You Don't Understand...

[Subduction Zone]

Did you say the paper counters the referenced article in the OP?
I did not see that. I understand that it supports the article, while making an observation suggesting an additional possible idea... which is unknown.

It has recently been found that iridescence, a taxonomically widespread form of animal coloration defined by a change in hue with viewing angle, can act as a highly effective form of camouflage. However, little is known about whether iridescence can confer a survival benefit to prey postdetection and, if so, which optical properties of iridescent prey are important for this putative protective function

The team had previously discovered that iridescence can act as a highly efficient form of camouflage, but whether such striking forms of structural coloration could also protect prey post-detection, and if so, what optical properties were important for this effect, remained unknown until now.

So, because prey may be - little is known about that - able to detect the beetle, doesn't rule out that the beetles use the color as camouflage.
That's not a counter argument. It's additional research in understanding more... or better, about the recent discovery.
Looks like your luck ran out.

What is the point of this rant?

 

[nPeace]

Did you even read my first paragraph? There I specifically outlined a passage, from scripture, the takeaway from which is apparently entirely up for debate. A user here specifically stated that the "boys" in the Elisha and the bears story were actually grown men. So why did the writers/translators of The Bible choose the word "boys" to represent what was being told in that part of the story?

Someone else told me that the boys/men were not mauled, but only separated - referencing a word "tare" used that could mean torn apart or separated. So why did the writers/translators interpret the writing with the word "maul"? Who is right and who is wrong here?

Something doesn't jive with this. So, I would state that it is very difficult to have "a correct understanding of scripture" in a great many cases.

Science does not have the same sorts of problems that you outlined because, again, as I stated, anyone who is worried over the interpretation of the data can take the experiment back to formula. Redo it, in other words, and attempt to measure or assess any of the various inputs to the experiment to falsify or reify the original experimenters results or interpretations. It doesn't have to remain "you have your opinion, and I have mine". The specific example you gave was one scientist questioning another's interpretation of the results, yes. But if the scientist doing the questioning is at all worth his salt, then I am sure he could devise an experiment that would conclusively demonstrate the correct way to interpret the data - which is something you simply can't do in religion. That the dissenting scientist did not take that tack with his refutation of the interpretation of the results does not mean that such simply isn't possible.

I'm not concerned with what every Tom, Dick, and Harry says, that's why I said what I did.
How would you like the "pseudo-scientists" to have a say in science?
See what I mean?

Any person can say anything they like about scripture. That doesn't count, just as you would say pseudo-science doesn't count.
Hope you got the point.

 

[nPeace]

A working hypothesis or sometimes a theoretical model.

Or theories.

Falsified.

Or obsolete theories.

 

[Tiberius]

If you cannot wait, start a thread, and I will get to it, when I am ready.

In my experience, when creationists say this, they mean "never."

I responded to the gist of your arguments, here.

And I responded to that post HERE. Basically, your reply struck me as an attempt to claim that when scientist use the word "interpret" they mean it as "just make something up to explain it."

That's crooked - bent out of shape... twisted, and bandy as ever.

I am pointing out, the facts.
Scientists.... Scientists are willing to

• use limited evidence to reach a conclusion;
• focus on one aspect of investigation, or one study, while ignoring or not taking into consideration other factors, or studies / investigation... which might lead to other conclusions from valid proposals;
• accept wrong interpretations and conclusions, based on the above.

Why?

Again, you are assuming "interpret" means to just make something up. It does not mean that. Each time you try to pass off the word "interpret" as meaning that, you are committing both a strawman fallacy as well as the poisoning the well fallacy.

Regarding the question of if I "think that means that the genetic evidence for evolution should be thrown out", I do not know why you made that assumption, but maybe it has to do with our discussion, where you were denying that interpreting sequenced DNA is necessary for phylogeny.

I was saying that the scientists are basing their conclusions on logic and reason and the scientific method. They are NOT saying, "Well, we might as well say X, it's as good as anything else."

The point I am making, is - setting the record straight...
Scientists say genetics said... Genetics does not say what scientists said, just because scientist said it.

