poll: are you an ape?

[John53]

Now, rephrase it into English and in context of my previous statement.

But, really, do we really know?

10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked

The most genuine merit of science is probably its readiness to admit its mistakes (usually!). The theories in science are always being reconsidered and scrutinized. Modern research often rejects old ideas, hoaxes and myths. Today's post on our Science Blog will discuss ten of the most popular...

www.famousscientists.org

The reality is that those WITH knowledge are still battling with each other.

Would you prefer the science community lied and dogmatically stuck with ideas were found to be wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are only a tiny handful of cranks that do so. James Tour and.....who? Michael Behe?

Andrew Snelling when it comes to geology. Though he may be doing it just for the money. He went from being a successful geologist publishing in the field to a creationist rather quickly. I do not think that he even mentions his past work.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you realize that you just told everyone that you are scientifically illiterate and do not even understand the concept of a theory. Most of those are not theories. Some of them were never even accepted. The first example they gave was not a theory. It was never well accepted. The last example that they gave was not a theory, though it was rather well accepted.

To be a theory an idea first and foremost has to be testable. There has to be a way to possibly refute it if it is wrong. Second it has to explain a wide range of events. Not just a small narrow one. And of course it has to have been tested and confirmed quite a few times over the ideas that it explains.

"In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.
But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory.

Many advances in science—the development of genetics after Darwin's death, for example—have greatly enhanced evolutionary thinking. Yet even with these new advances, the theory of evolution still persists today, much as Darwin first described it, and is universally accepted by scientists."

What Is a Theory? A Scientific Definition | AMNH

In everyday use, it may mean a hunch, or a guess. Scientists understand the term quite differently.

www.amnh.org

I don't consider spontaneous generation to be a scientific theory. It is a creationist concept, like a flat earth or geocentric universe that was debunked by science.

Most of these are very old "theories"/ideas from much earlier times and were often held together with little more than imagination. I wouldn't expect to see a modern theory unravel so easily or quickly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hahaha, yes, this is an old and widely discredited publicity stunt by the Disco Tute.

QUOTE

After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.[39]

UNQUOTE

From: A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - Wikipedia

See also "Project Steve": Project Steve - Wikipedia

These names do indeed represent a tiny handful. Not all are cranks, admittedly. Some were tricked into signing without realising what exactly their signatures would be used to claim. For instance "Darwin" ≠ "Evolution". There are many non-Darwinian processes that have been discovered since his time, more than 150 years ago.

Do not delude yourself that there is any controversy within science about whether or not natural processes are responsible. The number, roles and importance of the various natural mechanisms are of course the subject of lively discussion, as one would expect in a healthy and vibrant discipline of science.

P.S. Eberlin is not a biochemist, any more than James Tour: Marcos Nogueira Eberlin - Wikipedia

I notice that these creation scientists that do actual science don't include their personal beliefs in the science they submit for publication in recognized journals either. John Sanford comes to mind as another that publishes science and supports pseudoscience at the same time, but separately.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't consider spontaneous generation to be a scientific theory. It is a creationist concept, like a flat earth or geocentric universe that was debunked by science.

Most of these are very old "theories"/ideas from much earlier times and were often held together with little more than imagination. I wouldn't expect to see a modern theory unravel so easily or quickly.

I know, there were maybe two theories in the lot there.

Spontaneous generation was as you said never a theory. It was not even properly refuted. All that was shown was that when one watched very carefully that it did not happen. Those that accepted it never put the idea into a proper testable form. There were limited examples where it was thought that the "life force" could have generated life and while they were observing it did not. Modern theories arose from the work of Galileo and Newton, but it took quite a while for a full application of the modern scientific method to take hold in all of the sciences.

 

[Willamena]

Huh?
The question was whether we were apes. The answer hinges on the definition of "ape."
I think of ape as a taxonomic category in biology. Are you using the term in a different sense?

Humans have conquers death! I have one on a stand in my living room.

 

[Kenny]

Would you prefer the science community lied and dogmatically stuck with ideas were found to be wrong?

Of course not, that is why I like it when “status quo” is challenged. If they are wrong, they should be open to the questioning.

 

[Father Heathen]

Of course not, that is why I like it when “status quo” is challenged. If they are wrong, they should be open to the questioning.

Religious folk often deny science for that very reason; it challenges scripture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course not, that is why I like it when “status quo” is challenged. If they are wrong, they should be open to the questioning.

And they strive for that, Scientists want the status quo to be challenged. It is one of the reasons that there is no "proof" in science. There is only evidence.

 

[John53]

Of course not, that is why I like it when “status quo” is challenged. If they are wrong, they should be open to the questioning.

They're open to questioning whether right or wrong . I don't get the point of your post unless you're pointing out that sometimes humans get things wrong which is hardly breaking news.

 

[Heyo]

Andrew Snelling when it comes to geology. Though he may be doing it just for the money. He went from being a successful geologist publishing in the field to a creationist rather quickly. I do not think that he even mentions his past work.

