Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

You are forgetting that peer review, will examine and investigate and test any hypothesis presented to them. They will test the test results and evidences themselves, and weed out any dishonest practice to the scientific method.

The peer review is where can be used to correct any errors, refuted any flawed hypothesis and find out who scientists who are not applying.

Of course, the peers (scientists), themselves are humans too and not infallible, so one single peer might miss who is not on the up-and-up (not cheating), that’s why it is better if there were more than one peers investigating and testing a single hypothesis.

Let me tell you a little something about peer review gnostic.....here is an article from the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

"Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have. . . . .Peer review is thus like poetry, love, or justice. But it is something to do with a grant application or a paper being scrutinized by a third party—who is neither the author nor the person making a judgement on whether a grant should be given or a paper published. But who is a peer? Somebody doing exactly the same kind of research (in which case he or she is probably a direct competitor)? Somebody in the same discipline? Somebody who is an expert on methodology? And what is review? Somebody saying `The paper looks all right to me', which is sadly what peer review sometimes seems to be. Or somebody pouring all over the paper, asking for raw data, repeating analyses, checking all the references, and making detailed suggestions for improvement? Such a review is vanishingly rare. . . .

Sometimes the inconsistency can be laughable. Here is an example of two reviewers commenting on the same papers.

Reviewer A: `I found this paper an extremely muddled paper with a large number of deficits'

Reviewer B: `It is written in a clear style and would be understood by any reader'.

This—perhaps inevitable—inconsistency can make peer review something of a lottery. You submit a study to a journal. It enters a system that is effectively a black box, and then a more or less sensible answer comes out at the other end. The black box is like the roulette wheel, and the prizes and the losses can be big.

Abuse of peer review
There are several ways to abuse the process of peer review. You can steal ideas and present them as your own, or produce an unjustly harsh review to block or at least slow down the publication of the ideas of a competitor. These have all happened. Drummond Rennie tells the story of a paper he sent, when deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for review to Vijay Soman.9 Having produced a critical review of the paper, Soman copied some of the paragraphs and submitted it to another journal, the American Journal of Medicine. This journal, by coincidence, sent it for review to the boss of the author of the plagiarized paper. She realized that she had been plagiarized and objected strongly. She threatened to denounce Soman but was advised against it. Eventually, however, Soman was discovered to have invented data and patients, and left the country. Rennie learnt a lesson that he never subsequently forgot but which medical authorities seem reluctant to accept: those who behave dishonestly in one way are likely to do so in other ways as well."

You're are welcome to read the whole article. Apparently, peer review is not all its cracked up to be.....and its a respected source saying so.

If someone is trying to distort the statistics, there are other scientists out there who can independently see if there are any distorting.

The distortion of statistics by scientists is not what I was alluding to. It is the use of statistics per se that can be misleading.

I can have a group of ten people, 50% of whom are blue eyed. But if I said 50% of the population of my country are blue eyed, its the same statistic but the numbers are vastly different. That is what I mean by distorting the facts. Statistics can create big distortions. Ambiguity is inevitable.

The peer review is where can be used to correct any errors, refuted any flawed hypothesis and find out which scientists who are not following the protocol of scientific method. The peer review provide the mechanism for self-correction.

I can....but does the current system allow it to do what its supposed to?

There are no such mechanism within the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Catholic Church or any other religious bodies. Who do JW have overseeing those to prevent people from cheating, lying or being corrupt? Sorry but the governing body of JW are neither incorruptible, nor infallible.

The governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses are just men. They are not our leaders, but ones appointed to oversee the activities of the entire global brotherhood. God's people have always had human overseers.
Do you honestly expect large numbers of people in one global body to need no one to organise them?

The GB appoint other overseers in all the countries where our work is carried on (which is just about every nation on earth)....and they in turn have those who are under their oversight. There is no hierarchy.....only men answering to others who have oversight of them. This arrangement is called "headship"...not to be confused with dictatorship.

