Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Year So Far STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire 7, starting at $49.99 Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports toystl17_gno
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why the dishonesty related to science?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 2551-2575 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012, 9:25:11 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Julian says: No one has ever claimed that evolution was predictive.
>The only thing that evolution predicts for future development of organisms is that changes will be either successful or not successful. That is, changes will allow the organism to adapt to environmental changes or not. Success is measured by survival.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012, 9:28:00 AM PDT
Except that the fossilized animals are all eukaryotes/metazoans, and nothing has changed with regards to those trees.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012, 9:28:03 AM PDT
Doctor Who says:
a) I could not find one instance cited in your first link. It simply jumped up and down and declared itself correct. It simply stated that evolution was falsified but it never presented any evidence.
b) The black box was totally destroyed long ago and that is what your second link is based on.

Doctor, if you wish to contribute please find sources that present evidence, not sources that whine about being right even when their sources have been completely discredited.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012, 11:01:47 AM PDT
Neurons are as neurons do.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012, 11:42:58 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 Jun 19, 2012, 11:49:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 5, 2012, 9:33:08 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 Jun 19, 2012, 11:51:33 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 Jun 19, 2012, 11:52:15 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 Jun 19, 2012, 11:54:58 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 Jun 19, 2012, 11:57:43 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 Jun 20, 2012, 12:00:07 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 Jun 20, 2012, 12:01:38 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 Jun 20, 2012, 12:09:49 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 Jun 20, 2012, 3:48:22 AM PDT
Matt says:
I was not contradicting myself. I was referring to the side-effects that have arisen from the breeding for certain characteristics. This is especially apparent in dogs. Certain breeds, such as German Shepherds, have consistent health problems that appear generation after generation. They are the result of our strictly controlled breeding affecting the genome in unforeseen ways.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012, 8:27:16 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
John Smith says: That pretty much puts evolution theory in a nutshell. It doesn't predict anything.
>Darwin came up with two main predictions, which have been shown to be true. As more discoveries have been made while researching the facets of evolution, more predictions have been made and tested.

If evolution made no testable predictions, it would not be a valid theory. However, it does and it is.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012, 8:50:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 20, 2012, 8:51:09 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
"With millions of years of biological development study at our fingertips, we are unable to reliably predict where evolution is heading?"

That's the nature of a process driven at least partially by randomness, yes. Are you suggesting that this is some sort of flaw in the science?

"That pretty much puts evolution theory in a nutshell. It doesn't predict anything."

Incorrect, as noted above.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012, 11:38:59 AM PDT
Tero says:
Hey, thanks for sharing, Smith.

*puts Smith on ignore*

there, all gone

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2012, 2:28:42 PM PDT
Customer 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 Jun 22, 2012, 3:38:02 PM PDT
Bubba says:
Evolution has been the basis of many predictions, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012, 9:42:58 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 Jul 5, 2012, 9:48:13 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 Jul 5, 2012, 9:54:05 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 Jul 5, 2012, 9:57:17 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 Jul 5, 2012, 9:59:25 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 Jul 5, 2012, 10:03:08 AM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[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
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Archaeology Plus Other Fohrbidden Sciences. 2663 1 hour ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 9867 6 hours ago
Space 2 17 hours ago
Can someone please explain in layman's terms how scientists know who's Jewish? 28 1 day ago
Ocean Floor Mapping 1 2 days ago
So what good is an electronic inside/outside thermometer if you can't calibrate it yourself! 4 4 days ago
Scientist: Trump is Exposing Global Warming as a Made Up Claim. What is Your Response? 1373 5 days ago
Theranos Inc., next phase. 26 9 days ago
Science in Harmony with God 9467 10 days ago
The Science Behind Fetal Pain-related Abortion Legislation 1239 11 days ago
Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann cuts and runs from Court. 10 11 days ago
Right, loss of all engine(s) thrust, no problem. 26 17 days ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  96
Total posts:  2753
Initial post:  Apr 9, 2011
Latest post:  Jun 28, 2015

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