+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 157

Thread: Real Science making a comeback!

  1. #31
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    42,100

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Have you read Darwin's complete book, or just the first part that was most commonly published? I didn't know there was a Part II in The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin until I saw a copy of the real version at a rare book seller's shop.

    And yes I know Darwin published many versions of his book while he was alive, sometimes removing chapters and adding others. Or, rewriting some chapters. But the real changes occurred after his death. Wonder why some people felt it was necessary to publish altered versions of his book.

  2. #32
    Champ DONW has a reputation beyond reputeDONW has a reputation beyond reputeDONW has a reputation beyond reputeDONW has a reputation beyond reputeDONW has a reputation beyond reputeDONW has a reputation beyond reputeDONW has a reputation beyond reputeDONW has a reputation beyond reputeDONW has a reputation beyond reputeDONW has a reputation beyond reputeDONW has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tyler, Texas
    Posts
    13,921

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    My neighbor believes that the earth is only 6000 years old and those dinosaur bones were buried here by the devil. I asked him if he had seen any talking snakes lately.

  3. #33
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,875

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Darwin is credited for discovering the founding natural selection theory of evolution. He lived during the 1800s before DNA had been discovered and understood. Natural selection is still accepted as the dominant force, but the various mechanisms for evolution are much better understood today thanks to genetic mapping as well as new discoveries in fossil record, etc.

  4. #34
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,875

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    It is remarkable that Darwin was able to piece together what he did without the benefit of the technology that we have today!

  5. #35
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    42,100

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by DONW View Post
    My neighbor believes that the earth is only 6000 years old and those dinosaur bones were buried here by the devil. I asked him if he had seen any talking snakes lately.
    Nope! your neighbor is wrong. It's closer to 10,000 years old.

  6. #36
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,875

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!


  7. #37
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    42,100

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    tch, tch...

    What happened is that a long time ago, the continents of North and South America were separated, and the oceans were connected. When the two land masses merged, populations of species were isolated on either side. Over time, these fish have diverged enough to be separate species.

    Wrong! real scientists know there is only ONE ocean on Earth. The concept of the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, etc... oceans, as well as gulfs, like the Gulf of Mexico, are all geography terms, not science. Such a simple SCIENTIFIC FACT yet this clown writing that article expects us to accept everything he wrote, about plants and butterflies is true? Really?

    There's way too much pseudo-science being pushed as factual. Too many people have accepted those bastardized definitions of "theory" and "law" just so their fake sciences will conveniently fit into the mold of real science. I'd prefer everyone just be honest. Hell, in the case of the Theory of Evolution they have even demoted gravity from a "law" to just a "theory." It's the Law of Gravity, azzholes. But, just so Marxists like Jerry Coyne can use gravity as a tool to attack "deniers" evolutionists have pushed for gravity being labeled as just a theory too.

    theory - the most likely explanation given the weight of scientific evidence

    I'm not sure evolution even rises to the level of a theory. It's probably just a hypothesis. Why? Because to be a theory requires "a group of tested propositions with proven, repeated results." How do you "test" evolution? To be a true scientific test requires control of the variables. You can only test for one variable. Again, how do you do that in the case of evolution?

    And even if you could select some species to test in a lab setting, maybe some species that has a short life span, and thus you are able to observe many, many generations over a relatively short period of time, how would we know that the setting of the lab did not introduce another variable? Meaning if you take some species, I don't know, a fruit fly, out of its natural environment and place it in a controlled environment of a science lab, you might have isolated it from factors that affect its reproductive mechanisms and taint the results of the experiment.

    Evolution is not real science. I'm not just picking on evolution. The whole climate change "science" is not real science either. Yeah, they both borrow elements of science but neither (and others) are real science.

  8. #38
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,875

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    We are talking about geography and the effect it can have on speciation. Whether there is theoretically one ocean or different oceans is irrelevant when you are talking about populations that remain in certain geographies.

    It is not necessary to test in a lab. The evidence is from the real world.

    How many preposterous straw man arguments can you make on the subject? It looks like you are desperately trying to avoid reality. If you are experiencing cognitive dissonance, maybe you should just go where the evidence points.

  9. #39
    Champ Bearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,043

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    Evolution is not science-fiction shape shifting like you were describing. It is usually a slow moving process where mutations and adaptions build over a long enough period of time that the cumulative result is sometimes (but not always) speciation. It is a fact, Jack, and not fact that it happens is not a subject of debate in the scientific community because the evidence is overwhelming.
    Evolution is a theory, just as creation is. It is fallible, and not objective knowledge, nor an objective fact. Creation and evolution have also been theorized to work together (i.e. creation occurred and evolution, i.e. adaptions being selected for their survival over time, following). Just because a portion, which you subjectively state to be the majority, of the scientific community accepts evolution does not make it a fact. Remember Guisslapp, science does not prove facts, but provides observations, which we humans attempt to subjectively interpret.