The apostle Paul wrote....
"But I want you to know that every man’s head is the Christ, and a woman’s head the man, and the Christ’s head God."
The only person in existence who doesn't have someone to answer to is God himself. I have no problem with this arrangement because I have lived under it for 45 years without anyone dictating my conduct against my will. I live in accord with Biblical direction and I trust my spiritual brothers with my life. Can you say that?

What I do find funny is that you accused scientists being corrupted by greed from big corporations and governments, and yet the JW act like those corrupt corporations and corrupt governments; in fact the governing body is like the hierarchy of big corruption, with president and board of directors.

It is an organized body of believers, just as God has always had. He is an organized God, so he does not leave his worshippers to flounder, wondering what is expected of them. He teaches us by his word and his own example in creation just how beautifully organized things are in this world....it is man alone who has messed things up....mainly by his misuse of science.

See in the Bible how strictly his nation of Israel was governed when they were given his laws. He did not force himself upon them, but after he had orchestrated their release from Egyptian slavery, he asked them to come into a covenant relationship with him. This is not like joining a church. It is entering into an agreement...a legally binding contract....to serve the interests of the Creator first in life. They agreed, and came under his jurisdiction, necessitating adherence to his laws. Penalties applied for disobedience.

If someone is trying to distort the statistics, there are other scientists out there who can independently see if there are any distorting.

Unless they are in agreement with them.....how many disagree with evolution as a fundamental fact of science? You honestly think that it would be an easy thing to stand up in that atmosphere of ego-driven power and disagree? I admire anyone who has the gumption. As we have seen here, derision and loss of credibility is used to cower dissenters into silence.

You frequently questioned scientists’ duties is to the people who fund them.

Well guess what, Deeje, the Discovery Institute is the one bankrolling ID projects of Behe, Meyer, Denton and Dembski. They have a lot of monetary gains by supporting Intelligent Design and Discovery Institute. That’s probably why they are failures in their respective fields.

None of those people have anything to do with us. We publish many articles ourselves on various science topics, often quoting interesting facts that scientists have discovered over the years....we do not rely on other ID supporters to furnish our information. Many of our articles come from fellow believers who are themselves, scientists.

The Intelligent Design are often based on propaganda and misinformation, and perpetrated by these disgraced scientists, and people like Phillip E. Johnson (lawyer, father of Intelligent Design); and the 2 founders of Discovery Institute - Bruce Chapman (politician and journalist) and George Gilder (economist, journalist). The last 3 men, have no qualifications and experiences in science, and yet they are ones calling the shot.

To tell you the truth, I have never heard of those people. They have no input into my beliefs at all. What little I have read on the DI or AiG online, I was more interested in the content rather than who wrote it.

Who, may I ask, have 'disgraced' scientists who accept ID?

People with no vested interests in their own unalterable opinions? People who accept the status quo unquestioningly? How unusual!

I ask questions and when I don't get satisfying answers I ask more questions. IMO students of science need to ask more questions and then check to see if what they are told is fact or fiction. I am sure they would be surprised at how little real facts there actually are in evolutionary science.

 

[gnostic]

Unless they are in agreement with them.....how many disagree with evolution as a fundamental fact of science?

Piff

Now, that's nothing unusual, since you are conspiracy theorist, who think only the creationists can tell the truth.

So what part of independent, that you don't understand?

If an independent scientist (the peer) evaluate the work of a scientist's hypothesis, you can possibly dismiss as being the peer might be biased.

But if 5, 10 or 100 different peers evaluating that same hypothesis, and all of them analyse the original test results, and test the hypotheses for themselves, I would hardly think they all secretly conspired to approve that hypothesis.

There have been tens of thousands biologists, testing the evolutionary biology, including Darwin's Natural Selection, and they have largely done without cheating.

I would not classify mis-classify of species as being cheating, and more of errors.

And I know of only one actual hoax (that would be cheating), the Piltdown Man, back in the early 1900s. But one hoax don't refute all other evidences of evolution.

The distortion of statistics by scientists is not what I was alluding to. It is the use of statistics per se that can be misleading.

I can have a group of ten people, 50% of whom are blue eyed. But if I said 50% of the population of my country are blue eyed, its the same statistic but the numbers are vastly different. That is what I mean by distorting the facts. Statistics can create big distortions. Ambiguity is inevitable.

You are ignoring my point.

My point wasn't just about the statistics, but using statistics to make decision based on those data, that’s probability.

Any decision made, that will either refute the theory or verify the theory, all depends on the number of evidences discovered.

It is not the statistics that's important, but the probability, where statistical data can be used to make decisions and predictions.

I was rebuffing when dismiss predictions made by scientists as something...what did you call it? Oh, yeah, "crystal ball".

 

[metis]

I will continue to tell it like it is, and all I can say again is that perhaps you should ignore my posts if you find them to be so offensive?

I'm not personally offended but have been appalled by your continued use of stereotyping of scientists and also of Christian denominations other than your JW's, especially the RCC. Even when shown you're not citing things correctly (not opinions but actual facts), instead of being willing to see that you are clearly in error and correcting it, you keep on repeating things over and over again that are clearly wrong and have to be classified therefore as "lies". If your JW leaders teach you that doing this is morally right and proper, then let me recommend you leave them and find a church that actually teaches basic Christian morality.

But also note your claim "I will continue to tell it like it is...", which is a pretty arrogant statement if you stop and think about it. A much more realistic and less arrogant approach would have been to post something more like this: "I will continue to tell it like I think it is".

Anyhow, I just gonna move on, but my guess is that we'll undoubtedly meet again.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have to say, @Deeje is very adept at playing this forum. She exploits the skewed ratio of evolutionists to creationists quite well. By that, I mean she'll engage with one of us until she's cornered, caught in dishonesty, or faced with something she can't respond to, at which point she'll simply stop responding to that person and start up all over again with a different "evolutionist". And because there are so many of us here, she's free to jump from one of us to another at her convenience.

That dynamic is what allows her to keep posting the same nonsense ad nauseum, while never running out of people willing to argue with her.

 

[metis]

I have to say, @Deeje is very adept at playing this forum. She exploits the skewed ratio of evolutionists to creationists quite well. By that, I mean she'll engage with one of us until she's cornered, caught in dishonesty, or faced with something she can't respond to, at which point she'll simply stop responding to that person and start up all over again with a different "evolutionist". And because there are so many of us here, she's free to jump from one of us to another at her convenience.

That dynamic is what allows her to keep posting the same nonsense ad nauseum, while never running out of people willing to argue with her.

I hear ya, but you forgot about her saying things like "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen", but then playing the poor little Miss Martyr role if someone sends some "heat" her way.

 

[Olinda]

In a sense, though, she is a martyr, IMO.
She must believe her religion's 'message' in every detail AND preach it as well. Given her point of view, l can see why she would perceive hostility, and counter it as best she can.

That said, I don't in any way agree with the content or tone of many of her posts.

 

[Profound Realization]

I agree that there is no need for the word supernatural. Yes, if a creator god exists, it too is part of nature, but possibly a bigger nature than just our universe and its laws and substances.

I think the chief purpose the concept of the supernatural serves is to serve as the realm where something can exist undetected. It allows the believer to say that the reason we cannot find his god is because we can only detect things in nature, and this realm is beyond that.

Of course, there is a problem with that. There is no reason why the presence of a god causally connected to our world couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The reason that believers claim that their god can't be detected is because it isn't detected, and so a rationale had to be contrived to explain why a vast, eternal, all-powerful something intimately involved in our lives is indistinguishable from the non-existent.

Also, take care not to confuse two different meanings of natural. One is the opposite of artificial or man-made, the other being the opposite of supernatural, or not found in nature. By one definition, the things man does are natural (as opposed to supernatural). By the other, much of what man does is not natural, such as building computers - artificial brains. Your definition - "Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind" - alludes to this as well, but would be improved by adding numbers to the two phrases to emphasize that they are different definitions and not two parts of a single definition.