A scientists who has studied genetics for their entire professional career is much better able to reach a valid conclusion about what genetic evidence indicates than you are.

Whether you throw it out, or keep it is no concern to me.
I really do not care what you believe. If you believe that DNA came here from rocks, it's your belief. It doesn't affect me the least.
Unfortunately, there are some here, who think they are the only ones who should have a voice on forums, and if you differ, you cannot express it.
I hope that cap does not fit you.

If I am asked a question, or asked to say why I disagree with something, I will say.
The fact that one doesn't like that I disagree with their beliefs, won't cause me to keep quiet

I don't care if you believe it or not.

What I am saying is that they are far better qualified to figure out what is going on than you are.

Which brings me to #3 - Speculations in science.
There are many. One notable one is the idea that all life on earth share a common ancestor, and the idea suggested here.
View attachment 64101

I hope speculation does not have a meaning, I never heard of, in this case.

You got a source for that? I bet it comes from a creationist website, or from some other source that doesn't actually understand science. Because I've only ever heard creationists use the term "macroevolution."

Failed to show any case of what? That science gets nothing?
I just did. Science is a study. How can it get something wrong. It's the scientists that gets things wrong.
Not science.

You have not shown that science is based on a faulty premise.

I did. On many occasions... even here, but I don't think you seriously want me to waste my time posting them here.
Superseded theories in science
This list catalogs well-accepted theories in science and pre-scientific natural philosophy and natural history which have since been superseded by scientific theories. Many discarded explanations were once supported by a scientific consensus, but replaced after more empirical information became available that identified flaws and prompted new theories which better explain the available data.

Unbelievable. I have to ask you countless times and I finally get an answer.

Are you playing ignorant?

And to absolutely no one's surprise, you are utterly incapable of addressing my post. You ask for a source that shows that scientific interpretation is not just some wild guesswork, I provide one, and you accuse me of being ignorant instead of addressing what I provided.

Quote "Did they reach a conclusion based on knowledge they already had? Yes." Unquote

I was actually referring to the following:

"Did they reach a conclusion based on knowledge they already had? Yes.​

Did they just make a random guess they pulled out of their butt? No."
​

When scientists interpret data, they are basing it on the body of scientific knowledge that has already been worked out. They are NOT making a random guess they just pulled out of their butt.

So now, you give me something on interpretation, and not assumption.... because you can't support your claim, and ...I am not an idiot.

You've been under the impression that interpret and assume mean the same thing for a while now.

And at no time has any scientist ever present an assumption they have made as a fact.

That's okay. I'm used to the weak arguments you guys always pose.
Anyway...
Interpretation involves constructing a logical scientific argument that explains the data. Scientific interpretations are neither absolute truth nor personal opinion: They are inferences, suggestions, or hypotheses about what the data mean, based on a foundation of scientific knowledge and individual expertise. When scientists begin to interpret their data, they draw on their personal and collective knowledge, often talking over results with a colleague across the hall or on another continent. They use experience, logic, and parsimony to construct one or more plausible explanations for the data.

The only difference between interpretation here, and "interpretations" of religious text, is that the later, is an understanding based on all of the information available, whereas the former is a logical scientific argument that tries to explains the data.

HA! A religious interpretation of a holy text involves looking at all the information available? That's rich! Lemme guess - you just discard all the evidence that doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas as wrong, dismiss it, and then you are left with only the evidence that tells you what you've already decided, and thus you reach the conclusion that you were right all along!

That's hilarious.

When the text is interpreted based on logical arguments, we get what we see today - various conflicting opinions that come from the minds of people who measure their expertise, by the size of their ego... and so we have unresolvable problems.

Spoiler: The Documentary Hypothesis

The Documentary Hypothesis
The time has long passed for scholars of every theological persuasion to recognize that the Graf-Wellhausen theory, as a starting point for continued research, is dead. The Documentary Hypothesis and the arguments that support it have been effectively demolished by scholars from many different theological perspectives and areas of expertise. Even so, the ghost of Wellhausen hovers over Old Testament studies and symposiums like a thick fog, adding nothing of substance but effectively obscuring vision. Although actually incompatible with form-critical and archaeology-based studies, the Documentary Hypothesis has managed to remain the mainstay of critical orthodoxy. One wonders if we will ever return to the day when discussions of Genesis will not be stilted by interminable references to P and J. There are indications that such a day is coming. Many scholars are exploring the inadequacies of the Documentary Hypothesis and looking toward new models for explaining the Pentateuch.

However, the text is not understood based on personal opinion. There is a foundation of scriptural knowledge, and there is expertise.... and yes, personal and collective knowledge is drawn on... talking over results with colleagues, yes... experience, yes.
It's a different field, yes, but the methods are somewhat similar, though not the same.
Interpretation is interpretation, regardless the field.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that science can be TESTED. A scientific experiment can be REPEATED.

Good luck doing that with a claim made in a religious text.

But no, you go on thinking it's all the same thing.

Notice this though...
Scientific products and decisions are strengthened by considering all pertinent evidence and exploring various plausible explanations of that evidence. Vigorous internal discussion of different points of view helps to anticipate counter-arguments and alternative positions that could arise during public comment, peer review, and litigation. This process of challenging and improving ideas helps to guard against inadequate science and flawed analyses. The Differing Scientific Opinions document recommends a progression of approaches that employees and managers can use to encourage the expression and satisfactory resolution of differing scientific opinions.

Yet, we have scientists 100 years after carrying out an experiment never actually done before, saying this...
"The idea of 'iridescence as camouflage' is over 100 years old, but our study is the first to show that these early ignored or rejected ideas that 'changeable or metallic colors are among the strongest factors in animals' concealment' have traction,"

What does that tell us?
I know what it tells me. It tells me that scientists are fallible men, who are not free of bias, and or personal agendas, and a lot of "errors" can "go unnoticed"... and they have opinion too.

Again. this says it all.

You have no idea how science works, do you?

1. Ask a question.
2. Gather information about the question.
3. Form an idea (also called a hypothesis).
4. Come up with a way to disprove the idea*.
5. Try to disprove it.
6. If disproved, then abandon the idea. If not disproved, try again.

* This could be through an experiment: "If the idea is right, the experiment results should be X. If the idea is wrong, the experiment results should be Y." Then you perform the experiment and see if you get X or Y. It could also be through the gathering of more data. Or you can use your idea to make a prediction about what else will be found: "If the idea is right, we should be able to find X. If the idea is wrong, we won't find X." Then you go out and see if you can find X.

 

[nPeace]

In my experience, when creationists say this, they mean "never."

That's your problem. You guys always put everyone you argue with, in the same box, and presuppose.

And I responded to that post HERE. Basically, your reply struck me as an attempt to claim that when scientist use the word "interpret" they mean it as "just make something up to explain it."

Your mistake, but what does this have to do with what you asked?
You wanted to know why I started this thread, didn't you. I pointed it out. It's on topic B. Not A.

Again, you are assuming "interpret" means to just make something up.

That a false accusation.

It does not mean that. Each time you try to pass off the word "interpret" as meaning that, you are committing both a strawman fallacy as well as the poisoning the well fallacy.

You created the strawman, by making up stuff, and then attacking it.
I am saying...
Scientists.... Scientists are willing to

• use limited evidence to reach a conclusion;
• focus on one aspect of investigation, or one study, while ignoring or not taking into consideration other factors, or studies / investigation... which might lead to other conclusions from valid proposals;
• accept wrong interpretations and conclusions, based on the above.

Where do you see anything about interpretation there.
Strawman, and a deflection.

I was saying that the scientists are basing their conclusions on logic and reason and the scientific method. They are NOT saying, "Well, we might as well say X, it's as good as anything else."

What does that have to do with anything I said.
They have to interpret... period. You are the one making interpret into something more or less than anyone here even suggested.

A scientists who has studied genetics for their entire professional career is much better able to reach a valid conclusion about what genetic evidence indicates than you are.

True.
I'm not the only one saying that scientists interpret the data. Scientists say that.
Scientists are the ones that say these interpretations are inferences that determine hypotheses.
Want me to quote them?

I don't care if you believe it or not.

Good. Glad to hear.

What I am saying is that they are far better qualified to figure out what is going on than you are.

Okay, but you asked me a question.
Why ask a question, and insist on arguing for what you are saying.
I guess the question was answered then. Okay. Cool.

You got a source for that? I bet it comes from a creationist website, or from some other source that doesn't actually understand science. Because I've only ever heard creationists use the term "macroevolution."

Oops. Sorry. I forgot.
What is macroevolution? - Understanding Evolution
Don't bet in real life. Take my advice.

You have not shown that science is based on a faulty premise.

I'm not trying to show that. Another strawman... and deflection.

Unbelievable. I have to ask you countless times and I finally get an answer.

You asked me countless times. Wow. One time.
I have to ask... you can count, right?

And to absolutely no one's surprise, you are utterly incapable of addressing my post. You ask for a source that shows that scientific interpretation is not just some wild guesswork, I provide one, and you accuse me of being ignorant instead of addressing what I provided.

Wow. I though Jose Fly was most gifted in that area, but you seem to have exceeded him.
Well you are Atheist, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Where did I ask you "for a source that shows that scientific interpretation is not just some wild guesswork"?
Nowhere... and if I were to ask for the quote, you won't find it.

I was actually referring to the following:

"Did they reach a conclusion based on knowledge they already had? Yes.​

Did they just make a random guess they pulled out of their butt? No."
​

When scientists interpret data, they are basing it on the body of scientific knowledge that has already been worked out. They are NOT making a random guess they just pulled out of their butt.

It's all here... written for all to see, that what you are saying, is not true.

Tiberius said
Why is it that anti-science people always hear scientists say "assumption" in the sense of the first definition and always interpret it to mean the second?

nPeace said
First and second definition?
For the record, could you post those here, for all posters, and especially ignorant folk like me. Thanks.

Tiberius said
I literally did. In the first and second sentences of the post you were quoting. You even replied to them.
Quote "Did they reach a conclusion based on knowledge they already had? Yes." Unquote

nPeace said
So assuming means "reaching a conclusion based on previous knowledge". Uh huh. You must think I'm an idiot.
Show me that in a dictionary, or credible source.

So now, you give me something on interpretation, and not assumption.... because you can't support your claim, and ...I am not an idiot.

You've been under the impression that interpret and assume mean the same thing for a while now.

Wow. Man you top Jose Fly in flying colors.
This is clearly not true, putting it mildly.
You guys practice this on a daily basis?
This is my last conversation with you.

And at no time has any scientist ever present an assumption they have made as a fact.


HA! A religious interpretation of a holy text involves looking at all the information available? That's rich! Lemme guess - you just discard all the evidence that doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas as wrong, dismiss it, and then you are left with only the evidence that tells you what you've already decided, and thus you reach the conclusion that you were right all along!

That's hilarious.


The thing you don't seem to understand is that science can be TESTED. A scientific experiment can be REPEATED.

Good luck doing that with a claim made in a religious text.

But no, you go on thinking it's all the same thing.


You have no idea how science works, do you?

1. Ask a question.
2. Gather information about the question.
3. Form an idea (also called a hypothesis).
4. Come up with a way to disprove the idea*.
5. Try to disprove it.
6. If disproved, then abandon the idea. If not disproved, try again.

* This could be through an experiment: "If the idea is right, the experiment results should be X. If the idea is wrong, the experiment results should be Y." Then you perform the experiment and see if you get X or Y. It could also be through the gathering of more data. Or you can use your idea to make a prediction about what else will be found: "If the idea is right, we should be able to find X. If the idea is wrong, we won't find X." Then you go out and see if you can find X.

Good night... and goodbye.

 

[Tiberius]

That's your problem. You guys always put everyone you argue with, in the same box, and presuppose.