  10. #40
    Champ Bearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,043

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    We are talking about geography and the effect it can have on speciation. Whether there is theoretically one ocean or different oceans is irrelevant when you are talking about populations that remain in certain geographies.

    It is not necessary to test in a lab. The evidence is from the real world.

    How many preposterous straw man arguments can you make on the subject? It looks like you are desperately trying to avoid reality. If you are experiencing cognitive dissonance, maybe you should just go where the evidence points.
    What evidence is there that you have validated? How much scientific fact have you taken for granted?

  11. #41
    Champ Bearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,043

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Question Guisslapp, have you gone to each and every scientific "expert" and polled their views on evolution, or have you just believed what others have spoon-fed you based statistical polling on a sample of "scientific experts" on their spoon-fed beliefs on evolution?

  12. #42
    Champ Bearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,043

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    My guess, the scientific expert opinion majority which Guisslapp bases his support for evolution is based on several surveys of possibly up to 10K persons each, with either set multiple choice questions being asked (a definite bias in setting the questions), or an open answer to a question (bias on recording the results) based on a biased decision of who to poll. Out of the possible 10K polls sent out, probably 9.5K return with definite answers. Based on the 9.5K responses, a statistical analysis is done on the results.

    If answer 1 was yes to evolution, 2 pretty sure, 3 undecided, 4 unsure, 5 no to evolution, and if 60% of the responses are received as 1 as their answer, 30% as 2, and the other 10% as 3-5, then the pollster can say that 90% of scientists believe evolution to be fact based on overwhelming evidence. Say 1000 surveys are done with the same number of scientists being polled, and there is a 25% chance of having overlapping responses from the same scientist. As checking to make sure such overlap is very difficult, it is overlooked. Questions may be slightly altered, etc. After these results come in, and then averaged with the initial survey, we have 75% of responses that evolution is a fact. This statistic is then applied to the total number of scientists in the world, or country (say 10Million scientific experts), and the pollster/interpreter of the survey believes it is factual that 7.5Million out of 10 million scientists believe that evolution is factual. When, taking this example into account, a maximum of 1million scientists (i.e. 10K each survey, 1000 similar surveys performed) have been polled, and only approximately 750K of them agreed. Thus, 6.25million scientists are assumed to agree, and 2.75million scientists are assumed to disagree (again assuming no overlap; assuming all scientists responded).

    Such statistical analysis is applied to almost every interpretation of an observation for science. With limited observations, limited times observed, and over a limited period, us scientists often assume such information is representative of the true picture. And often, we are spoon-fed such results, and because it somewhat makes sense, we believe it.

  13. #43
    Champ Bearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond reputeBearpaw has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,043

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by Bearpaw View Post
    My guess, the scientific expert opinion majority which Guisslapp bases his support for evolution is based on several surveys of possibly up to 10K persons each, with either set multiple choice questions being asked (a definite bias in setting the questions), or an open answer to a question (bias on recording the results) based on a biased decision of who to poll. Out of the possible 10K polls sent out, probably 9.5K return with definite answers. Based on the 9.5K responses, a statistical analysis is done on the results.

    If answer 1 was yes to evolution, 2 pretty sure, 3 undecided, 4 unsure, 5 no to evolution, and if 60% of the responses are received as 1 as their answer, 30% as 2, and the other 10% as 3-5, then the pollster can say that 90% of scientists believe evolution to be fact based on overwhelming evidence. Say 1000 surveys are done with the same number of scientists being polled, and there is a 25% chance of having overlapping responses from the same scientist. As checking to make sure such overlap is very difficult, it is overlooked. Questions may be slightly altered, etc. After these results come in, and then averaged with the initial survey, we have 75% of responses that evolution is a fact. This statistic is then applied to the total number of scientists in the world, or country (say 10Million scientific experts), and the pollster/interpreter of the survey believes it is factual that 7.50Million out of 10 million scientists believe that evolution is factual. When, taking this example into account, a maximum of 1Million scientists (i.e. 10K each survey, 1000 similar surveys performed) have been polled, and only approximately 750K of them agreed. Thus, 6.25Million scientists are assumed to agree, and 2.75Million scientists are assumed to disagree (again assuming no overlap).

    Such statistical analysis is applied to almost every interpretation of an observation for science. With limited observations, limited times observed, and over a limited period, us scientists often assume such information is representative of the true picture. And often, we are spoon-fed such results, and because it somewhat makes sense, we believe it.
    Messed up math, will be corrected above

  14. #44
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,875

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    You cannot fairly compare evolution and creation.

  15. #45
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    29,875

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    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.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts