Conquer Club

Backglass wrote:Scientists delight in disproving other Scientists. It's a built-in self-check mechanism

Exactly. But in today's world, studying intelligent design is a scientific sin. People lose their jobs for even mentioning ID. Grant money is taken away from scientists who come up with findings that support ID. How can evolution be proven wrong when the mainstream science community extinguishes every attempt to disprove it?

Scientist study all questions concerning the real world. The whole objective is to uncover the unknown. The central tenet of creationism is that what we don't know is proof there is a god. Thus it is the creationists that limit their investigation, not the scientists.

Caleb the Cruel wrote:

Backglass wrote:Scientists delight in disproving other Scientists. It's a built-in self-check mechanism

Exactly. But in today's world, studying intelligent design is a scientific sin. People lose their jobs for even mentioning ID. Grant money is taken away from scientists who come up with findings that support ID. How can evolution be proven wrong when the mainstream science community extinguishes every attempt to disprove it?

i would like to see some proo for this, i dont buy it. especially the "Grant money is taken away from scientists who come up with findings that support ID" part, examples?

a.sub wrote:

Caleb the Cruel wrote:

Backglass wrote:Scientists delight in disproving other Scientists. It's a built-in self-check mechanism

Exactly. But in today's world, studying intelligent design is a scientific sin. People lose their jobs for even mentioning ID. Grant money is taken away from scientists who come up with findings that support ID. How can evolution be proven wrong when the mainstream science community extinguishes every attempt to disprove it?

i would like to see some proo for this, i dont buy it. especially the "Grant money is taken away from scientists who come up with findings that support ID" part, examples?

Should be plenty of money in those church pews for ID propaganda, ahem, research.

Caleb the Cruel wrote:

Backglass wrote:Scientists delight in disproving other Scientists. It's a built-in self-check mechanism

Exactly. But in today's world, studying intelligent design is a scientific sin. People lose their jobs for even mentioning ID. Grant money is taken away from scientists who come up with findings that support ID. How can evolution be proven wrong when the mainstream science community extinguishes every attempt to disprove it?

This post has 3 huge flaws ;

Firstly it is impossible to scientifically prove a creator so there are no possible findings that support ID.
Secondly ID is not recognised as a science so any grants obtained would be of a fraudelent nature.
Thirdly mainstream scientists strive every single day to improve our knowledge of evolution, that means by the very nature of scientific research that some aspects of evolution will be disproven in turn. What they dont do is specifically attempt to present a case which fits only a certain agenda , that is not the job of science which is why creationists and supporters of ID have no support in the mainstream scientific community.

Yes, but apart from the roads and the drains, what did evolutionists ever do for us?

jonesthecurl wrote:Yes, but apart from the roads and the drains, what did evolutionists ever do for us?

I get the Monty Python reference , on a more serious note, they're in the pursuit of knowledge, for the sake of knowledge. This is not the waste of time that some might think. Take for instance that chemists knew about the properties of liquid crystals at around the turn of the 20th century, but could not make use of it until nearly a hundred years later to manufacture LCD monitors.

The Point? No knowledge is ever wasted.

There is ever so slightly a touch of cultural imperialism in the idea that a lack of belief in the Bible=atheism. It is entirely possible to believe in one of the many other religions, for example, or to have a mind which is open to ideas of God but which is unconvinced by mainstream religion.

It is also perfectly possible to accept that Jesus lived, and to be inspired by his teachings, whilst noticing that the Gospels weren't written by his contemporaries and that the more 'magical' elements are stronger in the later versions than the earlier ones - which looks a lot like myth-making.

None of which has much to do with evolutionary theory, but it seems to be the case that the ID weirdos only exist in a particular group of Christian sects.

deceangli wrote:There is ever so slightly a touch of cultural imperialism in the idea that a lack of belief in the Bible=atheism. It is entirely possible to believe in one of the many other religions, for example, or to have a mind which is open to ideas of God but which is unconvinced by mainstream religion.