Andrew Snelling is the poster child of how compartmentalisation* works. He is able to give a talk about and participate in discussion on geology in the morning and do the same for creationism in the evening.

*Compartmentalisation = euphemism for hypocrisy.

 

[Heyo]

“When it comes to evolution, persecution is an all too well known fact of academic life. Endorsing Darwinian evolution is the safe careerist move, while questioning it can easily mean the end of your career,” added Klinghoffer. “So for every signer of the Dissent list, there is some multiplier’s worth of private skeptics in science, acting self-protectively. That is beyond reasonable doubt.”

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

your statement “ There are only a tiny handful of cranks” is what a dissenter will have to face. Disagree and you are labelled.

Heaven forbid we should have an intelligent discussion about it.

We had. Thesis: YEC are Conspiracy Theorists The result was that, yes, YEC are necessarily Conspiracy Theorists. (And they love it because they love to be "prosecuted".)

 

[Heyo]

These names do indeed represent a tiny handful. Not all are cranks, admittedly. Some were tricked into signing without realising what exactly their signatures would be used to claim. For instance "Darwin" ≠ "Evolution". There are many non-Darwinian processes that have been discovered since his time, more than 150 years ago.

Not all are cranks but not all are scientists either. That list includes scientists and engineers and of the scientists only a tiny minority work in the field of biological evolution.
I bet the number of evolutionary biologist working in the field who aren't paid by the DI or similar organisation and still defend their name being on the list ranges in the single digits.

 

[1213]

Umm .... glad you liked the story friend .. and sorry for missing your response previously . .. but .. what I posted "IS" what is said in the Bible

Where is this in the Bible?
"...were laboring to mine Gold for their atmosphere -- the work was difficult .. and it was decided to create the Adamu .. a being to do the work. This being was created by splicing Annunaki DNA with a primative human ancestor that was around at the time.
The story is far more detailed going into how 7 annunaki women were impregnated and so on.. these Adamu come to multiply like rabbits and become troublesome for some of the Annunaki..."

 

[exchemist]

Andrew Snelling when it comes to geology. Though he may be doing it just for the money. He went from being a successful geologist publishing in the field to a creationist rather quickly. I do not think that he even mentions his past work.

Ah thanks, I hadn't heard of him. Seems to be an Australian nut. I was amused to read this story in his Wiki article:

Snelling, like other young-Earth creationists, believes the Grand Canyon formed as a result of the Biblical flood; In 2013 Snelling applied for a permit to collect 50-60 half-pound rocks from the park.[1][7][3] The application was denied because the National Park Service screens applications to take material from the Grand Canyon, to protect it. One of the three geologists who reviewed the proposal for the National Park Service stated that the type of rock Snelling was trying to test could be found outside the park, and all three reviewers made it clear they did not consider the proposal scientifically valid.[1]

Snelling submitted a revised proposal in 2016.[8] In a letter dated May 5, 2017, the NPS said it found the application acceptable and it was willing to grant it if changes were made to locations and methods of collecting rocks; Snelling proposed to chisel away rocks and to do so from highly visible rock faces, to take samples from land that was not parkland but rather was on an Indian reservation and also from another location that was likely to have archeological remains.[9] The NPS had authorized a river trip for Snelling to survey locations but not to collect specimens; Snelling objected that this would take too much time and expense, and in response in the May 5 letter, the NPS offered to have staff work with Snelling to map locations in a meeting or conference call.[9]

On May 9, 2017, Snelling, with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the United States Department of the Interior and the Grand Canyon National Park authorities, citing the Trump administration's executive order of May 4, 2017 about religious liberty.[1][10][7] In late June 2017 Answers in Genesis released a statement saying the National Park authorities had issued Snelling a permit to collect rock samples, and that Snelling had withdrawn the lawsuit.[2][9][11] Snelling's attorneys did not provide a copy of the permit to a reporter from the Phoenix New Times who requested it.[11]


It looks to me as if his real objective throughout was to put forward a fieldwork proposal that would be rejected, so that he could claim discrimination and a conspiracy against "the truth" without having to run the risk that his "research" would fail to corroborate his hypothesis. It does look as if he has spent some time trying to find reasons to avoid doing it.

 

[Kenny]

They're open to questioning whether right or wrong . I don't get the point of your post unless you're pointing out that sometimes humans get things wrong which is hardly breaking news.

My point is simply that those who question it get the backlash. (As I quoted before)

 

[Sargonski]

Where is this in the Bible?
"...were laboring to mine Gold for their atmosphere -- the work was difficult .. and it was decided to create the Adamu .. a being to do the work. This being was created by splicing Annunaki DNA with a primative human ancestor that was around at the time.
The story is far more detailed going into how 7 annunaki women were impregnated and so on.. these Adamu come to multiply like rabbits and become troublesome for some of the Annunaki..."