We agree that there is no need for the word supernatural. People, to me, abuse the word natural as well. My definitions were used not to mix the two, but in attempt to show how people abuse the words.

Many claim to have experienced the presence of "God" and claim that "God" can be known. This can only occur within them, and since it hasn't occurred within others, who is all knowing as to know what others have experienced? I surely don't, I haven't stepped a second in anyone else's body. Some say "God" cannot be known directly but rather through a mediator.
Perhaps people that think or believe that "God" has an external presence only, using your example. Perhaps if someone doesn't believe something exists in purity, it may not make its presence known. I understand many "need" physical evidence with their own eyes to believe in something, rather than the potential inner eyes of awareness to reveal something.

Name me a few things that don't exist in nature.

 

[Jose Fly]

In a sense, though, she is a martyr, IMO.
She must believe her religion's 'message' in every detail AND preach it as well. Given her point of view, l can see why she would perceive hostility, and counter it as best she can.

That said, I don't in any way agree with the content or tone of many of her posts.

Keep in mind that many Christian denominations see persecution itself as a goal. I've heard many say something like "If I'm not being attacked for my beliefs, I'm not doing it right".

 

[Olinda]

Keep in mind that many Christian denominations see persecution itself as a goal. I've heard many say something like "If I'm not being attacked for my beliefs, I'm not doing it right".

Exactly. So if people agree, or if people oppose, the beliefs are seen as validated. Have you noticed how many times the 'desperation' of 'evolutionists' was mentioned? Yet if the responses had stopped it would certainly have been seen as an ID 'win'.

 

[Deeje]

Exactly. So if people agree, or if people oppose, the beliefs are seen as validated. Have you noticed how many times the 'desperation' of 'evolutionists' was mentioned? Yet if the responses had stopped it would certainly have been seen as an ID 'win'.

@metis @ Jose Fly @Olinda please understand that it is against forum rules to speak about other posters in the third person to specifically attack their character.

It is very telling that the evolutionists here can't stay out of the kitchen, (we have to wonder why?) but apparently they can't stand the heat either....look at what is resorted to when no evidence can be forthcoming. Read these last few posts....

If you have substantiated proof for your theory, then please present it instead of this childish sniping, and placating each other consolingly......poor babies.

Good grief! If any of you have evidence for macro-evolution that does not rely on "belief" or "faith" in the words of others????.......Let's see it. The emotional blackmail is clearly not working.

If you are worried about readers seeing wins for ID.....I am not surprised. It is the only scenario that answers all the questions....especially the biggest one of all.....how did life begin?

C'mon....is this really all you have left?

 

[Deeje]

Now, there are you are being paranoid...but that's nothing unusual, since you are conspiracy theorist, who think only the creationists can tell the truth.

It isn't a matter of deliberately lying on the part of the scientists....it is more a matter of being wilfully misled.....something they would accuse us of being.

The interesting thing about conspiracy theories is that many of them are true. They are lumped in with the more ridiculous stuff in the hope that you will not be able to tell the difference....it works, for many people. You know...guilt by association. This is a common ploy used when seeking to discredit something or someone.

The funny thing I don't find you to be honest or honorable person, and yet you think all scientists are dishonest. Oh, the irony.

The irony is in the fact that the scientists themselves are not aware of how they are led along in this conspiracy. The power behind it, I believe, is greater than man. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) It is a blindness that does not affect the eyes, but the mind. It is a wanting to believe something and grasping at any excuse to keep on believing it because the consequence for not doing so is unthinkable. Sound familiar?

So what part of independent, that you don't understand?

The part where there is no independence. If all these "peers" believe that evolution is a given to start with, then there can be no objectivity....and certainly no criteria for true independence in their findings. Disagreeing about details in various fields of science would fill volumes.

If an independent scientist (the peer) evaluate the work of a scientist's hypothesis, you can possibly dismiss as being the peer might be biased.

But if 5, 10 or 100 different peers evaluating that same hypothesis, and all of them analyse the original test results, and test the hypotheses for themselves, I would hardly think they all secretly conspired to approve that hypothesis.