I always find it amusing when a creationist tries to tell atheists the modus operandi of atheists. They always get it wrong.

Your mistake, but what does this have to do with what you asked?
You wanted to know why I started this thread, didn't you. I pointed it out. It's on topic B. Not A.

So what? Are we not discussing how scientists interpret data? And your understanding of scientists interpreting data is, "They just make up whatever the hell they want and call it science."

That a false accusation.

It doesn't seem so. You have CONSTANTLY dismissed scientific study as "making up whatever they want." You have displayed no understanding of how science actually works.

You created the strawman, by making up stuff, and then attacking it.
I am saying...
Scientists.... Scientists are willing to

• use limited evidence to reach a conclusion;
• focus on one aspect of investigation, or one study, while ignoring or not taking into consideration other factors, or studies / investigation... which might lead to other conclusions from valid proposals;
• accept wrong interpretations and conclusions, based on the above.

Where do you see anything about interpretation there.
Strawman, and a deflection.

Now who's using a strawman?

Show me one single case of:

• Scientists saying, "We don't have enough evidence to reach a proper conclusion, however, this conclusion we have reached is absolutely right,"
• Scientists deliberately ignoring a source of scientific information in order to concentrate on the information that will give them the result they want,
• Scientists accepting as valid some piece of data that has been shown to be wrong.

What does that have to do with anything I said.
They have to interpret... period. You are the one making interpret into something more or less than anyone here even suggested.

And as I have stated countless times before, you are trying to present scientists interpreting data as making up whatever they want.

True.
I'm not the only one saying that scientists interpret the data. Scientists say that.
Scientists are the ones that say these interpretations are inferences that determine hypotheses.
Want me to quote them?

What's the point when you are going to assume "interpret" means one thing when the scientists in question were using it to mean a different thing?

Okay, but you asked me a question.
Why ask a question, and insist on arguing for what you are saying.
I guess the question was answered then. Okay. Cool.

Your answer shows that you have a fundamental flaw in your worldview and I am trying to help you correct that flaw.

Oops. Sorry. I forgot.
What is macroevolution? - Understanding Evolution
Don't bet in real life. Take my advice.

That's actually really disappointing to see.

Macroevolution is just evolution. Macroevolution, microevolution and just plain old evolution are all the same exact thing. It's like saying microwalking is walking to the next room and macrowalking is walking across the state. It's all the exact same process. But it was creationists who tried to break it up into different things, with the completely incorrect notion that micro-evolution is evolution within a kind and macro-evolution is one kind changing into another.

I'm not trying to show that. Another strawman... and deflection.

Yes you are. Your argument has been, "Scientists base their conclusions on interpretation, so they just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. So how can we be sure we can trust them?"

You asked me countless times. Wow. One time.
I have to ask... you can count, right?

Posts where I asked you to show me a case where science got it wrong:

You Don't Understand...
Please support your claim that the scientists had insufficient data upon which to base their conclusion. (I actually asked you twice in that post)

That's at least twice.

Wow. I though Jose Fly was most gifted in that area, but you seem to have exceeded him.
Well you are Atheist, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Where did I ask you "for a source that shows that scientific interpretation is not just some wild guesswork"?
Nowhere... and if I were to ask for the quote, you won't find it.

You asked for it when you said, "Show me that in a dictionary, or credible source." Post 85.

And don't give me the excuse you were talking about assumptions, not interpretations, since you have demonstrated many times you take a scientific interpretation to be little different.

It's all here... written for all to see, that what you are saying, is not true.

Tiberius said
Why is it that anti-science people always hear scientists say "assumption" in the sense of the first definition and always interpret it to mean the second?

nPeace said
First and second definition?
For the record, could you post those here, for all posters, and especially ignorant folk like me. Thanks.

Tiberius said
I literally did. In the first and second sentences of the post you were quoting. You even replied to them.
Quote "Did they reach a conclusion based on knowledge they already had? Yes." Unquote

nPeace said
So assuming means "reaching a conclusion based on previous knowledge". Uh huh. You must think I'm an idiot.
Show me that in a dictionary, or credible source.

Ah, so then you are claiming for all to see that you think that scientists interpreting scientific data are NOT just making an assumption?

Just to be clear, would you agree to the following:

• An assumption is a guess with little to no evidence to support it.
• An interpretation (when made by scientists) is a valid conclusion reached by studying the available scientific data and, while it may not be correct, it is more valid than an assumption.

Would you agree to those definitions?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Inquiring minds want to know.
We know that H2 bonds with O but "why" - causes us to look into electrons and their interactions.

You are not answering my question.
"what happens in that process"
"why does h2o form"

How are these different questions in any meaningful way?
Will both not be answered by an explanation of how chemical bonds occur?

Yet both obey physical laws

Yes. Because they both exist in the universe.
That doesn't mean they are subject to the same processes.

Evolution for example requires reproduction with variation. Plastic fruit doesn't reproduce, let alone with variation. Same goes for buildings, paintings, boeing 747's etc.

So why would you think you could make an argument against evolution by pointing out the obvious like paintings not being subject to evolution?

Paintings and building are subject to the biology of chemicals, processes, color et al.

That makes no sense. Paintings aren't biological entities and thus aren't subject to biological processes.
Period. End of story. There's nothing else to be said about that.

as does living biological entities... the laws govern both of them.

Being subject to the same forces of nature doesn't mean that they will respond in the same way.

Yesterday I was using a product to dissolve glue for tearing down wallpaper. Curiously my skin didn't dissolve from it.

Yes. that is what YOU said... but I allow you to be wrong every once in a while.

It's the comparison you made by trying to compare biological entities to non-biological entities like buildings and paintings. And you did that to try and make a point about biological processes.

As in "they don't apply to these non-biological entities - therefor they also don't apply to biological entities"

That is the summary of this ludicrous "argument".

But inquiring minds want to know.

If that were actually the case, you would do your best to avoid loaded questions, unsupported premises and assumed conclusions. Such fallacies are mostly used when "inquiring" minds don't actually want to know, but rather wish to rationalize their a priori beliefs.

And the reason one has to resort to fallacies to do so, is because there are no proper rational arguments.

Is there a point here?

//facepalm

The point is that the "argument" of thermodynamics is a very ignorant one. The earth is not a closed system. It is fed with workable energy 24/7.

Do yourself a favor and let go of that particular PRATT.
Read up on thermodynamics and open / closed systems while you are at it.

Still sounds like design, purpose and destiny to me.

Your "opinion", clearly motived by a priori religious beliefs, is neither here nor there.

It is irrelevant, unless you actually wish to support it with a falsifiable / testable hypothesis that actually provides a proper explanatory framework for your wild claims.

Then we can talk about that. Until then, your bare (religious) assertions are dismissed at face value.
Because what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Design always has a designer. just because you don't want to see it doesn't negate the truth.

Dude, I already told you that mere semantic nonsense is not going to cut it.

This is as easy to refute as the following: A river flowing designs geological features like canyons.

And certainly you haven't given me anything to change my position.

There is nothing I can give you...
The reason is, as Dr House once said: You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place...."

Evidence and testability plays no role in your framework of beliefs here.
So evidence and testability is not going to sway you from your religious position, which is faith-based instead.

I could give you all the evidence in the world and it wouldn't make a difference.
Not unless you decide to actually start caring about evidence.
Ironically, when you should do that, you will no longer require me to provide you with evidence... You'll quickly realize on your own that you have no evidence for your position and you'll abandon it as a result.

"just because you don't want to see it doesn't negate the truth"

Decades ago, before internet, cell phone and Apple - 1940's , there was a comic book called Dick Tracy. In this comic book Detective Tracy communicated through a phone located in his watch.

The author saw in the eye of his imagination what was to come. He didn't put limitations on his box.

That was a reality based idea.
Back in the 1940's, it was already clear that the future was all about computers and ever shrinking hardware.

Science-fiction is all about looking at what we know today and extrapolating into the future.
That is not what I was talking about it.
And I suspect you know that very well.

Why do you put limitations on yours?

Imagining a space ship opening a worm hole to travel the galaxy is science fiction. Yet, it is rooted in reality. It might every well turn out to be unfeasible. For example because to open a wormhole it might turn out to require the energy equivalent of an entire star. Or because wormholes turn out not to be possible.

If you can't see the difference between such and "supernatural" things, which have NO rooting in reality AT ALL, then I can't help you.

And God created man in His Image(ination) and in His likeness, male and female create He them.
You are designed with design, purpose and destiny... but you can limit it if you want.

The evidence of life's ancestry says differently.
But like I said previously - evidence and testability are not things that are important in your framework of beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Doesn't it? Unless there is a driving force helping it?

You mean... like a star that feeds the environment with workable energy 24/7?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, as the OP suggested, two different intelligent viewpoints looking at the same evidence.

You don't know what evidence is, do you?
Or you ignore it for the purpose of rationalizing religious belief.

Evidence is data that supports an idea by being in line with the expectations and predictions of said idea.

Meaning, that something can ONLY be evidence IF there is an idea that is clear enough so that it has testable expectations and predictions.

Evolution theory is such an idea.

Your religious claims are nowhere near such an idea.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So we are in full circle to the OP where two intelligent people look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions.

One using fallacious ideas to try and retro-actively claim that the data supports their a priori belief.

The other being a proper scientific conclusion.

I don't consider both practices "intelligent".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

one can begin to wonder if over time, it became more political and money driven than genuine science review.

That is ridiculous and demonstrates that you don't really know much about scientific inquiry.
Scientific advancement is the very MOTOR of economic growth. It's how new tech is developed.
It's how, as a society, you can make leaps forward.

There is ZERO economic interest in simply "upholding the status quo" or clinging to a disproven idea or whatever.

Because science that is incorrect does NOT lead to tech advancement and development.
A country that engages in this, is certain to be left behind on the global stage.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that's the key! If someone disagrees with you, then are "loons".

They are called loons not because they disagree, but because of what they say and claim.

No bias whatsoever.

I'm very very biased when it comes to science.
I'm biased against everything that is claimed without evidence and / or falsifiability / testability.
Very biased indeed.

I consider it a good thing.

I'm not biased towards specific ideas or contents however.
Just towards those ideas requiring testability and supportive evidence.
Those are the criteria.

Your criteria rather seem to be something more to the lines of "...If it doesn't agree with my a priori religion, then I'm going to call it incorrect, regardless of what it is or how much evidence supports it"

So the 6 billion people who believe in God or gods are all loons. Got it!

Sneaky and dishonest.

@Subduction Zone was not at all talking about anybody that has religious beliefs one way or the other.
He was talking specifically about a handful of "biologists" who are fundamentalist theists (creationists).

Also, just as a side FYI: the majority of christians have no problem with evolution.
Not that you care about that.

 

[Kenny]

Actually, the issue is not intelligence so much as knowledge.

I would not ask a the ticket agent at the airport to tell me if this lump in my abdomen is a medical issue. Not because I think that person is smart or stupid, but simply because they do not have the knowledge of medicine acquired through years of schooling, training and experience. Yet, we see that sort of untrained persons handing out medical advice on the internet and other media all the time.

Whose word do you consider giving more weight? The trained person with established expertise or the untrained person that did a brief Google search and found something that agrees with their personal opinion? Both a ticket agent and a doctor can have positions on a question of health, but do you really think that merely having such opinions makes them equal?

I don't really have a lump in my abdomen. But if I did, I would go to a doctor.

True... true... But when two knowledgeable scientists have two different viewpoints... which one is right?

 

[Kenny]

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you claiming that creationism is a big debate among different factions of scientists? Most of the ID group is a small and dwindling (perhaps dwindled) group of mostly non-scientists, for instance.

From a position of evidence and science, the only professional opinions I have seen regarding the origin of life is that we do not know a naturalistic mechanism for it, but are exploring hypotheses.