The Labor Part is not in the Bible .. That part of the story was left out. The creation of the Human out of "Earth" Clay) = Earthling is in there. The folks doing the creation of primative human called the "Adamu" created this being to be "Like us" - "in our Image". The word Adamu means Earth in Sumerian.

These Adamu multiply like rabbits .. become very numerous and troublesome and hence why Enlil decides to wipe them out with a big flood .. leaving only one family behind .. You must have realized this was standard Bible material ? The 7 annunaki women detail is not in there ... That "EL" is the "Most High" God is not ( EL = Enlil)

How you going to create a being from "Earth" - Earthling and Sky person without splicing the DNA together .. You don't actually think you could create the Adamu simply out of Dirt do you ?

The Sky People are able to mate with .. and do mate with - the Adamu females .. They annukaki and sky people get married, live together and have Children. .. Surely you did not miss that part in the Bible .. can't really see the point of reading Genesis with that part left out sans the Melchi-Zedek scene I suppose.

Genesis 6 begins When humankind[a] began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born[b] to them,[c] 2 the sons of God[d] saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose.

and how did you miss the fact that I say the Ugarit Story is far more detailed ? .. in any case .. Everything is in the Bible except the Laboring for God and that 7 annunaki women served as creation vessels .. although how else is one to do in-vetro fertilization without the involvement of at least one annunaki woman ?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Look friends .. we need only look at History to find the evidence that we need .. and in fact Biblical History supports the Historical Narrative.

If you were living in Mesopotamia from 3000 BC to ~ 500 BC you knew from whence Man (Adamu) came. Whats wrong friends ? -- has no one ever told you what their story was ? We have known this for at least 100 years now ... and in greater detail since we have diciphered part of the Library of Tablets found at Rash Shamra - Ugarit .. 90% still untranslated --- can barely tell the difference between this and Ancient Hebrew .. Ancient Hebrew a Canaanite Dialect.

Surely you have heard by now .. about the "Annunaki" these beings who came from the Sky - down to earth .. and were laboring to mine Gold for their atmosphere -- the work was difficult .. and it was decided to create the Adamu .. a being to do the work. This being was created by splicing Annunaki DNA with a primative human ancestor that was around at the time.

The story is far more detailed going into how 7 annunaki women were impregnated and so on.. these Adamu come to multiply like rabbits and become troublesome for some of the Annunaki -- Enlil in Particular .. who sends a great flood to destroy these unfortunate souls .. fortunately one fellow is helped by another God to build an ark and humanity survives... but I digress.

So .. this is the story that not only the Babylonians, Assyrians, Phonicians, Canaanites, Ammonites, Midianites, Elamites and everyone else believes .. it is the story the Israelites believe. and in fact the God of Abraham turns out to be Enlil (EL, Ellil Ill )

In the Bible story we are told that it is not one God who creates humans but a Group Effort .. created in the image of the Gods = hybrids .. and later we are told that some of these sky people - referred to as "Sons of God" come down to earth and mate with the Adamu women whome they find attractive. have further offspring .. of which we are told were the Great men of Renoun.

Genesis 6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

These beings from the sky would marry these Adamu women .. any of them they chose. Notice the name Adamu in case it was not blatantly obvious ... That was the name of these hybrid beings created by the Annunaki.

"And now you know - The rest of the story"

Ahh, Zecharia Sitchin and David Icke. Do you think they're reptilians, too?

 

[Sargonski]

Ahh, Zecharia Sitchin and David Icke. Do you think they're reptilians, too?

I wasn't talking about either Sitchen .. nor Icke ?? - we are talking the Bible .. and Biblical History and Archaeology .. and No .. I did not suggest the Gods who created humans in the Bible were "Reptilian" .. where are you coming up with this nonsense .. Obviously if these Divine beings married Adamu women .. and had offspring with these beings .. and these beings were "Like US" .. ding ding ding .. !!

Do you look like a Reptile ? and think other humans look like they came from Reptiles in the not too distant past ? "Like US" friend = Like Humans .. not like Reptiles .. that is just silly nonsense to suggest that the Bible calls these folks Reptiles.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I wasn't talking about either Sitchen .. nor Icke ?? - we are talking the Bible .. and Biblical History and Archaeology .. and No .. I did not suggest the Gods who created humans in the Bible were "Reptilian" .. where are you coming up with this nonsense .. Obviously if these Divine beings married Adamu women .. and had offspring with these beings .. and these beings were "Like US" .. ding ding ding .. !!

Do you look like a Reptile ? and think other humans look like they came from Reptiles in the not too distant past ? "Like US" friend = Like Humans .. not like Reptiles .. that is just silly nonsense to suggest that the Bible calls these folks Reptiles.

Because that's where this idea that the Sumerian deities (the Annunaki) were actually ETs who came here to mine gold and genetically engineered humanity as a slave race came from - a series of books by Zecharia Sitchin. David Icke did a lot to popularize these ideas and he added the reptilian thing to it. You're not getting it from the Bible itself.

Zecharia Sitchin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

David Icke - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org