They are two separate fields, keep them seperate.

Scientists have found different pieces of evidence from different fields and come up with the theory of evolution. It's the most comprehensive and logical explanation for all the evidence. They find the evidence and then develop the most logical explanation for it. Evolution is the most logical explanation. However what many religious people do is the opposite. They have an explanation first (the books) and then try to find evidence to support it. This process goes against scientific reason, you don't develop a conclusion first and then try to support it. If you can develop a more logical, comprehensive conclusion from the evidence, make one and get it peer reviewed and published. Religious people shouldn't see evolution as a threat, it's the best explanation in the scientific world. It's only a threat when people try to put religion into the scientific world.

The most "logical" explanation is your subjective viewpoint. You believe it to be so, thus to you it is. Just because you subjectively view something to be "the most logical" does not make it so. The evidence that scientists make observations on are very limited, less than 1% of possible observations. Scientists then make interpretations of these observations and attempt to apply it to all things. Just the same as my previous argument.

Saying creation is illogical is unscientific, as Guisslapp has not proven creation has not occurred, only pointing out that it has not been observed by himself, and those he believes have also not seen it occur.

[Guisslapp]

Guisslapp, have you asked every scientific expert their opinion? And to answer that, no you have not. You have been spoonfed from your teachers, mentors, friends, and those articles you have read that evolution is the dominant, more logical position. You don't actually know its true, you only believe what you have been told. Guisslapp, you do realize that evolution, i.e. the theory of its existence, is only a false theory. It is not what is actually, objectively happening, only a possible/partially true, objectively false interpretation. Thus, it is false; as you agreed in our prior discussion, such things need refining over time. All theories made by subjective beings are pseudo-true, and can only be proved to be true by an objective being.

And you can compare evolution to creation. Creation could have happened with an intelligence in mind. Even if evolution has been the case since, which we can never actually "prove" only interpret our observations, does not give proof that creation did not happen. It may allow interpretations that everything which is here now may have evolved from something else, but those "something else's" could have still been created by an intelligent being. You Guisslapp believe in evolution, you do not have proof in its existence, but you blindly believe your small observations, and the interpretations of the observations of those before you.

You blindly believe in what you have not seen. To include DNA, which we cannot actually see with our own eyes, but we use human, and fallible, instruments to detect its patterns and visualize its makeup. Thus, without actually seeing, tasting, touching, hearing, or smelling DNA, you blindly believe in its existence. I've gotta say, that blind belief sure sounds pretty "illogical to me", as "illogical" as you call those who believe and want a relationship with an objective being...

There is no point in asking EVERY scientist anything. When all objective evidence points to something being correct, it is reasonable to accept it as correct - not on faith, but on the actual evidence. It is irrational to not believe it. If evidence comes out later that refutes it, then it is reasonable to no longer accept it.

Your pedantics are entirely useless here.

[Bearpaw]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...12/darwin-day/

Thank you JuBru, how many scientists are a member of the AAAS (according to Wikipedia 120K)? How are they queried on evolution to obtain that result? How current is that data? How many have died? How many scientists worldwide?

According to this link, there are 3.5 million scientists in the US. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=48233 , other figures are 5 million, up to 13 million according to those answers. According to JuBru's evidence, 98% of the 120K members of the AAAS believe evolution, i.e. humans evolved over time. Was answering that question a requirement for membership? How was the question asked? "Do you believe humans evolved over time?, or Do you believe in the theory of evolution?. It think some people's understanding of evolution are different from others.

For some, evolution is the development of species, genus, etc. from earlier, different species according to the Five (or more) Kingdoms, where the bacteria, fungi, plant, and animal kingdoms were the order. For others, as Techman05 pointed out, evolution could be a selective adaptation. If the question queried the scientists with a complete intro into the evolutionary theory, including whether creation was logical, I believe the results of 98% would be different.

But let's examine 98% of 120K. That's roughly 117% saying yes, 3% saying no. The question remains whether the entire membership actually answered the question, or whether only those who answered the question was present. I'm going to guess 10-30% did not answer the question. Let's assume 100K answered the question. 2K said no, 98K said yes, and a further 20K are unaccounted for. 1K of that is supposed to say no, 19K is supposed to say yes. That brings the actual numbers down a lot, with 17.5% not answering in this current example.

Now, let's look at the justification for the worldwide scientific community. Let's assume the worldwide scientific community amount to 12Million. 120K out of 12Million is 1%. Based on 1% of actual results, we have 81.666% who said yes, 1.666% who said no, and 20% who did not answer. Bringing the total, we have 0.08166% who said yes, 0.001666% who said no, and 83.333% who did not answer.

So, based on JuBru's evidence, there is no overwhelming evidence that the scientific community, as Guisslapp believes, holds evolution to be overwhelmingly evidentially proven, and creation is illogical.

EDIT: after researching the results from the AAAS survey, only 3.5K of the membership in the US only responded, giving even smaller percentage of the scientific community to bear weight. I have not found how such people were chosen to be asked, nor which questions they were asked.