It is also perfectly possible to accept that Jesus lived, and to be inspired by his teachings, whilst noticing that the Gospels weren't written by his contemporaries and that the more 'magical' elements are stronger in the later versions than the earlier ones - which looks a lot like myth-making.

None of which has much to do with evolutionary theory, but it seems to be the case that the ID weirdos only exist in a particular group of Christian sects.

Thats exactly the point, the huge majority of religious adherents ( including Christians ) have no problem reconciling evolution with a belief in God. The deranged ( lets be honest - thats what they are ) Young Earth Creationists are screwing up the minds of thousands of kids for no good reason, its tantamount to abuse and its a real shame

Caleb the Cruel wrote:

Backglass wrote:Scientists delight in disproving other Scientists. It's a built-in self-check mechanism

Exactly. But in today's world, studying intelligent design is a scientific sin. People lose their jobs for even mentioning ID. Grant money is taken away from scientists who come up with findings that support ID. How can evolution be proven wrong when the mainstream science community extinguishes every attempt to disprove it?

People lose their jobs because they try to put forward religion as science. That is plain unacceptable. If they used credible science to prove their case, they would be given the Nobel prize ... after a good deal of controversy, because that is how science works.

How can evolution be proven wrong when the mainstream science community extinguishes every attempt to disprove it?

This is VERY far from the truth. The truth, however, is that Creation "scientists" continue to put forward data and assertions that have ALREADY BEEN PROVEN FALSE (such as claims that the Grand Canyon was made by Noah's flood .. this is just not possible), is completely misstated or irrelevant (ideas about the second Law of Theromodynamics come to mind...); Or is actually falsified (the pictures that claim to show human footprints next to dinosaur tracks).

Science, as a whole, does not "care" what theories are proven/put forward (obviously, individual scientists care very much!), but it MUST BE TRUE OBJECTIVE SCIENCE. Creation "scientists" continually dismiss as "invalid" anything that disagrees, without evidential reasoning except the Bible ... and continue to insist that their view of the Bible is the only "proof" that is really needed. (never mind that most Christians disagree) This is not science ...and that is why those scientists have funding pulled, etc.

By-the-way, MANY scientists get their funding pulled for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes it is simply that their particular line of questioning is not popular right then, other issues have more priority. Often times a project will be funded, even if the scientific view is that this will be a "dead end" , because a number of people want the research (research into links betwen autism and vaccination is an example). Once in a while such tracks prove "fruitfull", generate information (may at least spur new, legitimate questions). However, science in general is far more filled with "dead ends" and trails that go nowhere than with results. Even when real results are produced, they are usually just very small steps or changes. It is rare to get truly "earth shattering results. And, along the way are many, many scientists who try and fail or simply are not able to continue.

joecoolfrog wrote:

Caleb the Cruel wrote:

Backglass wrote:Scientists delight in disproving other Scientists. It's a built-in self-check mechanism

Exactly. But in today's world, studying intelligent design is a scientific sin. People lose their jobs for even mentioning ID. Grant money is taken away from scientists who come up with findings that support ID. How can evolution be proven wrong when the mainstream science community extinguishes every attempt to disprove it?

This post has 3 huge flaws ;

Firstly it is impossible to scientifically prove a creator so there are no possible findings that support ID.
Secondly ID is not recognised as a science so any grants obtained would be of a fraudelent nature.

I have to qualify here. There can be and even have been legitimate attempts to use science to support the idea of Intelligent Design and Scientific Creationism. However, the evidence
just has not supported any theory put forward in support of these ideas.

Also, I find this switch in terminology from Creationism to Scientific Creationism to "intelligent design". On its surface, Intelligent design actually seems to be an idea espoused by Christians who accept Evolution as a possibly theory for the origin of life on Earth. After all, God did it ... he just used Evolution to design it.

And, many, many Christians who say they can agree with Intelligent design take this view. It was only when this issue begane to arise in my son's education that I realized how soundly the strict, literal Christian Creationists has co-opted this term for their use. I, frankly find that sort of deception entirely UNChrstian, but sadly, rather characteristic of tactics employed by the Institute for Creation study.

Thirdly mainstream scientists strive every single day to improve our knowledge of evolution, that means by the very nature of scientific research that some aspects of evolution will be disproven in turn. What they dont do is specifically attempt to present a case which fits only a certain agenda , that is not the job of science which is why creationists and supporters of ID have no support in the mainstream scientific community.

This part is true. Funding is often predisposed to answer certain specific questions. If you wish funding under Global warming initiatives , for example, you need to do research on Global warming. It is very unlikely that someone wanting to prove that Carbon 14 dating is not valid will get funding under such a program.

Further, once something is proven and established, you have to find NEW and UNIQUE data, reasoning, research to disprove it. Simply hashing over the same old stuff again and again won't get you anywhere but ignored. Too often that is precisely what Creation Scientists do.

Look at the above debate... how many times does a Creationist say "but wait, you have not considered x". And the Evolutionists come back with "yes, we have ... xyz". the Creationist comes back with "no, no you really haven't considered x .. because it simply does not show xyz" ... and so forth until either the Evolutionist or the Creationist simply gives up the debate.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Caleb the Cruel wrote:

Backglass wrote:Scientists delight in disproving other Scientists. It's a built-in self-check mechanism

Exactly. But in today's world, studying intelligent design is a scientific sin. People lose their jobs for even mentioning ID. Grant money is taken away from scientists who come up with findings that support ID. How can evolution be proven wrong when the mainstream science community extinguishes every attempt to disprove it?

People lose their jobs because they try to put forward religion as science. That is plain unacceptable. If they used credible science to prove their case, they would be given the Nobel prize ... after a good deal of controversy, because that is how science works.

this is a HUGE claim, i demand proof, now

a.sub wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Caleb the Cruel wrote:

Backglass wrote:Scientists delight in disproving other Scientists. It's a built-in self-check mechanism

Exactly. But in today's world, studying intelligent design is a scientific sin. People lose their jobs for even mentioning ID. Grant money is taken away from scientists who come up with findings that support ID. How can evolution be proven wrong when the mainstream science community extinguishes every attempt to disprove it?

People lose their jobs because they try to put forward religion as science. That is plain unacceptable. If they used credible science to prove their case, they would be given the Nobel prize ... after a good deal of controversy, because that is how science works.

this is a HUGE claim, i demand proof, now

of what?

If you mean the job losses... I don't have links, but I know people are fired for bringing religion into government jobs and much of this research (NOT ALL!!!) is done under the government. That is true for ALL religious beliefs, though, not just Christianty. This is why I sometimes, when speaking as a scientist, will sound as if I don't absolutely believe Christianity, because when I am talking to other scientists, I specifically do NOT take my Christian beliefs into the discussion, I accept that I am talking to many who do not believe and go to that which I can prove, leave the God issue for church and philisophic debates (outside of work!). As a scientist, I will not say God definitely exists, because it is not throught science that I know God exists .. it is my belief.

As for the "probably would get the Nobel Prize" bit ... this is just my opinion, not a fact. However, I would put forward what happened with the finding that bacteria cause ulcers. This was disputed for years, scientists did lose funding and get dismissed for asserting this, but ultimately, they won the Nobel Prize. They won not because they kept arguing the same points, but because they conducted painstaking and detailed research to unequivocably PROVE their case. That is science.

In fact, if you look at many Nobel Laureate, you will find similar such stories.

In fact, most of notable science begins with distrust and even derision, whether a Nobel results or not. Science is very far from a unified force. In fact, it is precisely the LACK of unity that marks science. Unity is only hard-won with a LOT of data and research.

This is why claims by Creationists that "there just is no evidence to support Evolution" are met with flat out derision by not just scientists, but virtually anyone who has really studied any sort of real science. Sadly, though, too many kids go through school now without that basic grounding.