Isn't that the point? Because no one has figured it out they are exploring hypothesis?

As far as dwindling, how much is "dwindling"?

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Sounds more like non-beliers are dwindling.

Don't drink the koolaid.

Scientists and Belief

 

[Kenny]

Yes. Because they both exist in the universe.
That doesn't mean they are subject to the same processes.

Evolution for example requires reproduction with variation. Plastic fruit doesn't reproduce, let alone with variation. Same goes for buildings, paintings, boeing 747's etc.

So why would you think you could make an argument against evolution by pointing out the obvious like paintings not being subject to evolution?

I realize that you are engrained in your position but

That makes no sense

That isn't an answer... IMV, it is a copout.

Where have I made an argument against evolution? When did I make an argument against evolution?

When you are so fixated in a position that you can't even keep a clear head on what we are talking about, then even if you answer 100 of my posts, you just won't make sense.

Flooding a thread with all your posts doesn't address my points.

please come out of your box so we can have a good exchange of ideas.

**mod edit**

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Isn't that the point? Because no one has figured it out they are exploring hypothesis?

As far as dwindling, how much is "dwindling"?

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Sounds more like non-beliers are dwindling.

Don't drink the koolaid.

Scientists and Belief

You misunderstand, or I misunderstood you. I'm not talking about the faith of scientists. I'm a scientist with faith. What I am talking about are that very, very small group of scientists that claim there is science and evidence to demonstrate the supernatural (creator/designer/god).

Overlooking the fact that ID was just a means to subvert the Constitution and get religion into public schools on the state dime, ideas like irreducible complexity as evidence showing a creator have failed. Very few actual scientists hold or have held that view of trying to mix the unfalsifiable into science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

True... true... But when two knowledgeable scientists have two different viewpoints... which one is right?

I don't know the answer to that. It would depend on the science in contention and the evidence and reasoning each is using. Most of the time, those arguments are among scientists regarding new lines of research and hypothesis testing that are often too esoteric for the public to show interest or have had time to understand the cutting edge science.

The more usual differences arise when one or a small group of scientists make radical claims contrary to established science and often with agendas outside of science. Those agendas are not necessarily based on science or science that is the research focus of those scientists. Like a biologist coming to some alternative origin for the universe. It would not be unreasonable to question the qualifications of a biologist that starts making claims about cosmology, for instance.

I have seen a few scientists and more often those in related professions like doctors and dentists use that vague association of position to peddle woo ideas that are unfalsifiable or merely personal opinion as if it were fact. Not everyone has the understanding to reject those ideas on their merits. Not everyone is in a position to interpret those things equally.

 

[Kenny]

You misunderstand, or I misunderstood you. I'm not talking about the faith of scientists. I'm a scientist with faith. What I am talking about are that very, very small group of scientists that claim there is science and evidence to demonstrate the supernatural (creator/designer/god).

Overlooking the fact that ID was just a means to subvert the Constitution and get religion into public schools on the state dime, ideas like irreducible complexity as evidence showing a creator have failed. Very few actual scientists hold or have held that view of trying to mix the unfalsifiable into science.

This has multiple points that can be new threads (such as the Constitution comment.)

But as far as the first, yes, I think we are crossing wires here.

The most I have said is simply (paraphrased) "As I considered my field of expertise, I have come to the conclusion that only a Creator could have caused this to happen" - not that "science" proved it happened that way.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True... true... But when two knowledgeable scientists have two different viewpoints... which one is right?

The one who can best support his case with evidence is tentatively correct.
Who holds the viewpoints is irrelevant.
How the viewpoints are supported by actual evidence is what matters.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Isn't that the point? Because no one has figured it out they are exploring hypothesis?

Hypothesis, yes.
Not just any brainfart.

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Sounds more like non-beliers are dwindling.

Again sneaky and dishonest.

Believing in a "higher power" =/= believing that this god performs miracles all over the place or has any hand in the process of the origins of life - or anything else.

Don't drink the koolaid.
Scientists and Belief

Perhaps don't engage in strawmen.