Is that what really happens in real life? In a perfect world that might be the case.....in the real world, it is a long way from how it is.
Did you read the article I linked to? Peer review is a sham.

There have been tens of thousands biologists, testing the evolutionary biology, including Darwin's Natural Selection, and they have largely done without cheating.

If they are all seeking to interpret the evidence to fit their theory, then all those biologists are being misled by one another...and all with the same agenda. Can you not see this?

Any decision made, that will either refute the theory or verify the theory, all depends on the number of evidences discovered.

And the interpretation of that evidence is what is taken as scientific fact.....but the truth is those facts cannot be backed up by "proof". If it cannot be proven, then it was never a fact to begin with. Science plays fast and loose with their definitions.

It is not the statistics that's important, but the probability, where statistical data can be used to make decisions and predictions.

Again, "probability" is like the weather forecast....it might, or might not be true.
To predict rain and then see nothing but sunshine is defining what probability truely means. It means that the expectation isn't always what results. Yet if it rained in one small part of a neighborhood, they will still claim to be correct.

You are being immature and arrogant, as well as ignorant. But worse that you are the most dishonest member here.

Thank you. That part of your post has been reported.

That's what I find so frustrating. You are like a child making things up, especially when you don't understand science or maths, or that it disagree with your superstitious faith.

What is superstitious about my beliefs? I do not rely on any superstition at all.
I rely on what science already knows....that life cannot spring from nothing. It has to come from pre-existing life. To believe in a life form that human scientist cannot prove to exist, is not superstition. It is simply undiscovered science IMO.

It is arrogant of science to dismiss the possibility of an all powerful Creator and to belittle those who exercise as much faith in him, as scientist do in their own belief system. Science does not really have the superior position in this argument, since it has been clearly shown that they also have an unprovable belief system, just like we do......galling isn't it?

 

[gnostic]

It isn't a matter of deliberately lying on the part of the scientists....it is more a matter of being wilfully misled.....something they would accuse us of being.

Yeah, right.

All these scientists are not as intelligent as you. These scientists are so stupid that they can't tell their left feet from their right.

The only person who don't understand science is you, Deeje. Don't assert other people's intelligence step below your lack of education.

 

[Deeje]

(Biological) evolution says all lifeforms come from previously existing lifeforms all the way down to the first cell. The first cell could have been a result of chemical evolution (abiogenesis). Or it could have dropped in from space. Or been created by aliens or some god. Biological evolution says nothing about that.

That quote wasn't mine.

 

[Deeje]

Yeah, right.

All these scientists are not as intelligent as you. These scientists are so stupid that they can't tell their left feet from their right.

The only person who don't understand science is you, Deeje. Don't assert other people's intelligence step below your lack of education.

You assume that intelligence automatically makes a person and their actions, right?
I don't doubt anyone's intelligence per se.....but I see on this thread a propensity to elevate science and scientists to an undeserved status. If scientists are so intelligent, then how come they have messed up the world so much? Did their intellect not inform them of the consequences of their discoveries and subsequent actions?

Did they not see that finding scientific uses for uranium would result in the production of nuclear weapons of mass destruction? Did they not foresee the problems of nuclear power stations when melt downs would contaminate the land and sea for maybe thousands of years....with no way to combat the monster they had created? Think Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Did they not see that making plastic out of petroleum by-products would create a pollution problem that is now threatening life on land and sea?
Chemical pollution is also threatening the water table in many places resulting in cancer clusters and other debilitating diseases and auto-immune disorders in those who rely on bore water for drinking and for crop irrigation. Need I mention the latest fiasco in Australia with the foam used by the defence force in fire fighting?

What is this "intelligence" you keep speaking about? It is certainly not the same as wisdom, because I fail to see much of that exercised in science. Can we be a bit realistic here?

 

[gnostic]

Did they not see that finding scientific uses for uranium would result in the production of nuclear weapons of mass destruction? Did they not foresee the problems of nuclear power stations when melt downs would contaminate the land and sea for maybe thousands of years....with no way to combat the monster they had created? Think Chernobyl and Fukushima.

How did we get from debate between creationism, abiogenesis and evolution, to that of nuclear science?

Biologists and biochemists are not nuclear scientists, and you cannot blame all of scientists for what happened in Chernobyl or in Fukushima.

I don’t know anything much about what caused Chernobyl disaster, but at Fukushima, no one can prevent the earthquake and tsunami that rocked the nuclear reactors. No amount of safety measures would prevent natural disaster from triggering the meltdown after the cooling system failed.

Your level of absurdity is that you are equating different fields of science to any nuclear accidents. It has nothing to do with what we have debating here.

I didn’t bring up the witch hunts or the religious wars between different churches in this thread, because neither of them has anything to do with creationism or Genesis.

For you to bring up nuclear science against biology, just showed the level of your desperation and utter ignorance.

Until you have come to your senses, I am not going to say anything nythabout nuclear physics and nuclear disasters, because they are completely irrelevant here. Start a new thread, you like.

 

[Deeje]

How did we get from debate between creationism, abiogenesis and evolution, to that of nuclear science?

Are you going to tell us that some branches of science do not come the general banner of "Science"? Who knew?
Doesn't science's many branches agree on this one theory as being correct? Do you know of any branch of science that does not accept evolution as a given?

Biologists and biochemists are not nuclear scientists, and you cannot blame all of scientists for what happened in Chernobyl or in Fukushima.

You were inferring that science involves intelligence, which presumably, I lack. I was just demonstrating how clever science actually is in all its many facets which rely on the same level of intelligence for all....?

I don’t know anything much about what caused Chernobyl disaster, but at Fukushima, no one can prevent the earthquake and tsunami that rocked the nuclear reactors. No amount of safety measures would prevent natural disaster from triggering the meltdown after the cooling system failed.

Is it a surprise that so many nuclear power plants are built on fault lines? The diesel back-up generators that could have saved Fukushima were underground, so when the tsunami hit, it wiped out the back-up generators....smart move eh? If you build a nuclear power plant on a fault line, on the waterfront, would it occur to anyone that this placement might be the set up for a disaster of mammoth proportions?

Concerning the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan this source said......

"It isn't just the Pacific, as eventually the radioactive contamination will makes its way around the world. This is a disaster of epic proportions. Many have not yet realized the totality of this awful event, but they soon will. And when they do realize what they've lost, they are are going to demand answers.

The one answer that many will seek, how could we have been so stupid to place such dangerous reactors in such critical locations that endanger all those around them?

Sadly there will be some who defend nuclear power, claiming that the reactors would have been safe had it not been for the tsunami, but they would be remiss in failing to recognize that there is no safe place on the earth when it comes to mother nature. Whether it be a category five tornado, hurricane, or earthquake, there is always the possibility for disaster. So why then did man tempt his own fate by building these nuclear threats in such precarious locations, earthquake fault lines and waterways?

For anyone to think that a tsunami is a big surprise for an earthquake prone island surrounded by an ocean is absolute ignorance at its highest. Are we that stupid?"

NewsFocus

Its a good question to ask intelligent people, don't you think?

Do you assume that the consequences of this nuclear accident somehow fixed itself? What is still ongoing as a result of this incident. What is not being told to the public about this? Ever wonder? The results do not show up right away....sometimes not for decades.

Your level of absurdity is that you are equating different fields of science to any nuclear accidents. It has nothing to do with what we have debating here.

There was no level of absurdity unless you are assuming that different fields of science require less intelligence? That was, after all, the basis of my response.

For you to bring up nuclear science against biology, just showed the level of your desperation and utter ignorance.

Look, I know how frustrating it can be when one is struggling to find answers to very inconvenient questions.....but it isn't going to stop me asking them. You appear to be trying to sneak your way out of answering most of them. Science is science, like medicine is medicine.....it has areas of specialty, but it comes under one broad umbrella.

Until you have come to your senses, I am not going to say anything nythabout nuclear physics and nuclear disasters, because they are completely irrelevant here. Start a new thread, you like.

"Until you have come to your senses, I am not going to say anything nythabout nuclear physics and nuclear disasters, because they are completely irrelevant here." Really?

I know its unconnected as far as you can see, but the principle still applies....I was replying to your comment about required intelligence in science.....and I was showing you how much actual intelligence there is across all of the branches of science when even one branch can demonstrate such stupidity. Does Science not regulate and even chastise itself? Does it play "pass the buck" perhaps?

(Google Pic)

 

[savagewind]

Doesn't science's many branches agree on this one theory as being correct? Do you know of any branch of science that does not accept evolution as a given?

There is a difference between evolution (which has been proved to be a fact) and evolution as the sole origin of life.
You are arguing against evolution as the sole origin of life. Anybody respecting the sciences can not argue that. Why not? Because they do not know. And they believe that you do not know either. Would that not be true?

 

[Profound Realization]

There is a difference between evolution (which has been proved to be a fact) and evolution as the sole origin of life.
You are arguing against evolution as the sole origin of life. Anybody respecting the sciences can not argue that. Why not? Because they do not know. And they believe that you do not know either. Would that not be true?

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. This is the fact. This is what no one really argues.

Now, the theory of evolution is a different breed of species, in which it starts to implant tons of philosophical thoughts, beliefs, faith, improbabilities, faith in time, ideas that can never be falsified/observed/tested which start to go astray from the scientific method.... many in which "scientists" differ and disagree on much of the fine print behind closed doors. You don't hear about these often, possibly because most aren't allowed to publish anything negative, only positive...it is called information suppression. Only publish what you want the public to see. Most articles published are done in a clever manner, which can cause the common mind to see and read things that aren't there and claim inaccurate facts. When these are pointed out to the faithful, fundamental community, it usually results in hostility and beasts coming out from the closet to defend their own beliefs. It gets pretty emotional. Rather than focus on the questioning at hand regarding what's been said... it generally turns to attacking character and attempting to make one feel inferior to their self-perceived superiority.

It is also an industry which relies on reputation/credibility/to keep up with a certain image at all costs. One may lose their reputation, credibility, if they speak out or are brave enough to question certain things. Plus, if someone were to find sound evidence that counters years and years of sacrifice and hard work, reputation /credibility and image building... the human mind will tend to overlook this/ignore it, and continue to justify at all costs. Intelligence in the human is not exempt from this.

 

[savagewind]

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. This is the fact. This is what no one really argues.

Now, the theory of evolution is a different breed of species, in which it starts to implant tons of philosophical thoughts, beliefs, faith, improbabilities, faith in time, ideas that can never be falsified/observed/tested which start to go astray from the scientific method.... many in which "scientists" differ and disagree on much of the fine print behind closed doors. You don't hear about these often, possibly because most aren't allowed to publish anything negative, only positive...it is called information suppression. Only publish what you want the public to see. Most articles published are done in a clever manner, which can cause the common mind to see and read things that aren't there and claim inaccurate facts. When these are pointed out to the faithful, fundamental community, it usually results in hostility and beasts coming out from the closet to defend their own beliefs. It gets pretty emotional. Rather than focus on the questioning at hand regarding what's been said... it generally turns to attacking character and attempting to make one feel inferior to their self-perceived superiority.

It is also an industry which relies on reputation/credibility/to keep up with a certain image at all costs. One may lose their reputation, credibility, if they speak out or are brave enough to question certain things. Plus, if someone were to find sound evidence that counters years and years of sacrifice and hard work, reputation /credibility and image building... the human mind will tend to overlook this/ignore it, and continue to justify at all costs. Intelligence in the human is not exempt from this.

Exactly! It is happening in all manner of society. Sigh.

 

[Profound Realization]

Exactly! It is happening in all manner of society. Sigh.

Sure is. I'll sigh with you. Here's hoping for rapid evolution/change/awareness for the good and mind, rather than the worse. .