Artimis wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Yes, but apart from the roads and the drains, what did evolutionists ever do for us?

I get the Monty Python reference , on a more serious note, they're in the pursuit of knowledge, for the sake of knowledge. This is not the waste of time that some might think. Take for instance that chemists knew about the properties of liquid crystals at around the turn of the 20th century, but could not make use of it until nearly a hundred years later to manufacture LCD monitors.

The Point? No knowledge is ever wasted.

Absolutely.
That guy I'm always quoting defined serendipity as "digging for worms and finding oil"

I have some realy strong points on creation... First of all when is the last time you have seen distruction create life! Why would someting come from nothing and anyone knows if you go out in nature you see the reflection of gods creation + where does your consionce come from... if anyone dissagrees pm me and I will reply with an apropreate an ser

dellmanlego wrote:I have some realy strong points on creation... First of all when is the last time you have seen distruction create life! get spell check Why would someting come from nothing same way we can create something (say a computer) our of nothing (rocks and natural material) and anyone knows if you go out in nature you see the reflection of gods creation ur making the assumption that it is god's creation, this shows your narrow minded mindset, where is the proof? + where does your consionce come from...your conscious comes from the electrical impulses and signals in your brain if anyone dissagrees pm me and I will reply with an apropreate SPELL CHECK an ser

my responses are in red, and i took the liberty of underlining everything u spelled incorrectly for you, im not a great speller but i do have enough courtesy to use spell check.

Honestly busting someones chops for spelling mistakes is pretty weak, even if we both disagree with guy. Send him a pm if you need to vent about his mistakes, you dont have to rile him up out in the public forum.

edit: lol i made a hypocritical post. Saved for posterity.

got tonkaed wrote:Honestly busting someones chops for spelling mistakes is pretty weak, even if we both disagree with guy. Send him a pm if you need to vent about his mistakes, you dont have to rile him up out in the public forum.

edit: lol i made a hypocritical post. Saved for posterity.

yeah in all fairness i was in a bad mood (studying for a math test) lo ciento for my rudeness

got tonkaed wrote:Honestly busting someones chops for spelling mistakes is pretty weak, even if we both disagree with guy. Send him a pm if you need to vent about his mistakes, you dont have to rile him up out in the public forum.

edit: lol i made a hypocritical post. Saved for posterity.

But that spelling is truly horrible, as a Spelling & Grammar Nazi I tend to pm people, but sometimes the public humiliation is warranted.

btw I don't think he meant to ask why we are conscious but why we have a conscience.

"Your conscience is the guy that tells you not to do something after you've already done it".

MeDeFe wrote:btw I don't think he meant to ask why we are conscious but why we have a conscience.

I have to admit that that certainly deserves public humiliation. I don't mind the occasional mistake, but when it is so horrendous you don't even know what the point is it needs to be said.

Surely we should just let evolutionary forces weed out the spelling and grammar disabled? In a literate society, it should only be a matter of time before numpties like this find themselves unable to earn, which will reduce their attractiveness to potential mates.

deceangli wrote:Surely we should just let evolutionary forces weed out the spelling and grammar disabled? In a literate society, it should only be a matter of time before numpties like this find themselves unable to earn, which will reduce their attractiveness to potential mates.

True, but unfortunately the stupid tend to have more children than the smart.

MeDeFe wrote:

deceangli wrote:Surely we should just let evolutionary forces weed out the spelling and grammar disabled? In a literate society, it should only be a matter of time before numpties like this find themselves unable to earn, which will reduce their attractiveness to potential mates.

True, but unfortunately the stupid tend to have more children than the smart.

So why do I seem to be the only person in favor of chemically castrating people with an IQ below 90?

Napoleon Ier wrote:So why do I seem to be the only person in favor of chemically castrating people with an IQ below 90?

That would be because it makes you sound like a Nazi.