- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Faith in "Science" = "man made religion" (Evolution related)
Posted on 7/28/14 at 9:39 pm to The Dutch Oven
Posted on 7/28/14 at 9:39 pm to The Dutch Oven
Whe they see statements such as these its easy to see why they may be conflicted
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
Gareth J. Nelson
For those who are wondering... Nelson is Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne, where he teaches botany and has written several books on evolution. He is retired from the American Museum of Natural History wher he worked for more than 30 years
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
Gareth J. Nelson
For those who are wondering... Nelson is Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne, where he teaches botany and has written several books on evolution. He is retired from the American Museum of Natural History wher he worked for more than 30 years
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 9:40 pm
2
Posted on 7/28/14 at 9:44 pm to mattloc
For every one scientist that you find that has his doubts or personal convictions regarding evolution..at least twenty just as knowledgeable and dedicated to the field are convinced that it indeed has and continues to occur
I'm just saying
I'm just saying
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 9:50 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 9:57 pm to The Dutch Oven
It is career suicide in the scientific community to come out publically and express doubts about evolution. I just know it is not as well established as some on this board imply. I would be interested to know how many Darwinistic scientists secretly have these doubts
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 9:59 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 9:58 pm to HeadChange
quote:
Just so we are clear, you do buy into evolution on some level (even if your definition is clearly misguided).
Progress is progress I suppose
I wouldn't call something I've believed in since I was young progress.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:07 pm to mattloc
quote:
It is career suicide in the scientific community to come out publically and express doubts about evolution.
There are plenty of scientists who have expressed their take or "disbelief" in the process of evolution. You act as if there are some huge number of scientists out there that hold underground meetings and discuss how and why evolution is wrong and how to get around the prosecuting majority. There is a consensus among the scientific community that it occurs and it has been this way for a long time.
I would be interested to know how many Darwinistic scientists secretly have these doubts
I would as well. But i would venture to say that it isn't a very significant number
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:22 pm to mattloc
quote:
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
Gareth J. Nelson
Well no shite. Everything doesn't just get fossilized. We are lucky to find the fossils we do. And I'm sure there are plenty we still haven't found. That's a meaningless quote.
DNA and mapping the genome have given us far greater evidence than the fossil record ever has.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:23 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I wouldn't call something I've believed in since I was young progress
What are you arguing against then?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:44 pm to HeadChange
quote:
DNA and mapping the genome have given us far greater evidence than the fossil record ever has.
Specifically give one example, your most persuasive DNA evidence
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:49 pm to HeadChange
quote:
What are you arguing against then?
You're the one trying to argue with me.
I've already stated I was not arguing against evolution of some kinds of animals and that I only gave an example where most scientists believe something on blind faith to make the point they are hypocrites if they ridicule other people who also believe something on blind faith.
For example, some people including scientists believe in God while some people including scientists believe there is no God but they both base their beliefs solely on blind faith.
Don't you agree?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:07 pm to mattloc
What, like how closely related our genetics are to say, apes? Or human chromosome #2? Stuff like that?
It's amazing that mapping genomes has only furthered the already compiled evidence for evolution, and people actually choose to remain in the dark.
It's amazing that mapping genomes has only furthered the already compiled evidence for evolution, and people actually choose to remain in the dark.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:10 pm to DawgfaninCa
So we can put to rest your original argument, and find common ground in that we both know evolution isn't made up and actually happens.
Just don't go crawfishin now and say evolution doesn't explain how our why life exists, therfore it's bogus...
Just don't go crawfishin now and say evolution doesn't explain how our why life exists, therfore it's bogus...
Posted on 7/29/14 at 7:23 am to mattloc
quote:Evolution of hominidae into it's current components.
Specifically give one example, your most persuasive DNA evidence
Posted on 7/29/14 at 10:16 am to mattloc
quote:
It is career suicide in the scientific community to come out publically and express doubts about evolution. I just know it is not as well established as some on this board imply. I would be interested to know how many Darwinistic scientists secretly have these doubts
it cracks me up when I see people argue, 'Darwinist scientist with doubt' for two reasons, one, the absolutely monstrous amount of convergent evidence for evolution across multiple related and unrelated science disciplines, and two, the job of a scientist is to prove the other guy WRONG and these doubters simply can't gather a consensus with the alternatives they propose.
They probably number in the hundreds balanced against millions.
Its not career suicide.
They can go work for the 'science' department at the Discovery Institute, the ICR, or even for Ken Ham at the Creation Museum and continue their glorious work in fantasy using their biblical glasses to see thru the devil's work.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 11:30 am to Cruiserhog
I love when these highly speculative posts are thrown out with no concrete evidence to support their conjecture.....my only point is that reasonable people have logical arguments against Darwinian evolution. Scientific consensus is irrelevant...at one time the scientific community believed the world to be flat.
Even some of Darwinisms strongest evidence such as DNA has significant issues, and much of it is being publically veiwed with increasing skepticism in light of ongoing research . For example, the fused chromosome referenced earlier in the thread..... several new studies conclude that it was unlikely that that the fused chromosome resulted in the divergence from a common ancestor due to the deleterious effects of such an event
Even some of Darwinisms strongest evidence such as DNA has significant issues, and much of it is being publically veiwed with increasing skepticism in light of ongoing research . For example, the fused chromosome referenced earlier in the thread..... several new studies conclude that it was unlikely that that the fused chromosome resulted in the divergence from a common ancestor due to the deleterious effects of such an event
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:17 pm to HeadChange
quote:
So we can put to rest your original argument, and find common ground in that we both know evolution isn't made up and actually happens.
Just don't go crawfishin now and say evolution doesn't explain how our why life exists, therfore it's bogus...
Apparently, all you can do is continue to lie about what I said and why I said it.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:45 pm to HeadChange
quote:
What, like how closely related our genetics are to say, apes? Or human chromosome #2? Stuff like that?
It's amazing that mapping genomes has only furthered the already compiled evidence for evolution, and people actually choose to remain in the dark.
Human DNA is also about 50% similar to a banana's DNA and 90% similar to a cat's DNA.
LINK
Even if apes and humans had a common ancestor, it isn't absolute proof that Homo sapiens evolved naturally from that common ancestor.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:51 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I've already stated I was not arguing against evolution of some kinds of animals and that I only gave an example where most scientists believe something on blind faith to make the point they are hypocrites if they ridicule other people who also believe something on blind faith.
For example, some people including scientists believe in God while some people including scientists believe there is no God but they both base their beliefs solely on blind faith.
Don't you agree?
HeadChange, I'm waiting for your response to my question.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 4:27 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
HeadChange, I'm waiting for your response to my question.
you are still using the same definition for faith in separate context.
faith is belief in the absence or on bad evidence
science belief is based on the best evidence available about any particular topic.
so your use of the term blind faith is just plain wrong. stop doing it. Scientist dont use blind faith to assume anything about the natural world they endeavor to discover the reasons why...sometimes we just dont know but you cannot make the leap the supernatural just because its intellectually repugnant.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 5:06 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
you are still using the same definition for faith in separate context.
faith is belief in the absence or on bad evidence
science belief is based on the best evidence available about any particular topic.
so your use of the term blind faith is just plain wrong. stop doing it.
BS!
Since you didn't understand it the first time I said it, I'll say it again.
I said "blind faith" not "faith" for a reason. I used the word "blind" as an intensifier.
"Blind faith" is classifying "faith" to mean "faith without evidence or proof."
The differences between faith & blind faith are simple. Faith is believing in something; with or without any information about whatever that something is. Blind-faith... is lacking in some component(s) of information but still continuing to believe in something
You can have faith that something will occur knowing that the evidence suggests the outcome... but blind-faith is having faith something will occur with no evidence or conflicting evidence against that outcome.
LINK
quote:
Scientist dont use blind faith to assume anything about the natural world they endeavor to discover the reasons why...sometimes we just dont know but you cannot make the leap the supernatural just because its intellectually repugnant.
When scientists believe something based on absolutely no evidence then that belief is based on blind faith.
Provide me with any evidence that even tends to prove their belief that God does not exist.
If scientists can't then they are hypocrites when they ridicule someone who believes that God exists based on no evidence.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 7:27 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
If scientists can't then they are hypocrites when they ridicule someone who believes that God exists based on no evidence.
you really are thick headed.
again its not blind faith or belief in 'zero' evidence the accumulated knowledge of the natural world around us here on Earth and in the vacuum of space lead us to believe life started around 3.5 billion years ago, we dont know exactly how it started, but their is zero evidence to suggest some supernatural power, and now life has evolved over eons to what we observe today
Its hard to argue with someone who assumes some white bearded sky daddy snap-crackle-popped existence when they dont understand the very simplest nature of science...which is the observation of the natural world
Not the super natural....scientist dont write in their journals.
frick it,God went and dun it
We know the orbit of pluto is 248 years but it was discovered this century. is that blind faith? we havent observed a full plutarian year yet, but our accumulated knowledge of math, planetary movement, gravitational interactions, optics, spectography...all tell us what we assume is a correct measurement for pluto's orbit.
Its no different with the origins of life...all the necessary ingredients are out there in space right now to seed life, it just takes a stroke of luck and some chemistry because we are here arguing this right now.
Page 13 of 14
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News