Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why the dishonesty related to science?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 2576-2600 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 1:39:06 PM PDT
Re John Smith, 7-5 9:48 AM: "Evolution is a process. Processes do not make "testable predictions"." Evolution is indeed a process -- but it is also a theory, which means that it not only CAN make predictions -- but MUST do so. (This is an essential element of ANY scientific theory.) And anyone doing work in the biological sciences MUST be able to use the ToE to make predictions, as it is damned difficult to do useful work without it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 2:26:39 PM PDT
Julian says:
I was not contradicting Darwin either. Yes, we can more or less reliably predict the outcome of certain breeding pairs and some of the characteristics that arise. However, we in no way have complete control over the outcome if the affected genes do not create a visible difference or if that difference does not arise until later in the organism's life cycle. By later I mean after the organism's development and reproduction periods. These genes may eventually cause problems if breeders inbreed their stock and cause negative mutations to accumulate as they select for desirable traits. This is exactly what has happened with dog breeds such as german shepherds who have hip problems later in life.

I have read Darwin's works and have discussed them thoroughly with my colleagues

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 4:23:26 PM PDT
Re Julian, above: All of this is correct.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 5:12:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 6, 2012 5:18:29 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 7:40:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 6, 2012 7:42:07 PM PDT
Bubba says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2012 8:54:44 AM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Aug 10, 2012 9:54:25 AM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Aug 10, 2012 9:56:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 10, 2012 9:58:32 AM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2012 10:21:31 AM PDT
barbW says:
"Evolutionists seem to be divided into 2 camps: those who consider it a fully randomized process, and those who ascribe some semblance of order to it. This seems odd after having so many years to get it right, and disseminate it correctly."

Scientists don't know everything, which they say over and over. A theory is developed and other theories are welcomed. The best theory rises to the top, but the process never ends.

In creationism, none of this seems to happen. Creationists say they have the source book. They try to reject everything else. The 'process' ended long ago, because they can't risk a finding that contradicts...

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 11, 2012 1:32:08 AM PDT
A customer says:
John Smith - "This seems odd after having so many years to get it right, and disseminate it correctly."

Indeed. Well, either that or you're using a Straw Man.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 11, 2012 9:01:36 AM PDT
Re John Smith, 8-10 8:54 AM: "If complete control over an outcome is possible through the TOE, that would speak to the issue of it being reliable as a predictive tool." This shows a misunderstanding of what evolution IS: it does provide control, but it is inherently limited as a predictive tool because of the random nature of mutations. But this does not preclude it having SOME predictive value; many random processes are at least somewhat predictable.

"If evolution is a fact, " Of course it is.
" it can be profiled through analyzing the process that it is." Which is done, and is how we know that it IS a fact.

"Evolutionists seem to be divided into 2 camps..." False dichotomy. Mutations are random; selection is NOT.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 17, 2012 10:32:59 PM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 17, 2012 10:38:10 PM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 17, 2012 11:14:04 PM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Sep 17, 2012 11:15:00 PM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 6:39:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2012 6:42:40 AM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 7:31:31 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 9:16:44 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hiding from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work. Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

Creationists are dumber than snake mittens.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 12:41:20 PM PDT
Lisareads says:
Column: Stealth war to redefine science
By Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell
In our state of political gridlock, the scientific community fears the impact of the looming federal budget cuts known as "sequestration." But there is something else they should be fearful of: the redefining of science itself.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 8:38:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2012 8:39:20 PM PDT
Re John Smith, 9-28 6:39 AM: "1. "Evolution" is a word that describes a process." Okay.
"2. The TOE is an attempt at describing the process of evolution..." Also okay.
"By equating "process" with "theory", you may be falsely ascribing "factors or results of a process" to "testable predictions"." This is wrong. Evolution is a process, and the theory of evolution describes how that process works. The theory is testable, and has been [1]; furthermore, unlike most scientific theories, it is provably correct [2].

1. Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.
2. "Search Customer Discussions" for "saunderse" in "Belief in the Christian god is absurd" forum for the proof.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2012 7:26:09 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2012 7:31:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 9, 2012 7:41:32 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2012 2:38:21 PM PDT
"Give page or other reference numbers for your often repeated, generic, and otherwise daft-looking citations. "

But when Noman does this, do you listen to him??

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 2:31:25 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Nov 11, 2012 2:32:23 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 2:36:06 AM PST
Christine,

I can't HEAR you, or Ms. no man (spacing is mine; descriptive lower case used, and definitely not in proper noun form -- remember your grammar)!!

Besides. I read the mail... I don't zing it! Why do you?!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  95
Total posts:  2737
Initial post:  Apr 9, 2011
Latest post:  Jul 11, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions