Isn't this cute?

[Dan From Smithville]

Way to ignore the bulk of my post and completely miss the point.
Congrats. Is that what you were going for there? Or just moving the goal posts?

Your view on how science is carried out is misguided, ignorant and ill-informed. Sorry. That could easily be corrected with some post-grad courses.

I think it is amusing to watch a new representative follow all the old tricks and do it as if no one has ever seen them a billion times before.

Science is religion. Check.

No evidence offered to support claims. Check.

Why are there still monkeys? Check.

Regular guys no more about science than scientists. Check.

Plenty of straw on hand. Check.

And so on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That would depend on his level of experience and what animal you are talking about.
Not every hunter more trapper is that knowledgeable.
Which is why I mentioned I would go to the person with the most experience.

That does not change the fact that you are claiming that an expert in one field is trumped by an alleged expert in another field. Do you go to the plumber to have your heart checked? What if coronary health is his hobby?

The hunters I know read books about the knowledge found by these biologists you try so hard to marginalize with your disdain.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No it's not. Anyone who bucks the current trend is going to have a hard road. Unless you address that truth about centers of learning, you are just being dishonest.

I have actually been to universities and I have never seen what you claim here.

Anyone that makes unfounded claims based on untestable belief is going to have a hard time with a system based on evidence, logic and reason. But that is not what you are claiming.

You just said you would talk to the most experienced to learn from. On your claim, I think you are talking to the most experienced people and we are telling you that you are wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That would depend on his level of experience and what animal you are talking about.
Not every hunter more trapper is that knowledgeable.
Which is why I mentioned I would go to the person with the most experience.

So what experts in science are you talking to in order to better understand science? It turns out that there are at least six or eight scientists that have talked to you on this forum. Yet, you seem to contradict your claims of going to the most experienced and instead appear to be relying on sources that are far afield of any real experience or knowledge of science and specific areas of science.

My first formal education in science was from two men that were members of the local Methodist and First Baptist churches. But I did not consult the respective ministers on biology, since they were not really experienced with the subject. Though, they were fine and knowledgeable men in their own areas.

I do not understand why you are using contradictions to guide your thinking. That seems to be a source of confusion for you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That does not change the fact that you are claiming that an expert in one field is trumped by an alleged expert in another field. Do you go to the plumber to have your heart checked? What if coronary health is his hobby?

The hunters I know read books about the knowledge found by these biologists you try so hard to marginalize with your disdain.

Many of them also disagree with the ideas that biologists come up with. And I never expressed distain for biologists.

 

[Jose Fly]

No it's not. Anyone who bucks the current trend is going to have a hard road.

Yeah, I hear those flat-earthers are really having a tough time of it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Many of them also disagree with the ideas that biologists come up with. And I never expressed distain for biologists.

You express it with every post and you continually contradict yourself too.

Disagreement does not make one right nor does it confer expertise. You disagree with biology, yet cannot even post valid reasons and evidence supporting that disagreement.

You may want to be careful about using the funny face. It has ramification if you are using it to demean others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, I hear those flat-earthers are really having a tough time of it.

Those poor guys. It is causing them to go over the edge.

 

[Jose Fly]

Which is why I mentioned I would go to the person with the most experience.

No you won't. You go to the people who tell you what you want to hear.

I spent 10 years working (professionally) in the field before I moved into a more indoor position in biology. I've also spent my entire life hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. Yet you dismiss just about everything I say because it's not what you want to hear.

 

[Jose Fly]

Those poor guys. It is causing them to go over the edge.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Many of them also disagree with the ideas that biologists come up with. And I never expressed distain for biologists.

Besides funny faces, do you have anything valid to contradict that previous post of mine.

Do you have any real experience in academia at all? You heard about it? You and your buddies talked about it? You don't get it at all?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No you won't. You go to the people who tell you what you want to hear.

I spent 10 years working (professionally) in the field before I moved into a more indoor position in biology. I've also spent my entire life hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. Yet you dismiss just about everything I say because it's not what you want to hear.

I grew up hunting and fishing. Best times! I learned a lot from those friends and family. Fortunately, these experiences are dynamic and they learned a lot from me too.

I don't envision that he is talking about the same sort of experience. I think you are correct. A box of echoes where they only hear what they want.

 

[Jose Fly]

I grew up hunting and fishing. Best times! I learned a lot from those friends and family. Fortunately, these experiences are dynamic and they learned a lot from me too.

Quite a few of my colleagues went into biology in the first place because they grew up hunting and fishing. We're referred to as "hook and bullet biologists".

I wouldn't trade those experiences for anything.

I don't envision that he is talking about the same sort of experience. I think you are correct. A box of echoes where they only hear what they want.

Looks like nothing more than an excuse to me. "I only listen to people who've been in the field", but as soon as someone who's been in the field a lot like us comes along, suddenly "being in the field" isn't so important anymore.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, I'm sure scientists thought the same about many other theories that are not accepted now.

The difference is that creationism is the old, disproven theory. it's the one that was discarded because it doesn't fit the evidence.

Current evolutionary theory may well be modified in response to future evidence. But we aren't going to go backward to creationism.

 

[Polymath257]

Makes no difference if they never question the paradigm.

And they do. Then they realize the evidence supports the paradigm.

And, even if the current version is changed in the future (almost guaranteed), we won't go *backwards* to the old disproven theory of creationism.

 

[Polymath257]

No it's not. Anyone who bucks the current trend is going to have a hard road. Unless you address that truth about centers of learning, you are just being dishonest.

That is more true in the English department than in a science department. The difference? Science relies on evidence rather than just opinion.

And yes, it will be a hard road to disprove the current paradigm *because* the current paradigm is based on the currently available evidence. To overturn it would require some pretty strong evidence that it is wrong.

But it was also difficult to prove the current paradigm. ANY new ideas are subject to withering criticism. That is how it is SUPPOSED to be. Give the evidence and show that the old views don't fit it and give a new view that fits the new data *and* the old. that is how you change minds in science.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Disagreement does not make one right nor does it confer expertise. You disagree with biology,

Nope. I don't disagree with observed biology.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Looks like nothing more than an excuse to me. "I only listen to people who've been in the field", but as soon as someone who's been in the field a lot like us comes along, suddenly "being in the field" isn't so important anymore.

I'm sure we agree on many things about wildlife.

 

[Valjean]

And if I understand you correctly, it seems you are saying many renderings were not accurate?

Best guesses, given the state of the art.
Forensic reconstruction of present day skeletal remains has also improved significantly.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The difference is that creationism is the old, disproven theory. it's the one that was discarded because it doesn't fit the evidence.

Current evolutionary theory may well be modified in response to future evidence. But we aren't going to go backward to creationism.

You need to define creationalism a little better if you're going to make statements like that.