Real Science making a comeback!

[detltu]

My judgment is informed by thousands of pieces of evidence that points in one direction with no evidence to the contrary. That is what is laughable - there is no real debate here. I don't care to get into my specific experiences, because it is no more persuasive than the evidence itself. Suffice it to say that almost everyone that works or has worked in the medical/biotech/pharma fields rely on the certainty of evolution and do so for good reason - understanding how it works helps them accomplish their jobs and get results.

It serves no utility to give any sense of seriousness to an argument that evolution is not certain. It is just preposterous - like arguing the holocaust didn't happen. Believing the holocaust happened is not the same thing as faith in religion either. If there is solid evidence, faith isn't required.

How can you say that if you haven't checked the evidence yourself. You are accepting the work of others as true without actually confirming these things for yourself. You are accepting a consensus that you can't actually confirm. Someone has told you that the scientific community has determined this and you have probably done some review on your own and it reached a threshold where you decided that you accept it as fact. If you haven't experienced it for yourself, you are ultimately accepting the word of others as fact.

Believing the holocaust happened is exactly the same thing as faith in religion (assuming you were not actually present for the holocaust). What solid evidence have you personally experienced for the holocaust? How have you determined the holocaust actually happened?

[detltu]

Are you implying I've been condescending in my posts?




I can't speak for Guislapp, but I'm fine with saying I haven't done any. I also haven't done any work about the holocaust, the moon landings or the deaths of Elvis and Tupac. Are you saying I should only believe things to be true if I've done the research?



I have not. Are you implying that only people that do this can defend evolution? Because the people that do this, already defend evolution.



Why shouldn't I trust them? You can't know everything in life, it's expected to trust the academics in their fields as they are the most knowledgeable.

I can trust to know that the asteroid belt is between Mars and Jupiter but I haven't done any research about it. Should I not trust these scientists?

I can trust that metamorphic rock is made with extreme heat and pressure below the earth's surface. I haven't done any research about it. Should I not trust these scientists?

I can trust that my appendix is a useless organ in my body but I've never done any research about that. Should I not trust these scientists?

I can trust that living things have become different species through evolution but I haven't done any research about it. Should I not trust these scientists?



It shouldn't. In the scientific world, you can go look at the evidence for these things and understand that these are the best explanations. The evidence supports the conclusion. In faith or religion this idea isn't necessary.

I don't think you have been condescending. That is more Guisslapps territory.
I haven't done any real research into those things either and I believe every one of them happened. My point is we cannot possibly confirm everything we believe in person. At some point we have to trust someone else who says they have done the work. And maybe I trust them because someone else says they independently verified their work. Or maybe a whole team of people have independently verified it (I have no actual way of knowing that they are actually independent or impartial, but give me enough people and eventually I will accept it).

You trust all of these facts because you have no reason not to. You also believe in things that you cannot confirm like evolution and man made global warming. These are things you cannot observe for yourself. You can't recreate them in a lab.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

Some of you are going to hell and some of you aren't. No need to argue.

[Bearpaw]

Some of you are going to hell and some of you aren't. No need to argue.

Ouchy

[Guisslapp]

Wow. Some of you guys are just hopeless.

I do have some experience in the field - not that it matters. And if you have taken biocemistry, you probably fully understand the mechanisms behind evolution. If you are undereducated on the subject maybe the thing seems a bit more mysterious, but that is something anyone can fix for themselves.

Even though I was not alive for the holocaust, the overwhelming evidence it occurred clearly shifts the burden of proof to denyers to produce compelling evidence that it didn't. It is reasonable to accept it as certain. Religion is a whole other matter and cannot be compared to either of the former two subjects. Faith is about belief where evidence is lacking.

[Bearpaw]

Wow. Some of you guys are just hopeless.

I do have some experience in the field - not that it matters. And if you have taken biocemistry, you probably fully understand the mechanisms behind evolution. If you are undereducated on the subject maybe the thing seems a bit more mysterious, but that is something anyone can fix for themselves.

Even though I was not alive for the holocaust, the overwhelming evidence it occurred clearly shifts the burden of proof to denyers to produce compelling evidence that it didn't. It is reasonable to accept it as certain. Religion is a whole other matter and cannot be compared to either of the former two subjects. Faith is about belief where evidence is lacking.

Faith is about belief, as is science, especially when you do not have personal evidence to back up that belief. And as our previous discussion shows, all knowledge is belief.

[JuBru]

Faith is about belief, as is science, especially when you do not have personal evidence to back up that belief. And as our previous discussion shows, all knowledge is belief.

No.

You and others are ignoring a very key fact: as far as science goes, you can verify all of it yourself if you were so inclined. That you can do that is enough to make it not a belief or taking anything on faith. Money and time being the barriers to stop you doesn't change that. A science fact changing - like the sun being the center of our galaxy instead of earth - doesn't change the concept, either.

[Guisslapp]

Faith is about belief, as is science, especially when you do not have personal evidence to back up that belief. And as our previous discussion shows, all knowledge is belief.

So what is the point of talking about belief if we are already talking about knowledge? Faith is about belief without evidence. Science is verifiable. If one posts on a message board recklessly spouting out nonsense that goes against verifiable science, one is just flouting his ignorance. It also emboldens other people that are undereducated on the subject to give improper weight to the ideas promoted by the person that knows not what they are talking about. Then you get an echo chamber effect where people start to put stock into something that they could easily refute with a little work. This phenomenon is the root of our countries current problems.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...46094739,d.eWE

[Bearpaw]

No.

You and others are ignoring a very key fact: as far as science goes, you can verify all of it yourself if you were so inclined. That you can do that is enough to make it not a belief or taking anything on faith. Money and time being the barriers to stop you doesn't change that. A science fact changing - like the sun being the center of our galaxy instead of earth - doesn't change the concept, either.

Center of our galaxy, according to most scientific experts that is off. We are talking about a galaxy black hole. And as for the "center" that's all a matter of perspective. We rotate around the sun, thus the center of the orbit may be the sun, but that doesn't make it objectively the center. Ptolemaic teachings were right in that the Earth is the center of our perspective. It's all about your belief.

[Guisslapp]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...46094739,d.eWE

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nMWGXt979yg

[Bearpaw]

So what is the point of talking about belief if we are already talking about knowledge? Faith is about belief without evidence. Science is verifiable. If one posts on a message board recklessly spouting out nonsense that goes against verifiable science, one is just flouting his ignorance. It also emboldens other people that are undereducated on the subject to give improper weight to the ideas promoted by the person that knows not what they are talking about. Then you get an echo chamber effect where people start to put stock into something that they could easily refute with a little work. This phenomenon is the root of our countries current problems.

Verify is a bit of a stretch. You can believe you have observed a similar result, but often that is biased by what you expect to obtain. I would say you may get close to what you see, and that is a high form of logic. Your interpretation is a lower form of logic. Trying to apply that to a big picture is an even lower form of logic.

Nonsense is another one of your words. Nothing discussed by a person with some reason, which science holds that humans have some reason, is "nonsensical"; it has some sense. Just as all humans, who are logical beings, cannot be illogical. It is all about shades of gray. Science is all about probability. Evolution may be 90% the truth according to our beliefs in our observations, our fellow human beings observations, our theories, and our fellow human beings theories. But that does not mean it is totally certain. To say so is unscientific.

[DONW]

How can you say that if you haven't checked the evidence yourself. You are accepting the work of others as true without actually confirming these things for yourself. You are accepting a consensus that you can't actually confirm. Someone has told you that the scientific community has determined this and you have probably done some review on your own and it reached a threshold where you decided that you accept it as fact. If you haven't experienced it for yourself, you are ultimately accepting the word of others as fact.

Believing the holocaust happened is exactly the same thing as faith in religion (assuming you were not actually present for the holocaust). What solid evidence have you personally experienced for the holocaust? How have you determined the holocaust actually happened?

There were many pictures taken of victims of the holocaust. Have you never seen any of these pictures?

[Guisslapp]

Verify is a bit of a stretch. You can believe you have observed a similar result, but often that is biased by what you expect to obtain. I would say you may get close to what you see, and that is a high form of logic. Your interpretation is a lower form of logic. Trying to apply that to a big picture is an even lower form of logic.

Nonsense is another one of your words. Nothing discussed by a person with some reason, which science holds that humans have some reason, is "nonsensical"; it has some sense. Just as all humans, who are logical beings, cannot be illogical. It is all about shades of gray. Science is all about probability. Evolution may be 90% the truth according to our beliefs in our observations, our fellow human beings observations, our theories, and our fellow human beings theories. But that does not mean it is totally certain. To say so is unscientific.

Evolution is certain, not 90% belief. Your attempts to obfuscate the issue are pointless.

Nonsense requires a sense reference point (I.e. Reason), as does "illogical" (I.e., logic). A wall creaking is not nonsense, nonsense is only a useful word to use when describing something that someone says that is not reasonable - someone that had the capacity to reason but is not using it to the full capacity.

Your philosophical inversions could also be corrected with a little more effort to be objective.

[detltu]

There were many pictures taken of victims of the holocaust. Have you never seen any of these pictures?

I'm not denying it. But did you take those pictures? I've seen movies about the holocaust. Do you not realize that the pictures can be faked. How do you verify their authenticity? I've seen pictures of bigfoot and the loch ness monster too. Why does a picture prove anything?