 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ebbie Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:15 PM Many a nay-sayer starts out with that proviso before giving their opinion on issues ranging from stem cell research to climate change and bunches between. It just occurred to me that when a person says that, they are implicitly acknowledging that a scientist is better qualified than they are to speak on the subject. So why do they bother? What do they think gives them credibility? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Lighter Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:24 PM The fact that they're not scientists. I don't think they're acknowledging that scientists are "better qualified" at all. I think they're suggesting instead that scientists are self-important blowhards, while they themselves are practical, commonsensical people who can see through scientists' claims to superior knowledge. Such people nowadays often invoke the "smell test" as the ultimate experimental procedure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: michaelr Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:25 PM Well, I'm no psychologist, but I believe that people are very fond of their opinions and like to share them with others, be they well-founded or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Greg F. Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:28 PM So why do they bother? Suggest you ask the Republican Party with their history on climate change and all the rest of their "War on Science". Or, perhaps they're just idiots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:53 PM You don't need qualifications to be a scientist. At heart, all human beings are scientists. For the whole of the several millions of years of the existence of Homo, except for the last two or three hundred, all we've had to help us to explain the world are our five senses coupled with that mightiest of nature's inventions, the human brain. You go round with your eyes open, you become curious about what you see, and you try to explain it. But here's the rub: you realise that plausible explanations are possible only with evidence. Not witness, hearsay, tradition, the sayings of wise men, edicts, what you read in the Daily Mail, or, worst of all, ancient texts of dubious provenance. Once you realise what the real evidence test is, you're as mighty a scientist as Galileo or Einstein. And that does not require a university degree! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: gnu Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:11 PM Soooo, to be a scientist, all you need to do is be rigorous in scientific principles and endeavours? Sounds cool. I can get with that. Unfortunately, there are many who don't, although I empirically postulate such based solely upon my cursory analyses of an unlimited sample size of bullshit which I can't be arsed to tie together because of the sheer volume of stupidity exercised ad infintum every time I hear one more idiot say shit and not back it up. Of course, I could be wrong... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Rapparee Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:24 PM So, gnu, please cite your sources, both primary, secondary, and experimental. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:27 PM Many scientists conduct research in narrow fiends, with varying degrees of certainity and resolution. Most folks want answers to broad and far reaching questions, and want them now. Where uncertainity exists, and wherecwhat seems to be oposing science theories exist, many join the dots and meld their interpretation of sciebce together with notions to form their own conclusions (frequently lined up with those which seem the most convienent to them). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:40 PM I'm more concerned about the ones who claim to be scientists when they clearly have no understanding of how it works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:41 PM To add to the dilema, few scientists are interested, nor reinforced to communicate their science to the public. Among those who do, a large percentage have difficulty in making it interesting and understandable. Those few scientists who have the interest and good communication skills are frequently looked down upon by fellow scientists-who seem more interested in science precision than reaching and educating the public. The media, an important route to reach the public is often held with suspician by scientists, as the entertainement aspect is often seen as unimportant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:53 PM "I'm more concerned about the ones who claim to be scientists when they clearly have no understanding of how it works." And, there is also that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Gurney Date: 02 Dec 14 - 10:56 PM Ed T, on Dec2, did you really mean skinny devils? grin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ebbie Date: 03 Dec 14 - 02:10 AM I wondered too. In just how many forms do devils appear? :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 03 Dec 14 - 02:31 AM Two Christian evangelists knocked on my door the other day. They tried to persuade me that God exists and the He created the Universe. I asked them how they knew that. One of them patted the bricks around my door frame and said, "well, I always point to a person's house and tell them that someone must have created it!" To which I replied, "that's just an hypothesis based on an analogy; now where's your supporting evidence?" They both left rather swiftly! In the end, all opinions are relatively worthless and equate to mere hypotheses - unless supported by convincing evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 03 Dec 14 - 02:53 AM There can be rigorous rules of procedure to be in a position to test a hypothesis and publish your results. However, if a newspaper wishes to discredit you with a bloke in the pub's view and they refer to him as a scientist, you are screwed. The term scientist is much abused, hence oxymorons such as "Christian Science" but no matter who you are, what you say or the foundation of your stance, you run the risk of being "they" as in "they are telling us sugar is bad when only ten years ago they told us it was ok." "They" is a big pool of resource! My more recent experience of this is in health. All healthcare in England is subject to, if it fits registration criteria, a regulation that says guidelines and published research must be taken into account. That is one hell of a wide statement. However, the commentary to the law (Health and Social Care Act 2008, regulated activities regulations 2010) stipulates what can be used. Accredited research for instance includes anything published in British Medical Journal, Lancet and any and all equivalents in EU, Australia or New Zealand. Only New England Journal of Medicine can he considered from The USA and Canada. All other publications cannot be guaranteed free of commercial bias in conclusion. It is made easier to rely on NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) as they work to this formula in developing guidelines. In short, where it counts science is observed. Ironically, many U.S. healthcare providers use NICE now, including Kaiser Permanante and Evercare in many areas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Gurney Date: 03 Dec 14 - 02:59 AM I suppose that the reason folk sometimes find scientific opinion arguable is that sometimes their work is published in the popular press, and a slant given to the conclusions which makes people look at each other and wonder why anyone would spend time to study something that looks to have an obvious answer, to the uninitiated, anyway. The scientist is looking for Why, but us numbskulls wonder, 'why bother? What's the problem? Isn't it obvious?' And 'how did they get funding to study that, anyway?' Findings taken out of context, that's what I'm trying to say. Not that I'm a social scientist. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 03 Dec 14 - 03:46 AM ""skinny devils"" Huh? In what thread? I dont see it here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Les in Chorlton Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:03 AM Ignorance is not a point of view. 'Common Sense' shows the sun passing over our heads every day. Science just a bit more tricky? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:09 AM Then there are the people who think they know and understand History better than the Historians, who have got it all wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:15 AM Would that be the history of science, K A of H? If so, can you broaden your meaning a bit, as I haven't considered that perspevtive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:17 AM The term is "history" not "History." The term is "historians" not "Historians." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:20 AM "However, if a newspaper wishes to discredit you with a bloke in the pub's view and they refer to him as a scientist, you are screwed." This reminds me of the current situation vis-a-vis human-induced climate change - particularly in the US. There now seems to be unequivocal evidence (see recent IPCC reports) that the burning of fossil fuels is leading to dangerous, and probably irreversible, climate change. If this climate change is not tackled soon the prospects for our species, and every other species on the planet, are bleak. The science behind all of this is based on hard evidence which has been published in respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journals. According to the IPPC, around 97% of the world's climate scientists agree that dangerous climate change is happening and is being caused by fossil fuel burning. But, of course, the science threatens the profits and future of the immensely powerful, and almost inconceivably wealthy, fossil fuel industry and associated industries. One of the tactics which they use, to counter the science, is to set up 'think tanks' often staffed by people with real scientific qualifications. Many of these are, in fact, retired 'Cold War Warriors' who think that environmentalism is a sort of 'communist plot' (environmentalist are 'water melons' - green on the outside but red on the inside (!)). They publish their opinions (rarely backed by evidence) in glossy, 'scientifically-respectable-seeming' publications. The mass media, who, of course, collectively, have little understanding of science believe that they must provide 'balance' and give both sides of the 'argument'. But, in this case, balance is irrelevant - only hard, scientific evidence has any meaning. Unfortunately, scientists know that there is rarely any such thing as certainty and tend to attach probability estimates to all of their findings. In addition the atmosphere/land/ocean system is immensely complex and there are still many unknowns (and probably always will be). Critics can, of course, always point to these uncertainties and shout: "Aha! You're not certain about the reality of climate change then!" and imply to a scientifically illiterate media and public that because uncertainties exist the science must all be wrong. Thus the fate of our species is sealed (although, of course, the rest of the biosphere will recover in a couple of million years). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:22 AM Ed, in the WWI debate here, some people are challenging the findings of the historians and claiming to just know what happened. Belief over evidence. On the actual subject, nutritional scientists are currently challenging the risk factors previously ascribed to consuming animal fats like butter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:30 AM It would help if "the historians" was a single view, hypothesis or conclusion, but Keith A of Hertford inadvertently gives us an excellent example of what happens when people say "the scientists" as a single block. "Belief over evidence." Yes, you keep reminding everybody you are a Christian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: G-Force Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:21 AM Scientists are employees. Someone is paying their wages. So they better come up with 'science' which supports the wage-payer's agenda, or they're soon going to be ex-scientists. Explains a lot of what goes on, and why I for one take man-made global warming with a pinch of salt. But then, I'm not a scientist ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:24 AM Aw, History of Science is fun, learning how Scientists suddenly became convinced in the late 17th Century that they knew it all, and steadfastly refuse to discuss how they got there and all the crap they had to dump along the way, or then to recognise that there may still be a load of it on board now, not least in the Medical profession. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:37 AM ""Scientists are employees. Someone is paying their wages. "" If they are government scientists, one could assume the goal is "science for the public good" (unless in cases where they are pressured by their political bosses)? If financed by an industry with a direct financial interest in the result, the impartiality of their research would (and should) be under suspect. A rigid "peer review" should go far towards weeding out poor science-but, does nothing to determine what is subject to the research, nor what is made public. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:43 AM Where did you ever read all that about the history of Science, Rahere? That brief, but all encompassing, assessment of the history of all science seems kinda off base to me. While it may sum up some personal assessments of individual scientists, quasi-scientists and politically-minded folks, it does not seem like a reasonable assessment of all science, as it has evolved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 03 Dec 14 - 08:28 AM The History of Science. Wow How many years were you stuck to a table in The British Library? Anything you had to visit US Library of Congress for? The Bodlien takes some getting through I hear. If you know where the contents of the library of Alexandria is, pray tell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:43 AM "Explains a lot of what goes on, and why I for one take man-made global warming with a pinch of salt. But then, I'm not a scientist ..." Obviously not, G-Force - and so you have no qualifications in climate science then? Nevertheless, it's interesting - but rather in contradiction to your position above - that you should take the side of the fossil fuel industry ... and the people they PAY to hold denialist views (?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:48 AM I wouldn't be a climate denier unless the oil barons were paying me millions either. But to do it for nothing? You are short changing your intellect G-Force, such as it is... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,# Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:55 AM "and why I for one take man-made global warming with a pinch of salt. But then, I'm not a scientist ..." Maybe gastronomy could go a little further down the list :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,BrendanB Date: 03 Dec 14 - 11:30 AM It seems to me that an awful lot of non-scientists want certainty but I do not think that that is a currency in which scientists deal. As I am not a scientist I cannot be certain of that. By the way, NICE refers to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The name was changed some months ago. Thought Musket would have known that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 03 Dec 14 - 11:48 AM Well, I'm not a scientist, but I know one thing. There is only one person's opinion that really counts around here and that is 100% reliable, no matter what the subject is... Mine! That's right. My opinion. Not yers...mine. This has been obvious to me for a long time. And that is why I am so free about givin' my valuable opinion out to the world. The world needs my opinion. It don't need your opinion. All the posts above this one are just a buncha rubbish, horse manure, and a lotta unfounded assumptions that don't got a leg to stand on. You might as well all just shut up, stop poundin' uselessly on the keys, and spare the world from yer vain and pointless pontificatin', coz it don't amount to a hill of beans, see? You want the real answers to the important questions? Ask me. And be glad I am around to straighten you out on this stuff, specially you bozos in the UK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ebbie Date: 03 Dec 14 - 12:52 PM Ed T, take a look at 8:27, December 2. :) *************** You better all believe Chongo. The likelihood that he would be wrong twice on the same day would be very slim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: gnu Date: 03 Dec 14 - 12:57 PM "So, gnu, please cite your sources, both primary, secondary, and experimental." The answer to your request is readily available in my treatise (which is, apparently, the subject of your request) published in the Lyrics & Knowledge forum of the internUt website The Mudcat Café in the thread entitled "RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...", Dated: 02 Dec 14 - 08:11 PM. Was this helpful? Yes __ No __ Do you want to be contacted by a research associate?* __ * Fees and taxes may apply. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Hilo Date: 03 Dec 14 - 01:01 PM With regard to some of the above posts,I would like to quote a "scientist"... " The difference between genius and stupidity Is the genius has limits." Albert Einstein |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 03 Dec 14 - 01:31 PM I've been there, and bought the T shirt. I am not a.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Gurney Date: 03 Dec 14 - 02:46 PM Chongo, get back on your perch. If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your hat off, and consequently your opinions leave much to be desired. Anyone who fancies Bonobos..... And dislikes Gorillas! For heavens sake! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 03 Dec 14 - 03:42 PM Of course, the way to deal with those of us who are not scientists but disagree with the opinions of ....some, or even most ...scientists, is to give reasoned arguments that amount to more than consensus appeal, or appeal to data, that some other scientists interpret alternatively, and thus the consensus opinion is not absolute evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:16 PM Opinions are never evidence, pete dear chappie. You really haven't a clue about this, have you. Don't you need a holiday? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,They're coming to take me away.... Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:28 PM These boyos believe the lads in white coats are fellow scientists... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Greg F. Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:50 PM the way to deal with those of us who are not scientists but disagree with the opinions of ....some, or even most ...scientists, is to give reasoned arguments... Now THAT, pete, particularly in your case, really is hysterically funny. Or perhaps abysmally sad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:33 PM Maybe this fellow could shed some light on the matter... The definitive opinion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:24 PM All that does LH is attract moths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:28 PM " ... thus the consensus opinion is not absolute evidence." Now didn't someone tell me once, pete, that belief in the veracity of the Bible is based on consensus? Or have I got that wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:47 PM and thus the consensus opinion is not absolute evidence. Science doesn't do absolute evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:36 PM Belief in the Bible is not necessarily based on consensus. It's based more than anything else on the Bible being part of a familiar cultural tradition, and that doesn't always equate to "belief" either. I've known many Christians who certainly don't believe in everything that's in the Bible, either in a literal or in a metaphorical sense...but they may still find considerable inspiration in various parts of it, particularly the moral/philosophical tales that are said to emanate from Jesus. This doesn't mean they have to believe everything that's in the book! (And yes, some of them do believe every word...but many others don't. There is no consensus in the Christian religion...rather, there are many widely differing viewpoints and that has led to the religion fragmenting into many different churches and sects in the last 2,000 years. Even within those sects there is much debate about doctrine, and it's ongoing...and probably always will be. Like other institutions the church evolves and changes.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:52 PM ""Science doesn't do absolute evidence""..., nor does it claim to be in any way infallible-or claims to represent the final word on anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Rapparee Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:30 PM But science does do absolutes. Anything else is philosophy, except when philosophy is dealing with absolutes and then it becomes some sort of theology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:08 AM NICE has added a word to its name to reflect additional responsibilities since the demise of NPSA. Well done Brendan. I am set in my ways and since stepping down am set in a time warp. The musical chairs is such that on Radio 4 last week, the president of The Royal College of Surgeons referred to SHO doctors. They haven't been called that for six years and his college led the way in renaming junior doctor grades. Was there a point to your post other than smarting where you have inadvertently been made to look a cunt in the past? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:33 AM Thank you, LH, for the clarification. Nevertheless, I raised the point because, in these discussions, pete always raises the question of concensus in science - and there is always the implication, in his posts, that scientific conclusions (or 'opinions' as he mistakenly believes them to be) involving concensus are somehow inferior ... to conclusions/'opinions' not involving concensus (!) Let's be clear: - The opinions of 'Joe Bloggs', from down the pub, may well say more about whatever it is goes on in his head than they say about the real world. Having said that, though, some people's opinions are more worth listening to, and considering, than others. - There may be concensus among the members of a particular group (a group of religious fundamentalists, for example), on some topic that interests them, but unless that concensus opinion is based on evidence, it's not really worth the proverbial 'hill-of-beans'. - Concensus among scientists, though, is invariably based on evidence. And that evidence may have been gathered, considered and evaluated over many years, decades or even centuries. To be taken seriously, by the scientific community, the evidence has to be consistent and reproducible. Conclusions, models and scientific theories, based on such high quality evidence, is infinitely superior to mere opinion! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 04 Dec 14 - 06:11 AM I am not a reverend, but it seems people have alot of "beliefs". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw shunning his lab coat Date: 04 Dec 14 - 07:04 AM Well, I should like to return to the sentiment of the original post, which, I believe, was simple enough in feeling (though, I hasten to add, the very opposite of simplistic, and I hope that my first response to it was respectful enough). I see that we have Snail back in the mix with his insinuations again. His goal, as ever, appears to be to put some distance between scientists' intellects and the rest of us plebs by making science sound impossible, though, fair dues to the man, he hasn't mentioned Popper in this thread yet. :-) Well, much as Snail and his ilk would like to characterise science as something very difficult and arcane such that we common people had better avoid it and stick to our superstitions, it's actually incredibly easy. Sure, you won't have spent all day in some lab with bubbling broths all around you. And you may not have been to university and kept up with all the latest complex notions. But if you are curious about the world, refuse to take anything at face value, demand evidence (and know what "evidence" means), and realise that science is not a quest for proofs or certainties, you're a scientist. And you don't even have to take the word of other scientists either: Sir Isaac Newton believed in both God and alchemy, remember. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 04 Dec 14 - 07:41 AM "Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."― Richard P. Feynman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:01 AM "But science does do absolutes. " I could make some jokes, too...but..." Anything else is philosophy" the following IS philosophy of science...(we philosophers get to meddle in everyone's business by just putting "Philosophy of" in front of it.) Science LOOKS for absolutes... but nothing approaches scientific absolutes except certain generalizations about behavior of matter 'under certain conditions'. "Most paper will burn given a heat source and X concentration of Oxygen"... or some such formulation. Absolutes? Hard to pin down, as this shows. (sorry Pete 7*) "The discovery of DNA in a 400,000-year-old human thigh bone will open up a new frontier in the study of our ancestors." ---------------------------------- "But the recent pace of progress in sequencing technology has astonished many scientists: "Years ago, geneticists said they wouldn't be able to find DNA that was older than 60,000 years old," said co-author Jose Bermudez de Castro, from the National Research Centre for Human Evolution (CENIEH), a member of the team that excavated the fossils. "Of course, that wasn't true. The techniques have advanced hugely." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:29 AM "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." ― Richard P. Feynman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw fearful Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:46 AM Blimey, don't tell Snail that! :-0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:47 AM I don't think "science" looks for absolutes. I am sure a hypothesis can be proven by what we see as absolutes in some cases, such as Newtonian physics but another question can be answered by accepting lack of absolutes in the answer. Quantum mechanics as a whole concept is based on probability rather than absolute. Finding the answer can be self serving, predicting scenarios based on observation is another beaker of sozzled halibut entirely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:02 PM "How do we discover the individual laws of Physics, and what is their nature? It should be remarked, to begin with, that we have no right to assume that any physical law exists, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future. It is perfectly conceivable that one fine day Nature should cause an unexpected event to occur which would baffle us all; and if this were to happen we would be powerless to make any objection, even if the result would be that, in spite of our endeavors, we should fail to introduce order into the resulting confusion. In such an event, the only course open to science would be to declare itself bankrupt. For this reason, science is compelled to begin by the general assumption that a general rule of law dominates throughout Nature. " — Max Planck |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:03 PM We have a dilemma here. How can we tell whether the person posting as GUEST,Steve Shaw is the real Steve Shaw? He might be a complete impostor, perhaps one of the Musket team. Granted, the style seems pretty much the same. He comes up with a load of crap that bears no resemblance to anything I've ever said and then blames me for saying it. We might as well proceed as if it is him. But if you are curious about the world, refuse to take anything at face value, demand evidence (and know what "evidence" means), and realise that science is not a quest for proofs or certainties, you're a scientist. Really? I thought you had to have a certificate. Anyway, that sounds like a clear declaration of his philosophy of science including a hint of logical positivism. It does rather preclude statements like "Evolution is true" though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:05 PM "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." ― Richard P. Feynman and he played the bongos. Nobody's perfect. As Steve Shaw has pointed out, "Sir Isaac Newton believed in both God and alchemy, remember." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,# Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:09 PM Would someone be kind enough to give an example of an absolute? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,sawzaw Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:30 PM Suggest you ask the Democrat Party with their history on their assassination of a Republican president that created the Republican party to eliminate slavery, creation of the KKK & Jim Crow laws, Bull Conner, Pitchfork Tillman, George Wallace, Orval Faubus, pro slavery, Etc. Then the sudden turn around on civil rights when LBJ stated "I'll will have those ni****s voting democrat for the next 200 years". Feel free to mount all the logically false ad hominem attacks and verbal abuse you want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,The one and only real Steve Shaw Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:04 PM The only reason I'm a guest is that I've taken to using my iPad a lot more and I've forgotten how I'm supposed to sign in. I'll have a go later. I'm a complete horror with passwords. If I may be permitted a wry observation on Snail's last two posts, they are getting more and more intemperate and frustrated. I'm staying calm, as ever. Now hands up, folks, if you can guess how many times I've told Gastropodus obduratus here that the truth of evolution's existence on Earth is beyond science. The science all comes in the explanation. My left bollock hangs to the left and slightly lower than my middle bollock. That's not science, it's the truth. ;-). The science comes in the explanation of why it hangs lower and why I'm so fortunately-endowed. There is a difference. Even Popper might have agreed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,BrendanB Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM My purpose in posting, Musket, was for the sake of accuracy. I thought you approved of accuracy. However it is true that I rather hoped to elicit one of your foulmouthed responses. I have to confess that I enjoy witnessing a grown man behaving like a naughty boy. Stop being silly and grow up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:56 PM Just for you Brendan. Ready? Fuck off peasant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ebbie Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:00 PM "...LBJ stated "I'll will have those ni****s voting democrat for the next 200 years". sawzaw What? As I remember it, LBJ said when signing the Civil Rights Act that he had lost the South for a long time to come. When did this get turned around? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:49 PM ""and he played the bongos."" Wouldn't have figured that you knew you bloke so well, given the age and vultural differences. Did he share any actual science knowledge with you, or only banjo riffs? ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Greg F. Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:18 PM YawYaw's always been turned wrong way 'round, Ebbie. Ignore him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 04 Dec 14 - 07:51 PM ""Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." ― Richard P. Feynman" Feynman was smart enough to think of a better metaphor than that. It comes close to being a tautology, but uses incompatible terms. Of course scientists.. as scientists... don't *need* Philosophy of science... but it can be generally useful for humans to be comfortable wearing more than one hat. Philosophy of science can help anyone think about scientific procedures and the basic rules for discovery & analysis. I think I could (have) argue(d) with Feynman that HE did use Philosophy of science.. whether he called it that or not. He, no doubt, being pretty smart, but stubborn, would defend his own pronouncement.... not that it would affect what philosophers do for a moment. ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 04 Dec 14 - 08:07 PM ""Feynman was smart enough to think of a better metaphor than that. It comes close to being a tautology, but uses incompatible terms."" He was likely not an English major? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:33 PM Nope... but I have seen film of him speaking. He could talk purty good-like. He didn't need to contemplate tautological metaphors............ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Dec 14 - 11:54 PM I wouldn't be at all surprised if Johnson had said that, Ebbie. He was a very crass man, and he probably did privately say stuff like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ebbie Date: 05 Dec 14 - 12:20 AM That may be,Little Hawk. However, I do believe that he said that about having lost the Democrats. To Bill Moyers, I believe. Saying he referred instead to Black people is a little pat, don't you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:35 AM He may well have said both things. They both make sense. The Democrats definitely lost the Deep South by bringing in civil rights legislation, and that's clear to anyone who has studied the history of USA elections. They also, however, secured the vote of most Black Americans all over the entire nation ever since then for the same reason. So you can say either thing, and it's true, and it has been of some advantage to both the Democrats and the Republicans, but in very different ways. Political parties play these games all the time, playing off one community or region against another. The Democrats and Republicans have basically reversed their regional dominance like a mirror image during the years from the Civil War to now...but the regions themselves have remained very similar in their original cultural character all the way along. This indicates that you can't trust political parties... :D And I already knew that. The same general cultural group of people who vote Democratic now voted Republican in 1860...and they elected Lincoln. Parties change. Cultural and regional attitudes and prejudices just go on and on. The USA has always been a house divided...and it's been divided by regions and cultural groupings. The most bitter foes in the USA have always been the Deep Southerners and the "Yankees" in the industrial Northeast...and that continues to this day. The Civil War isn't actually over yet, psychologically speaking, and it may never be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 05 Dec 14 - 07:42 AM It's nice to be able to say, without fear of contradiction, that Steve is talking bollocks. It does look as if my impostor theory may have something in it. Clearly the GUEST,The one and only real Steve Shaw who accuses me of getting "more intemperate and frustrated" while "staying calm, as ever" can't be the same person as the GUEST,Steve Shaw shunning his lab coat who had earlier launched an unprovoked ad hominem attack on me. Anyway, in his latest incarnation he says "the truth of evolution's existence on Earth is beyond science. The science all comes in the explanation. which is an interesting departure from his usual evangelistic "Evolution is True" which sits well alongside "Allahu Akbar", "God is Love" etc. Now it is evolution's existence that is true, an entirely different claim. Is he saying that evolution is a natural phenomenon which (like his bollocks) is plain for all to see? (They do things differently in the West Country.) If so, as I have asked before with no result, please Steve, show me where I can see some evolution. (I have no wish to see your bollocks.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 05 Dec 14 - 07:53 AM Wouldn't have figured that you knew you bloke so well, given the age and vultural differences. Did he share any actual science knowledge with you, or only banjo riffs? Vultural differences aside, alas no. (Are we into the ornithology jokes?) I do not consider myself his intelectual equal and find his work quite hard to understand. (and I only play the banjo in private.) Bongos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw can't even escape a snail Date: 05 Dec 14 - 08:27 AM Let's face it, Snail. I'm the only reason for your existence. And I assure you that there truly is and only ever has been one incarnation of me. I'll keep my family jewels under wraps as long as you promise to keep your banjo habit to yourself. By the way, ad hominem my arse. Just wait 'til I get REALLY cross. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 05 Dec 14 - 09:37 AM Go on Steve, show me where I can see some evolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 05 Dec 14 - 10:03 AM I have serious doubts about the objectivity of that guy in a white coat in the Listerine advert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Listerine denier Date: 05 Dec 14 - 10:36 AM Moi Aussie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 05 Dec 14 - 10:51 AM "Maybe this fellow could shed some light on the matter... The definitive opinion?" Notreally L.H. He's just a dyslexic MORMON! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:26 PM ""Are we into the ornithology jokes?"" Well, yes-have any to share? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:27 PM A guy is browsing in a pet shop and sees a parrot sitting on a little perch. It doesn't have any feet or legs. The guy says aloud, "I wonder what happened to this parrot?" The parrot replies, "I was born this way. I'm a defective parrot." "WOW!" the guy exclaims. "You actually understood and answered me!" "I got every word," says the parrot. "I happen to be a highly intelligent, thoroughly educated bird." "Oh yeah?", the guy asks, "Then answer this. How do you hang onto your perch without any feet?" "Well," the parrot says, "this is very embarrassing but since you asked, I wrap my willie around this wooden bar like a little hook. You can't see it because of my tail feathers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:34 PM With respect, Ed, I don't get it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:56 PM ....go on ,Steve, show me where I can see some evolution......snail. Last I heard, the best that could be offered was lemskies citrate digesting bugs in certain conditions. Of corse , Steve and musket have evolved various persona over time, but , like them bugs, it is only variation within the kind ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 05 Dec 14 - 03:58 PM Translator's note, anyone? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Lighter Date: 05 Dec 14 - 04:20 PM What's the point of the quote anyway? Even if it's genuine it would simply show that Johnson, who was born in Texas, in 1908 had a crude sense of humor. LBJ *was* a crass man, and his biographers don't shy away from saying so. (He once bragged that he "had Ho Chi Minh's pecker in [his] pocket.") He frequently used the N-word in private (again according to many sources), apparently just because he was used to doing so and didn't care who he shocked. None of that changes the fact that he actively supported and did sign the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. There appears to be no good evidence that he ever uttered the words in question, either just after the signing (in front of dozens of witnesses of both races, including members of the news media), or at any other time. An Internet search reveals only a tiny handful of instances, all very recent, all far-right libertarian related. Several large newspaper databases reveal no report of the "quotation." And a search of thousands of digitized books at Google Books and HathiTrust.org turns up only a single reference, in Thomas D. Kuiper's "I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words" (2006), p.150. Kuiper's book, made up entirely of alleged quotations, was published by the tiny, right-wing "World Ahead Publishing" of Los Angeles. This link shows that some quotations are unreliable or simply false. Kuiper himself does not vouch for his own book's accuracy: http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/04/24/clinton-attack-book-publisher-used-fabricated-q/135487 Until somebody provides an earlier and more reputable source for "Johnson's" words, we can ignore the attribution as bogus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 05 Dec 14 - 04:35 PM Sorry to refer to wiki, but, this may explain gfs's poorly explained post/outburst: The Lenski affair |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ebbie Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:25 PM Like many in the South, LBJ pronounced it 'neegrah'. I think they thought it was more respectable that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 05 Dec 14 - 08:42 PM LBJ did use the N* word in private on occasion (and in private he didn't say 'neegrah'):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1rIDmDWSms http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Lyndon_Baines_Johnson.htm... but he also supported various civil rights bills & actions when was possible to do so. He understood very well that he MUST appear to be with the Southern senators in spirit, and then present civil rights bills as inevitable. We may never know exactly what he believed & "wished", but he knew what the country needed/wanted. He certainly KNEW that various minorities had been mistreated for many years, and that we could not get away with that forever. I have heard tapes of him calling some Southern senator saying approximately: "that n***** bill is coming up soon, and I need your vote.." Like most crucial men in history, he was a mixed bag,..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 06 Dec 14 - 02:59 AM Here's evolution for you pete. Despite indoctrination, brain washing and child abuse by clergy and guilt ridden parents, fewer and fewer young adults are superstitious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Lighter Date: 06 Dec 14 - 08:42 AM Other tapes also show that LBJ agonized about escalation in Vietnam. As much as he loved power, he sacrificed his Presidency in 1968 in a futile attempt to begin serious negotiations to end the war. These are also facts that are often suppressed or ignored in popular memory. It's the nature and ratio of the ingredients in a mixed bag that counts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:34 PM Have had a read of your link, ed. seems that conservier were challenging lemskis citrate digestion in ecoli. That was not my line. Though that had not been seen before, it seems a long stretch to call that evolution, as per bugs to biologists . Bearing in mind how many generations of E. coli passed down the decades, what we have is only ecoli in certain conditions via mutation, digesting something different, if I read it right. It started as bugs and , best I can see , is still bugs. You can call it evolution if you like, as long as you don't equate it with the general theory of evolution that claims what there is little, if any evidence for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:40 PM So, precisely it is you ars proposing gfs meant, Pete? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:18 AM Well, pete, I'm am sure that, like me, everyone else is heartily sick of the tedious clap-trap that you spout about evolution and religion - especially as we all know that you only get your 'information' from creationist websites and have never bothered to read even the popular literature on evolutionary science. You've demonstrated time and time again that you don't know the difference between belief and evidence. On a previous thread someone (I'm afraid that I can't remember exactly who) provided a very valuable link to a website which has answers to all of the silly, ignorant points that you continually raise: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#e1 I'm afraid that you'll have to cut-and-paste the link into your browser as the 'blue-clicky' thing doesn't seem to work for me (thank you God!). Then, when you've read that and followed all the links, we can talk about evolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 12 Dec 14 - 03:03 AM Good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Nigel Parsons Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:30 AM "Let's see some evidence of evolution" Very basic at a level available to all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Nigel Parsons Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:33 AM I bit the bullet & did post #99 to give someone else a chance to do #100 Oops! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:42 AM The peppered moth example shows a possible mechanism for evolution but is not in itself evolution, as both forms were already present before the Industrial Revolution. Additionally, some of the data on which the story is predicated is dodgy due to a spot of dishonesty in the gleaning. I'd love to have it as an example to chuck at the tiresome snail fellow, but my honesty will not allow it. Bet he won't credit me for that. Wait for it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:26 AM "show me where I can see some evolution......snail" You can in, er, snails. You can even be involved in educating yourself and destroying your own ignorant delusions by using empirical evidence you gather. Evolution Megalab I'm guessing that much to the admiration of those here whom admire your stand against the forces of reason, you can't be arsed to though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw crawling fast Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:25 AM 'S all right, Stu. Snail does think that evolution happens, he just doesn't think it's true, that's all. Confusing, innit! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:02 AM While a 2008 article, the findings indicate some interesting viewpoints that have not seemed to change that much beford the article was printed. Scientists and Science Education |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:16 PM Ed, I did not see gfs comment, and I assumed that you had not checked who commented and made the mistake. What's up shimrod? Not able to advance arguments on your own account ? I don't demand you read creationist links, even though they are my main source of info. Rather I frame arguments in my own words. In my last post, I ventured that them bugs were still the same sort of bugs, even if some of em could digest citrate now. Care to argue with that? Steve, nice to be singing from the same hymn sheet for a change. In fact, I seem to remember saying the same thing some time ago. And stu, and much to the admiration of your fellow believers, you were not bothered to frame your own arguments on this occasion either.......but in fairness have done so in the past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:26 PM It's very interesting that far more people appear to approve of science and scientists than accept the truth of evolution. Having said that, the questioning regime of the survey seemed very labyrinthine, and it's hardly surprising that it threw up a good many apparent conflicts in the figures. I'd like to think that people in general trust science but are pulled rather strongly in the opposite direction by influential and charismatic naysayers. I think I'll stop there. For now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:32 PM Singing from the same hymnsheet my arse. The peppered moth demonstrates a process that is involved in evolution but is a somewhat incomplete and imperfect example of it. If you're extrapolating from that that I don't think evolution occurs, well you'd better wipe that great big festering blob of bullshit off your hymnsheet the better for you to see the bloody words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Nigel Parsons Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:49 PM Steve Shaw: Singing from the same hymnsheet my arse. The peppered moth demonstrates a process that is involved in evolution but is a somewhat incomplete and imperfect example of it. If you're extrapolating from that that I don't think evolution occurs, well you'd better wipe that great big festering blob of bullshit off your hymnsheet the better for you to see the bloody words. Thank you for your considered and 'polite' contribution. Whilst the case of the peppered moth may not show a clear case of evolution, it does show how environmental changes may affect the chance of survival of one species in preference to another. To state that both species already existed ignores the fact that they may have common forbears. I was not 'extrapolating', merely showing an example of how 'natural selection' may favour the survival of one species over another. It may be well, at this stage, to inform the discussion by giving Darwin's magnum opus its full title: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." In further discussion of this matter I will try to avoid invoking the language of the gutter. I hope that you can do likewise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:51 PM In recent years, bacteria have been 'learning' to resist antibiotics. This IS evolution. The more antibiotics we use, the more 'practice' they get. many links Often, people take antibiotics when they have a virus... which does no good except for the bacteria to have more to 'learn' about. I repeat: This IS evolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:32 PM Wow, Nigel, that post was directed squarely at pete, not you. I fully respected your contribution and gave it the measured response it deserved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:39 PM Learning and practise are not a good way of putting this. Mutation is the miscopying of heritable information and is neither learned, practised or driven. Point taken apropos of antibiotic resistance, however. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:13 PM That's why it was in single brackets... and that's how it was presented on a program the other day by an expert hoping to find a way to get it across. I wish it were easier to just use all the technical terms in all cases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 13 Dec 14 - 02:04 AM "I don't demand you read creationist links, even though they are my main source of info." Of course they are! And I suggest that you don't read any of the literature on evolution because you might learn something that you don't want to know. "I ventured that them bugs were still the same sort of bugs, even if some of em could digest citrate now. Care to argue with that?" No I wouldn't because I'm not familiar with that specific example. But you've got a lot more explaining to do, pete. For example please explain to me why I should believe that the translated, re-translated and mis-translated myths and legends of a bunch of Bronze Age, middle-eastern goatherds tell us everything we need to know about the origins of the Universe and all life on Earth. I await your explanation with baited breath! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 13 Dec 14 - 04:23 AM Bill makes a good point re antibiotic resistance. However, my understanding is that this is about "training" your immune system to seek and destroy. Whether there has been an irreversible change in the molecular makeup of your antibodies goes to the heart of what we term evolution. If your children retain that genetic memory, is that because the mother has passed on sufficient antibody intact or the DNA ability to produce it? Moot point. (Not just bacterial either, viral too.) HIV itself, regardless of host is altering, as a good example of evolution. In order to evade antiretrovirals, the strain is becoming better at hiding but less virulent in doing so and it is (fingers crossed) expected to become a condition of first to catch a cold, guaranteed to catch what is going round etc in around a hundred years from now. Even where no treatment is around, the time taken to developing AIDS had increased from seven to ten years over the last twenty years. (Source BMJ, last week.) Evolution is, to my mind, not just what we can observe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 13 Dec 14 - 08:30 AM Steve Shaw crawling fast 'S all right, Stu. Snail does think that evolution happens, he just doesn't think it's true, that's all. Confusing, innit! :-) Thank you for your stout defense of me,Steve. I think we may have some progress here, you're almost beginning to understand what I am on about. But not quite. It's not that I think evolution isn't true it's that I don't think statements like "Evolution is true." belong in a scientific discussion. Stu You can in, er, snails. You can even be involved in educating yourself and destroying your own ignorant delusions by using empirical evidence you gather. Actually, Stu, I'm quite well educated including university level courses in Evolution and Genetics. Like Steve, I've got a certificate, several in fact. Thank you for your link to the snails example, I know of it of old. I suppose we can excuse it on the grounds that it is clearly aimed at a very young audience but, even so, it is very sloppy science. Never the less, it does help me illustrate the point. The only empirical evidence in it is that there is variation in the shell colours and patterns of banded snails and that the distribution of that variation correlates with the distribution of thrushes, their main predators. There is nothing there that is a direct observation of evolution. Evolution arises in the interpretation of the empirical evidence. Worse than that, they have decided in advance that evolution is the answer and set out to prove it. That isn't how science works. Thanks for the link to "Scientists and Science Education ", Ed T. The full article starts off "Although evolution is firmly established as one of the most important, integrative, and robust concepts in science...". Yep. Evolution is a scientific concept. Sounds good to me. Steve Shaw would have it otherwise. In this very thread - "the truth of evolution's existence on Earth is beyond science". I'm very much in favour of the forces of reason, Stu. I think science is a really great idea. I just don't like people turning it (and evolution in particular) into a religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:06 AM From Popular Science-on a reason men should wear skirts, unless they seek mutations. (Last article on the page). male skirts and mutations-1958 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ed T Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:16 AM Bty, you can see more of the 1958 Popular Science issue by turning the pages at the top of the site-I found the advertisements nostalgic. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:58 AM "you were not bothered to frame your own arguments on this occasion either" That's why I provided the link to the Evolution Megalab. The answers you need are there, no point in me repeating them. "Actually, Stu, I'm quite well educated including university level courses in Evolution and Genetics." Apologies Snail. None of that was aimed at you, but at Pete whom I was hoping might actually click the link. This hope was dashed when I read his reply. That said, evolution isn't a religion but a fact. The point of the snail study is to show how the variation in alleles of snails of various populations are affected by agents that help drive evolution, in this case predation and environment and how they adapt to the presence of those agents. This is part of an OU undergrad degree course and a serious data-gathering exercise, and I'm sure many scientists would be happy to work with data such as those being generated by this project. "There is nothing there that is a direct observation of evolution." What would satisfy you as a being a "direct observation of evolution". "It started as bugs and , best I can see , is still bugs." What were you expecting exactly? You do understand that evolution is incremental and works over long periods of time? We can see evolution happen in these bacteria as they adapt, but that's only a single change in a single allele of one population of many. Quite a few of these changes will accrue over time and then you might eventually see speciation occur. But I forget - time is exactly what you don't have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 13 Dec 14 - 11:55 AM Stu Apologies Snail. None of that was aimed at you Obviously I was misled by the fact that you based that post on a quote from me and mentioned me by name. That said, evolution isn't a religion but a fact. So you totally reject the opinion of the Coalition of Scientific Societies that it is a scientific concept? This is part of an OU undergrad degree course and a serious data-gathering exercise, I don't think so. I have done OU undergraduate courses and they never spoke to me like that. If you dig into the site you will find documents like this pdf which give a clearer idea of the intended audience. and I'm sure many scientists would be happy to work with data such as those being generated by this project. Perhaps they would but I hope they would analyse the data and draw conclusions from it rather than starting from the answer and then looking for supporting evidence. What would satisfy you as a being a "direct observation of evolution". I have no idea. I don't know how you can have a direct observation of a scientific concept which is a product of the human mind trying to make sense of the empirical evidence which can be directly observed. You're the one who says its a fact. Steve, rather confusingly, says both that it is true and that it exists. Over to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 13 Dec 14 - 04:05 PM Well I think it's rather arrogant of any scientist to claim that a phenomenon that self-evidently occurs is a mere "scientific concept". Evolution is no more a scientific concept than the moon is a scientific concept. The scientific concepts surrounding the fact of evolution derive from the scientific explanations of evolution, no more, no less, not the phenomenon itself, which certainly occurs (and which is therefore true, just as the moon is true). The confusion, Snail, is all in your head. As you seem to want to parade your scientific credentials in front of us, I'm beginning to suspect that, rather then wanting to communicate the truth and beauty of nature, along with their elegant scientific explanations, you'd rather keep them arcane, for the consumption of a scientific elite only. No wonder we still have people like pete who have given up on science. Because of people like you, they think it's too bloody hard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:16 PM From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:58 AM This was me, not sure why I'm a GUEST, but will check. "and mentioned me by name" I mentioned snails, not you. In fact, a study of snails rather than a singular snail. "I don't think so." With all respect, you're wrong. I completed the undergrad course with the OU this was a part of, that's how I know of it. "I have no idea" Ah ha. "Perhaps they would but I hope they would analyse the data and draw conclusions from it rather than starting from the answer and then looking for supporting evidence." Erm, they are testing several hypothesis. That's how science works. "So you totally reject the opinion of the Coalition of Scientific Societies that it is a scientific concept" Who? When I search for that name in Google I don't get any link to such an organisation. Please provide a link. What defines a scientific concept? Are you talking about a theory, hypothesis or perhaps a philosophical construct? Perhaps you mean a guess? Or a musing? Define sil vous plait. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:36 PM Is this http://opa1.faseb.org/pages/PolicyIssues/sciencecoalition.htm what is referred to ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:59 PM If trying to explain to a Bronze Age middle-eastern goatherd why goat breeding worked the way it did would starting by explaining the difference between a concept and a hypothesis be a good idea ? How would you get the to undersand that evolution was not a 'belief'. Why bother ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 13 Dec 14 - 07:47 PM I find it sort of amusing to see all these highly achieved people arguing about what is ,according to most here, an evident fact. At least snail is less dogmatic on that. Steve says it is as evident as the moon. That of course is verified by direct observation, unlike evolution, except you use the bait and switch trick of equating observable change within species or even speciation itself, as if it accounted for the general theory that supposedly turned microbes to cats to mudcatters , over eons !. Guest appeals to slow incremental changes over time, but I would have expected that experiments over decades on fast reproducing organisms might see some sort of information gaining to evolve beyond that same ol bug !. The fact that it is unobservable, only verifies that it is a philosophical belief, and not evidence.based., except it being a worldview interpretation of data. Thank you shimrod for your confession of ignorance re lemski experiments. I shall shelve your challenge at present. There are things I could say, but I have always admitted the element of faith in my beliefs. I just note that this was an evasive tactic ,to avoid having to admit your own faith position. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 13 Dec 14 - 07:55 PM Cut & paste. They teach that in bible class according to my unhinged mate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 13 Dec 14 - 08:37 PM Well now will you look at that. Our pete has suddenly become eloquent and literate! Ha bloody ha, pete! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Dec 14 - 12:12 AM 'Well, I'm not a scientist...' But so many like to 'choose' which one scientist is right...according to 'Well, I'm not a scientist...' Take for instance..... Steve Shaw: "Well now will you look at that. Our pete has suddenly become eloquent and literate! Ha bloody ha, pete!" In light of: "From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:53 PM You don't need qualifications to be a scientist." ...nor in your (and others) OPINIONS....which usually are based on ideological 'talking points' that are being used to further a bogus agenda...based on bad science......but you don't care...I know...call somebody some more names...that will decide it!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 14 Dec 14 - 03:04 AM "but I have always admitted the element of faith in my beliefs." Oh right! Faith = 'fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence' - not very scientific, is it pete? On the other hand, do I have 'faith' in science? Interesting question! In my mind, it's not about faith - or even 'belief' - it's a question of probabilities. Who should I take seriously? Thousands of modern, reputable scientists, from a variety of disciplines, whose work has been peer reviewed, or a bunch of Bronze Age, middle-eastern goat herds and their latter-day, illiberal, fundamentalist, red-neck adherents? I know which group I bet on to be talking any kind of sense! "Thank you shimrod for your confession of ignorance re lemski experiments." It's no point in asking me about the Lemski experiments! If you're so obsessed by them, why not write to Lemski and ask him? Finally, most of the questions that you raise are answered in that website that you've been referred to at least twice now. But if you get off your arse and read it, remember it's a question of evidence - not 'belief'. What you choose to believe, or not to believe, is utterly irrelevant! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:47 AM Shimrod: "Oh right! Faith = 'fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence' - not very scientific, is it pete?" That applies to ideologies, 'religions' and political parties......think about it.....then go figure! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 14 Dec 14 - 09:31 AM "but I would have expected that experiments over decades on fast reproducing organisms might see some sort of information gaining to evolve beyond that same ol bug !" So that's an a priori assumption, confirmation bias and personal incredulity all rolled into one sentence. Not bad even by your standards. And let's face it, if you don't believe, comprehend or can't imagine something it can't be true can it? Do you believe in Blue Whales pete? Godzilla? Bod? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 14 Dec 14 - 02:49 PM So, stu, how many decades do you require from lemskis fast reproducing bugs before you expect your......a priori assumption, confirmation bias and personal incredulity .....to be validated as bugs to biologist evolution ?. "Blue whales..." Funny thing is, I thought there is such a species, so named !?. Nothing wrong with having some faith in science, shimrod. There might well be in having faith in superstitious stuff like evolutionism.....you know.....stuff that contradicts observational science. And it don't matter how many scientists subscribe to it, if they cannot produce observational evidence. It is like the old epicycles of yesteryear, recycled !. Well thanks Steve for the ...grudging.....compliment !. It must be the poet in me emerging!. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 14 Dec 14 - 03:26 PM The only thing that ever emerges from you is bullshit, right from your mouth. Mmm, tasty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:19 PM Steve 'The Gourmet' Pshaw!: "The only thing that ever emerges from you is bullshit, right from your mouth. Mmm, tasty." Well, it looks like you have your own tastes...One man's ceiling is another man's floor...... Bon Appetite! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:09 PM "Nothing wrong with having some faith in science, shimrod." Oh yes there is! 'Faith' is merely irrational superstition. And I see that you've dodged my point about probabilities. And, yet again, there's no point in raising issues like: "And it don't matter how many scientists subscribe to it, if they cannot produce observational evidence" if you're only prepared to parrot the 'arguments' from creationist websites and refuse to contemplate any other point of view. By the way, have you composed that letter to Lemski yet? You can run it past us, before you send it, if you like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 14 Dec 14 - 09:14 PM "if they cannot produce observational evidence:" Pete, you simply have a flawed idea of what "observational evidence" really is. It is NOT a real time video of a butterfly turning into a squirrel. When a scientist 'observes' a radiation level that varies in specific amounts according to carefully measured situations, that IS evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Dec 14 - 11:27 PM I think your dialogue would progress smoother if you actually KNEW the terms you're hassling over....FAITH is NOT a 'religious believe system of dogma'!!!!...any more than sex is love!...anymore than 'science is done figuring it out'..... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:14 AM "FAITH is NOT a 'religious believe system of dogma'!!!!" So what is it a "believe system (sic)" of then, GfS? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:48 AM "So, stu, how many decades do you require from lemskis fast reproducing bugs before you expect your......a priori assumption, confirmation bias and personal incredulity .....to be validated as bugs to biologist evolution ?." I have no idea, I'm not a biologist working with these organisms. I think you might find the experiment is part of the attempt of science to answer that very question. I'm off to do more dinosaur research. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:38 AM I'm still waiting for you to write to Lemski, pete. Just get on with it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:56 AM "a priori assumption, confirmation bias and personal incredulity" You didn't come up with those terms on your own, did you pete? You've 'parroted' them from your favourite (favorite?) creationist website, haven't you ? Squawk, squawk! Pretty Polly! Pieces of eight!! The irony is that they are much more applicable to you than they are to Stu! Squawk, squawk!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Lighter Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:05 AM > a real time video of a butterfly turning into a squirrel. Do you have one? Could you put it on YouTube for us? Of course, it wouldn't be evidence for evolution because job-protecting scientists might have doctored it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:21 AM "You've 'parroted' them from your favourite (favourite?) creationist website, haven't you ?" Actually Pete parroted them from my previous post, but that's fine by me. Fair game in a reply as far as I can see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:02 AM I missed that, Stu - sorry! He's still a silly parrot though! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:18 AM Lighter: "> a real time video of a butterfly turning into a squirrel." Actually, you need to look no further than Mudcat.....here you have squirrels turning into parrots! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:42 AM That's kinda lame as a response, GfS... reminds me of "Oh yeah? Well, your mother wears army boots!" The point I was making, which Pete will recognize, is his assertion that (paraphrased) "no one can show evidence of a (bird) turning into a (mammal)" or some such phrasing..... which, of course, no scientist has ever claimed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Lighter Date: 15 Dec 14 - 11:07 AM > squirrels turning into parrots! Couldn't agree more.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:30 PM Stu I mentioned snails, not you. In fact, a study of snails rather than a singular snail. Actually, Stu, you did. I suggest you read your own post, With all respect, you're wrong. I completed the undergrad course with the OU this was a part of, that's how I know of it. Strangely, this seems to be true. It is rather more robustly described here http://www3.open.ac.uk/media/fullstory.aspx?id=15887 although I can't help feeling uncomfortable with sentences that start "Scientists believe that...". The Evolution Megalab is not, strictly speaking, aimed at OU undergraduates but is a "Citizen Science" project which, judging by that website, is largely aimed at schools. It is very much at odds with what I was taught in the OU science foundation course. Is this the course you studied? S170 'Darwin and Evolution' – This course explains and explores the science of evolution for those with little or no scientific background. "I have no idea" Ah ha. I'm asking you. Erm, they are testing several hypothesis. That's how science works. It starts off "Did you know that ... you can see evolution in your own back yard?" That is not a hypothesis. Apart from the sloppiness of the whole thing, does it show evolution happening? Not really. As with the peppered moth, all the variations already exist and all that may be happening is a change in their frequencies. None seem to be going extinct and no new species are being formed. "So you totally reject the opinion of the Coalition of Scientific Societies that it is a scientific concept" Who? When I search for that name in Google I don't get any link to such an organisation. Please provide a link. It was in the "Scientists and Science Education" link provided by Ed T and has now been followed up by an anonymous GUEST immediately after you asked. What defines a scientific concept? Are you talking about a theory, hypothesis or perhaps a philosophical construct? Perhaps you mean a guess? Or a musing? Define sil vous plait. One or more of those would probably cover it. Would you find "scientific idea" easier? It is an explanation thought up by human beings to explain the observable phenomena A certain amount of confusion is caused by references to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. That was not his contribution. The idea (or concept) of evolution had been around for quite a long time, starting with Aristotle. Darwin goes into this thoroughly in "An Historical Note" at the beginning of The Origin of Species. What Darwin added was that evolution was driven by natural selection. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:40 PM Just a suggestion, Steve, but rather than thinking up more bizarre ways of insulting me, why not address some of the issues? For a start,what do you think of the Evolution Megalab? After that... could you show me some evolution please? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:52 PM ......parroted.....shimrod .......?????? Hope you pay more attention to youR science ! Think I may have missed your probabilities point, but since you mention that word, I hear that the probability of a self replicating simplest cell is a figure with so many noughts after it, as to be impossible. Maybe , btw, it is you that needs to write to lemski, telling him you ain't looked at his work but a creationist referenced it to demonstrate that citrate digesting bugs is the best that can be shown, and could he please show how that demonstrates I microbes to mudcatters evolution? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:20 PM Well bill, I would have thought that could they produce such a video, somehow, it would be submitted as science evidence. But time is the hero for evolutionist, but not because the impossible can become probable, and the improbable fact, but because there is always the slow incremental excuse as to why it cannot be demonstrated. I got no problem with data, but unless it can be shown there are no alternative interpretations the theory is suspect, esp as it contradicts otherwise accepted scientific law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:23 PM " ... it is you that needs to write to lemski, telling him you ain't looked at his work but a creationist referenced it ..." No, pete, it really is you that needs to do the work because it's you who keeps obsessing about this Lemski thing. You also keep demanding that we non-creationists give you our opinions on this work. Well, we haven't got any opinions because we're not familiar with it. Which reminds me, how familiar are YOU with Lemski's work? Have you read the original paper(s)? Have you followed up on the references? Have you read any commentaries on the work - other than creationist ones? Thought not! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ebbie Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:38 PM Interesting thing going on here. It appears to me, Pete from*******, that you have enlisted the assistance of someone else. Same stance but completely different style. Legitimate, of course, but interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:03 PM Lighter: " squirrels turning into parrots! Couldn't agree more...." Finally!!...Usually I get a rash of shit anytime I post a simple and obvious truth coupled with COMMON SENSE!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:09 PM "Actually, Stu, you did. I suggest you read your own post," Well, that's not what I meant so between us we've miscommunicated. "Is this the course you studied? S170 'Darwin and Evolution' – This course explains and explores the science of evolution for those with little or no scientific background." It is! I see what you did there. In fact, the course was pretty awful and I was not at all happy with the quality of the teaching materials or the way it was presented. I did it to test the water and assess the quality of the OU undergrad course. The EvolutionMegaLab was the best thing about it. In the end I decided it wasn't for me and subsequently sought other avenues to further my interests. "As with the peppered moth, all the variations already exist and all that may be happening is a change in their frequencies. None seem to be going extinct and no new species are being formed." They've only got records dating back the last 30 years. Did you expect too see rampant speciation in that time? Do you know the rate of speciation of Cepaea? This is what they're trying to find out. The site isn't written in technical language as it's designed to encourage citizen science (as you say) but the data will be robust and many scientists rely on non-professionals to help them with data acquisition (including palaeontologists). "It was in the "Scientists and Science Education" link provided by Ed T and has now been followed up by an anonymous GUEST immediately after you asked." Saw that, followed it and then decided not to root through the whole site looking for their definition.I'll have a look if a direct link to the pertinent passage is provided, but I've got a mountain of reading already and that's rather more important at this moment in time. "Would you find "scientific idea" easier? Nope. Wayyyyyyy too fuzzy. What would be the point? Odd about pete. He's suddenly learnt to type. Also, his arguments are beginning to sound suspiciously . . . creationist in they are like that of way people who've learnt some big words use but don't have a clue about what they mean (especially when strung together). It'll be interesting to see how new pete measures up to the old, who at least had heart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:22 PM Guest(probably Don Firth): "Odd about pete. He's suddenly learnt to type. Also, his arguments are beginning to sound suspiciously . . . creationist in they are like that of way people who've learnt some big words use but don't have a clue about what they mean (especially when strung together). It'll be interesting to see how new pete measures up to the old, who at least had heart." Ironic, or should I say hypocritical, how Pete is attacked relentlessly for his religious beliefs, which IS protected by our Constitution, and then those same BOZOS, turn around and use the Constitution (only when it's convenient), to scream 'Bigot', over pretzel-like convolutions of what they term as 'disagreement' over THEIR warp sense of agenda driven 'interpretations' of the Constitution!!!....They even change the definitions of words, to suit their nonsensical pig shit! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ebbie Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:35 PM Calm down, Guestfs. It is obvious that it is not you who is ghost writing pete's profferings. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:26 PM Curiouser and curiouser. pete doesn't seem to know the difference between belief and evidence and now GfS doesn't seem to know the difference between free speech and robust disagreement with bullshit! Let's be clear, pete is free to believe any nonsense he likes but if attempts to spread that nonsense, he must expect opposition! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM Ok guest up there was me. I appear to 'ave lost me cookie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 15 Dec 14 - 06:04 PM @Stu "Saw that, followed it and then decided not to root through the whole site looking for their definition." It is used in the first sentence on the page. "Idea", as suggested above, would do just as well in the context. I gave the link to be helpful. Google found it sinply by being given the phrase in question in quotes. Back to lurking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:45 PM Stu (I presume), perhaps you should read your own posts before you send them. If the EvolutionMegaLab was the best thing about that course, it must have been bad indeed. My experience with the OU was highly satisfactory and much more scientifically rigorous. Did you expect too see rampant speciation in that time? No. That's rather the point and why I find their claim that "you can see evolution in your own back yard?" to be somewhat overblown; a claim that you repeated when you posted it. Do you know the rate of speciation of Cepaea? This is what they're trying to find out. No they aren't. Nowhere near it. They are trying to find the changes in distribution of the various forms and whether they correlate with other factors. I had never come across the Coalition of Scientific Societies before but judging by their member organisations, they carry a substantial amount of prestige. If they think "scientific concept" is a meaningful thing to say, I don't think your in a position to say it's "Wayyyyyyy too fuzzy.". It might be worth your while making the effort to understand. I think Evolution (as a necessary precursor to Darwin's Natural Selection) would be considered a theory if it had not developed (evolved?) over a period of time through many great thinkers. I think you should read Darwin's "An Historical Note". It's only nine pages in the Penguin Classics edition of The Origin of Species. I don't take much notice of anything pete says. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:07 AM "Think I may have missed your probabilities point, ..." I suspect that you didn't miss my point, pete. Nevertheless, here it is again so that you can contemplate it: "In my mind, it's not about faith - or even 'belief' - it's a question of probabilities. Who should I take seriously? Thousands of modern, reputable scientists, from a variety of disciplines, whose work has been peer reviewed, or a bunch of Bronze Age, middle-eastern goat herds and their latter-day, illiberal, fundamentalist, red-neck adherents? I know which group I bet on to be talking any kind of sense!" If you insist that it's the second group who are in possession of 'The Truth' then that has some profound implications; it means that either all scientists (not just evolutionary biologists) are deluded or that science is some kind of HUGE anti-religious conspiracy. I would suggest that both of those things are highly unlikely ... what do you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 16 Dec 14 - 03:26 AM So... Is pete evolving? Have Goofus' balls dropped? Will Amazon deliver the pressies I finally got around to ordering yesterday before Chrimbo? Where are the scientists when you need them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 16 Dec 14 - 03:59 AM I read the use of 'concept' ("idea" would do I think) as being a plain English word that would convey the meaning required - even to a creationist. Call that 'fuzzy' if you wish. IMO the only reason to bother arguing with creationists is to give other people a chance to make up their own minds. Ask yoursleves - would you bother having a one-to-one argument with one ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:56 AM Being busy discussing things with Stu, I left it to others to pick up on a point made by Musket the other day. Curiously nobody did. Bill makes a good point re antibiotic resistance. However, my understanding is that this is about "training" your immune system to seek and destroy. Whether there has been an irreversible change in the molecular makeup of your antibodies goes to the heart of what we term evolution. If your children retain that genetic memory, is that because the mother has passed on sufficient antibody intact or the DNA ability to produce it? No. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 16 Dec 14 - 06:02 AM Cookie back. Not sure what happened earlier (user error). "No they aren't. Nowhere near it" The variation in alleles and the rate and reasons for those changes is part of the wider question of speciation rate. The rate of speciation is one of the most pressing questions in palaeontology/palaeobiology at the moment and studies such as the EML are informative as we seek to understand why species appear and disappear as they do; it's all very cross-disciplinary these days, which is even more fascinating and interesting to work on. A complex and fascinating subject, and I'm just starting working on one tiny-weeny part of this whole question myself now (dinosaurs, not tiny things). As for the OU course, it was really terrible and totally lacking in scientific vigour. It was an introductory course (as you point out) but it was something to do and the course textbook was OK. Compared to the undergrad courses I'd taken at Exeter and Birkbeck the course was simply not up to snuff, and lacked any real substance. "If they think "scientific concept" is a meaningful thing to say, I don't think your in a position to say it's "Wayyyyyyy too fuzzy." I'll make my own mind up about what I consider to be too fuzzy; why would you take anyone's word for anything, no matter how plush their website or impressive their associations. If we all did that, science would grind to a halt within the hour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland Date: 16 Dec 14 - 06:16 AM Musket (Ian) picks up the point explored in "Microbiology considerations for infection control" a copy of which I lent him when he was looking at the regulatory side of infection control. (I teach microbiology a a medical school at Glasgow University.) There is an interesting chapter which looks at the sustainability of antimicrobial resistance as a result of intervention with drugs. Using fruitfly, induced resistance has shown no deterioation after two hundred generations with genetic morphing of bacteria over that period to overcome the resistance, leading to debate over whether we can call this (the morphing of certain bacteria) an example of evolution. The trick of course is use of the word "evolution." Thesnail has just said "no." Not sure what the "no" was to, but Musket asked a legitimate question based on recent research in my field. We are asking it too, and there are a number of papers published in BMJ, Lancet etc freely using the word "evolution" to describe phenomena observed over a two year experiment. Musket's final question can however be answered. Both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 16 Dec 14 - 07:24 AM Musket If your children retain that genetic memory, is that because the mother has passed on sufficient antibody intact or the DNA ability to produce it? That would be inheritance of acquired characteristics. Are you (GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland) saying this has been achieved in fruitflies? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 16 Dec 14 - 08:55 AM My reading (I am no expert) is that they are asking the question; "If resistance is inherited (and it is) then an experiment to see how bacteria tries to evolve to overcome resistance was the point of the exercise." "Inheritance of acquired characteristics" isn't what this is about. Our whole resistance to certain ailments goes back a long way. It isn't us changing but it does beg the question, is the annual cocktail change in the flu jab a reaction to evolution of infections and viruses? I see this as a question, which is what I asked, of how tight a definition we can put on the word "evolve." After all, I had a paper published once called "evolution of six sigma consideration in service improvement." Not very snappy but as in many threads here, it questions the preciousness of words by people who see words in tight definition. A bit like "folk music" if you will... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 16 Dec 14 - 09:35 AM "how bacteria tries to evolve to " Tries ? Huh ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 16 Dec 14 - 10:01 AM Musket My reading (I am no expert) is that they are asking the question; "If resistance is inherited (and it is) then an experiment to see how bacteria tries to evolve to overcome resistance was the point of the exercise." Who are "they"? Where is this published? It isn't us changing But you said it was and that was what I said "no" to. Just to remind you. you said - However, my understanding is that this is about "training" your immune system to seek and destroy. Whether there has been an irreversible change in the molecular makeup of your antibodies goes to the heart of what we term evolution. If your children retain that genetic memory, is that because the mother has passed on sufficient antibody intact or the DNA ability to produce it? You are saying that resistance to bacteria acquired by one individual can be passed on to their children. That is "Inheritance of acquired characteristics". Thank you anonymous GUEST. Bacteria don't TRY to evolve. Individual bacteria don't change. Those with low resistance to antibiotics are selected against. They die. Those with higher resistance survive and reproduce. The population as a whole becomes more antibiotic resistant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Secret Lamarkian - no not really Date: 16 Dec 14 - 10:14 AM Epigenetic changes ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Devil's advocate (or, to some, God's ?) Date: 16 Dec 14 - 11:31 AM If the pale coloured moths were completely eliminated through selection the change would be irreversible and an adaption of the species to the environment. But the pale ones and the dark ones could still have been created by God |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST, GUEST,Devil's advocate (or, to some, God's Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:00 PM That was to a vanished post, I think from Musket, between the previous to GUEST posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:07 PM Ah well, Stu, it seems I can't shake your faith in the Megalab Snail Hunt even though it comes from a course you say was really terrible and totally lacking in scientific vigour. I still don't think it shows me evolution in my backyard. As for "Wayyyyyyy too fuzzy.", on the one hand we have - American Association of Physics Teachers, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, American Physiological Society, American Society for Investigative Pathology, American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, American Society of Human Genetics, Biophysical Society, Consortium of Social Science Associations, Geological Society of America, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, National Academy of Sciences, National Science Teachers Association, Society for Developmental Biology On the other hand we have - Stu. By all means challenge everything but describing something as fuzzy isn't challenging, it's just brushing aside something you find inconvenient. As you advance in your field you won't just have to convince yourself but others as well and if you challenge orthodoxy you will have to put up a very good case. "Fuzzy" won't hack it. Barring the occasional revolution , science advances by building on what's there. Newton wrote " If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders of Giants." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:40 PM "By all means challenge everything but describing something as fuzzy isn't challenging, it's just brushing aside something you find inconvenient. " I don't find it inconvenient, I'm simply making my own mind up. I'm sure those august institutions are full of people far cleverer than I (not at all difficult), but I don't see the point in arguing over their wording. "As you advance in your field you won't just have to convince yourself but others as well and if you challenge orthodoxy you will have to put up a very good case." Wow. Do I appear that dense? Were you spying on my last supervisory panel meeting? Does it piss you off when the proles get into academia? It's amazing I've got this far really isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:15 PM I assure you ebbie, , that I is the only Pete here. Change style maybe.....self correcting I pad maybe...but still me. Snail don't pay me no mind, but his arguments with the other science buffs is illuminating as to the utter uncertainty of the whole evolution thing. Interesting arguments about what ...evolve ....means, or more to the point....what is evolution...but seems obvious that none of it equates to the ...descent of man! Oh that probability ! Shimrod. You present a false alternative. Ancient people were not thick, and it is not only so called rednecks that believe creation, but many well educated also, who have had their work published in peer reviewed papers....though of course censured if the reviewers get even a whiff of creation in them. Do I keep going on about lemski ? I think rather you don't know when to admit defeat ! If I can do a bit of reading on the matter, I am sure a scientist like you can.......and then maybe show how that supports slime to shimrod evolution ......or as says snail......show me some evolution.?!!. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:24 PM Devils guest.....the original moth kinds that God created would have had all the genetic variation contained therein to accommodate all the varieties seen today, including the ones glued to tree trunks !. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:50 PM "had all the genetic variation contained therein" Yes, I had guessed from the need to demonstrate genetic change that the selection part of the argument had been won. I am wondering if Pete acknowledges that radiation can create genetic variation. Or is God also throwing the gamma rays ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 16 Dec 14 - 02:05 PM Just trying to helpful, Stu. I'd love to be there when you run "Way too fuzzy" past your supervisor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 16 Dec 14 - 02:08 PM Your getting very grumpy, Musket. Retirement not suiting you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 16 Dec 14 - 02:55 PM I wouldn't use the term "scientific concept" when discussing my research with my supervisor. Some of the others listed earlier certainly, but probably not that term and would avoid it when writing too. But then that's just me. To my mind, it seems a fuzzy way of saying something that could be defined more clearly. Perhaps that's why it's there, not to frighten people off with technical terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 16 Dec 14 - 03:12 PM Stu To my mind, it seems a fuzzy way of saying something that could be defined more clearly. Excellent! Would you care to do so? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:06 PM I did earlier. Hypothesis, theory and the scientific philosophy that forms the backbone of any given piece of research. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ebbie Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:44 PM Amazing. pete from *******, thy style changeth again. At 1:15 it appears that Guestfs IS your ghostwriter after all. :) *********************** Concerning the current subject I doubt this belongs here but I'm wondering whether my brother's experience in raising rabbit has any significance. Through crossbreeding he came up with a coloration and conformation that he called 'Golden Rabbits'. The rabbits were born with golden/yellow colors counterpointed with white collars and feet. He said it took him seven generations to stablilise the breed so that they bred true. Is that speciation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Musket Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:55 PM That's it. Get rid of my posts to make me look a thick twat. I can do that without the help of a thick yank thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:58 PM It's not speciation. What your brother did was selectively breed rabbits with the alleles that caused their colouration. It's a bit like people with the same hair colour producing offspring with the same colour hair; they can still breed with people with different hair colours. In fact, there are varying definitions of species. From a palaeontological research point of view, when looking at the characters of an animal you ignore the species altogether; each specimen is treated individually and relationships established from character matrices. When this is finalised then you can look at species. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 16 Dec 14 - 06:25 PM " Ancient people were not thick, ..." I never said that they were! Where did I say that? " ... it is not only so called rednecks that believe creation, ..." It is mainly though, isn't it, pete? "Do I keep going on about lemski ? I think rather you don't know when to admit defeat ! If I can do a bit of reading on the matter, I am sure a scientist like you can." So, you haven't read the original paper(s)then, pete? Or any of the references or any non-creationist commentaries? Thought not! So, all that you know about Lemski's work is what you've read on a creationist website; am I correct? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 17 Dec 14 - 06:25 AM Stu I did earlier. Hypothesis, theory and the scientific philosophy that forms the backbone of any given piece of research. Do you mean when you said - What defines a scientific concept? Are you talking about a theory, hypothesis or perhaps a philosophical construct? Perhaps you mean a guess? Or a musing? Define sil vous plait.? I thought you were being sarcastic. All these are products of the human mind; attempts to bring some order and understanding to the actual observable evidence. None of them are something you can see in your back yard. Don't tell Steve Shaw who thinks that evolution is as real as the moon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:42 AM What's the problem with using "scientific concept" as a wider term for "a theory, hypothesis or perhaps a philosophical construct". If you need to know which (or what else) go back and look at how it was used in the first sentence of that linked page. Maybe using the wider term makes it easier for creationists to understand and harder for them to trot out off-the-shelf nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 17 Dec 14 - 03:24 PM "..off the shelf nonsense"......such as ? Trying to confuse creationists is a common evolutionist tactic....aka equivocation or bait and switch. Take that snail mega lab link, how does that demonstrate slimy snail to scientist snail, yet it is called evolution! Certainly not, as far as the general theory, as for example outlined by kerkut, is concerned. Ebbie, the new Pete is insisting he is the same person as old Pete. Well, shimrod, seems I have read more about lemski and his bugs than you have, and I don't think citrate digesting bugs under airless ?conditions constitutes evidence of microbes to man evolution. So I will quote snail again.....show me some evolution,....rather than the bait and switch of offering natural selection. And complaining that I read creationist stuff is irrelevant. You either got a reasoned argument or you ain't . Guest somebody, no problem with genetic variation....within the kind....howsoever caused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:36 PM Pete (what happened to pete?) stop using my "show me some evolution" line. You don't remotely understand the point I am making and I don't imagine you ever could so I won't try and explain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:48 PM Creationists are confused by default. By trying to contradict the overwhelming evidence they are presented with (be it biology, palaeontology, geology, physics, chemistry, cosmology etc etc) they tie themselves in knots constantly, a problem they try to solve by inventing their own pseudo-scientific terms e.g. 'Baramins'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 17 Dec 14 - 06:20 PM "Trying to confuse creationists is a common evolutionist tactic ..." It's not a tactic! It's easy!! "I don't think citrate digesting bugs under airless ?conditions constitutes evidence of microbes to man evolution." Somehow, I doubt whether Dr Lemski's starting hypothesis involved "microbes to man" - you plonker!! Anyway, where were we, pete? Oh yes, you were going to read Lemski's original paper(s), follow up on the references and then perhaps write to Dr Lemski in order to clarify any points that you didn't understand. That's probably quite a lot of points ... perhaps it would be best not to burden him with too many ... I'm sure he's a very busy man ... just pick out the main ones ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 17 Dec 14 - 06:43 PM So evolution isn't as real as the moon, eh, Snailieboy? In what respect is it less real then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:00 AM You could try reading the whole of that post. If that doesn't work, try going back through the exchanges between me and Stu over the last few days. If you can't be arsed to do that, I suppose I could go back and cut and paste the important points but is it worth it? Are you actually prepared to listen and make an effort to try and understand or will you just go back to you playground abuse and blind instance that "It's True. It's True. It's True I tell you."? You and Pete are very alike. You both KNOW THE TRUTH which means you don't listen to anything that doesn't suit your belief system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:10 AM You're lashing out, Snail, desperately it seems. You said that I thought that evolution was as real as the moon (actually, I didn't say "real", but hey ho). Don't worry, I've read the whole thread but there are times when I can be a man of few words. Selective responding, sort of style. I was simply wondering, as you implied disagreement with my "thought", why you think evolution ISN"T as real as the moon (or not as true, have it your way, I'm not bothered). Simple enough, n'est-ce pas? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:16 AM It could be Snail knows that with creationists like Pete about regarding the common descent element of evolution as 'scientific fact' is harder than regarding the moon as a 'fact'. Would first need to convince Pete that it is a fact that his changes "within a kind" can lead to new "kinds". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 18 Dec 14 - 08:24 AM Steve Shaw You're lashing out, Snail, My first appearance on this thread was when you mentioned "the tiresome snail fellow" followed by your bizarre attack on me in your post of 13 Dec 14 - 04:05 PM. I don't think you're in any position to take the moral high ground. You frequently resort to personal abuse as a substitute for reasoned debate. I just need to know that if I am going to put any effort into a debate I can expect a reasoned response instead of references to slime trails whenever you're stuck for something sensible to say. As to the question, you've read the whole thread, I've made it perfectly clear what I think evolution is so what's you're problem? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 18 Dec 14 - 08:28 AM No, GUEST, that isn't what I mean. I see no point in trying to persuade Pete of anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Lighter Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:24 AM The moon is clearly visible. Anybody can see it's there by looking. Evolution is mostly invisible. You can't just look up and see it. The moon is a material object and evolution is a process The difference is not the level of actuality, but in the ease of eyes-on verification by lay persons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:28 AM Yes, the moon is clearly visible. Going round the earth. Just like the sun and stars only not as quickly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Lighter Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:39 PM Didn't the moon landings prove once again that the moon is there and a material object? Were the moon landings faked? Of course, I can't know because I wasn't there. And if I had been there, I might still have been deluded by my own lying eyes or, moments later, by my unreliable memory. It's obvious. So I guess the opinion that the sun goes around the earth is every bit as good and valuable as the opinion that it doesn't. Better, in fact, because it challenges the "wisdom" imposed by the self-interested Ruling Class. It brings freedom. I mean, who's to say otherwise? In any case, evolution is a slow, subtle process and the moon is not. Just so we know. If we can know anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 18 Dec 14 - 08:34 PM Well, I reckon the moon and evolution are both true. A few blokes have been to the moon, I believe 'em, I can see the moon and I've had a good gander at it through my boyhood telescope and me binocs. It's wonderful in so many ways. I like the science of of the moon, but the science can wait until I take a break from marvelling at the moon in all its truthful glory. Evolution isn't a solid object like the moon, but that's no reason why it should be harder to accept. We can see the products of evolution all around us, the beauty, diversity and complexity of life on our pale blue dot. There is absolutely no other way it could have got there. The science (which I love - in fact, I'm a biologist who did loads of genetics and evolution and palaeobotany at university) can wait until I take a break from marvelling at what evolution has done for our beautiful planet. There's no rush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 18 Dec 14 - 09:04 PM I am not capitalising my name, snail, the i pad is, but I am capitalising on your line , as I don't suppose you have copyright on it!. And I may be a unlettered,lesser layman but I know enough to see that no one has met your challenge, and that only supports my contention. It seems hardly anyone else here understands your point either, judging by disagreements between you !. Shimrod,I see finally agrees with me....lemskis decades long experiment does not demonstrate microbes to man evolution!. Will the right honourable scientist now agree with me, that when asked " show me some evolution " that is probably the best that can be offered!. Stu, just claiming you got overwhelming evidence......don't make it so.....show me some evolution?!. And as it is not visible....like the moon is.....any evidence you present has got to be only able to be interpreted your way. Otherwise it is only moonshine......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:09 AM "Shimrod,I see finally agrees with me....lemskis decades long experiment does not demonstrate microbes to man evolution!." I don't agree with you!! It's extremely unlikely that Lemski set out to "demonstrate microbes to man evolution", you idiot! And if you were really interested in evolution (rather than only being interested in debunking it) you would read the literature! There's plenty of popular texts out there that you could start with. I, for one, am not going to tie myself in knots trying to explain something that I have never specialised in, just so you can bleat, "I don't believe it!" And before you start crowing that I've admitted that I know nothing (I haven't), let's not forget that you know nothing either - allowing yourself to be brainwashed by, and parroting, crackpot websites doesn't count! Just remember that your preferred explanation for life on Earth, i.e. 'God did it' doesn't explain anything! Not unless, that is, you can explain where God came from and where he got his materials from. If you choose to spout pious bullshit about God being unknowable or something, you have instantly removed yourself from the debate! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:09 AM If you really want to know about evolution, pete (which, of course, you don't - do you?) here's another website you can read as a sane alternative to your favourite redneck, crackpot ones: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 Again, I know that you don't want to know this but the Theory of Evolution is based on evidence - not belief. The Theory of Evolution itself evolves as more evidence becomes available (that's true of every scientific theory). Nevertheless, the basic outline of the theory remains the same (inheritance of acquired characteristics etc.) whatever new evidence may come to light. Although you want to believe that the Bible is a source of absolute truth (and you've got no evidence, whatsoever, for that belief) there is no such thing as 'absolute truth' in science. You should also remember that that if, some day, evidence comes to light to show that evolutionary scientists were wrong all along (unlikely - but you never know) that would say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the truth, or otherwise, of the myths in the Bible (an old book which gullible people have arbitrarily chosen to believe in!). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 19 Dec 14 - 12:24 PM From several days ago... "IMO the only reason to bother arguing with creationists is to give other people a chance to make up their own minds. Ask yoursleves - would you bother having a one-to-one argument with one ?" Oh sure I would... as I have said before, I'd love to sit down with Pete and debate terms and logic and what constitutes 'proof' and all the relevant concepts. I have no illusions I'd convert him, but I can talk faster than I can type and we could clear up some misunderstandings 'in real time' and fill in some details. (I..ummm.. do NOT think I could easily debate GfS in the same way. Our differences are on an entirely different level than I have with Pete.) --------------------- As to earlier remarks about Lamarck and "the inheritance of acquired characteristics"..... it seems that some are not entirely clear about what that means. Lamarck posited that organisms can pass on characteristics such as 'muscle strength' and 'long necks' (in giraffes) - thus suggesting that lots of exercise could benefit one's children. Evolutionary theory is that the only thing that is passed on is the genetic composition of the muscles and neck... NOT the way they are used. Simplified further, evolution asserts that various accidental genetic changes in the length of necks allowed 'some' giraffes to reach more food and thus *select* for that characteristic in later generations. see here for details ------------------------------- As to "show me some evolution"... that is a trick phrase which is an equivocation on "show". Evolution is not a 'process' like kneading dough and 'watching' it change from one consistency to another. Evolution is a description/definition/explanation of the results of various events in order to make sense of the changes in organisms. The events themselves are NOT usually visible. (I don't know if it is even possible to view, under a microscope, the alteration of a gene in some microorganism... it would certainly not be possible to see it happen in a butterfly or a monkey.) But we CAN examine DNA from various generations of certain organisms and note where genes are different.... and we certainly can & do follow the macro changes in organisms by examination of various specimens. This last is where Pete wishes to dispute the claims. He suggests that the gaps in the evidence of Paleontology do not allow us to make certain assumptions. (I have noted several times that it would be physically impossible to have an unbroken line of specimens... and even if it were possible, Pete would deny that it 'proved' anything about the variations). Science can only follow where the evidence leads, and Paleontology has enough evidence to make educated conclusions about the general processes involved, always mindful that **details** are always subject to revision. There IS no other reasonable explanation than "microbes to man", even though the exact steps will forever be revised as we discover more evidence. If Pete wishes to assert that God planned and defined the process "at the Beginning", I can only shrug... but we can only look at the evidence and try to understand how "God's plan" proceeded. And no evidence beyond calculations of generations claimed in a translation of a few old manuscripts can dispute that the history of US goes back billions of years rather than thousands or years. "Belief" about the source of those manuscripts is certainly a simpler answer.... but.... well, you know what I think about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Lighter Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:09 PM > Evolution is not a 'process' ... Evolution is a description/definition/explanation of the results of various events in order to make sense of the changes in organisms. Not quite. What leads to changes to species over time is indeed a "process" (though, as you point out, not the blatant kind like kneading dough). One definition of "process" is "a specific continuous operation, action, or series of changes." Like evolution. The description/designation of the process as "evolution" is different from the process itself. A designation is a different entity from what it designates. Quibbling of course, but I rarely get the chance to exercise my brain in these discussions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 19 Dec 14 - 02:30 PM Well, that's an intelligent, helpful quibble. I would prefer two different terms to describe the 'process' and the description/designation, but it's useful to clarify each. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars Date: 19 Dec 14 - 03:31 PM Shimrod, did I claim that lemski claimed his experiment proved bugs to biologist evolution? Of course he might well have hoped that fast reproducing organisms observed over several decades might give evidence of that, but be it his hope or not, my contention is that a experiment that might equate to a evolutionary timeframe, did not produce anything but bugs reproducing after their kind.....as the bible predicts. Not enough time you may say......well , how many decades do you require, or you might say that ecoli may be an example of evolutionary stasis.....double talk saying nought but an excuse for no change over alleged myo!. This is what I mean by show me some evolution......you will have to ask snail, if he means something else!. Evolutionism is probably the only area of science where the conclusions are reached , and then the evidence is searched for to verify the conclusions. You will of course...as shimrod implies....reply that creationists do that, but as I often say, evidence and data don't speak for itself, It is interpreted. And quite frankly, even I can see that evolutionism has to contradict otherwise accepted scientific laws to even get off the ground. Shimrod claims that positing the eternal, spiritual God of the bible removes me from the discussion, is IMO, ridiculous when he posits an explanation he has provided no evidence for, and actually contradicts observable and experimental science. If there is a god, then creation is logical. If there is no god, creation ...loosely termed.. is not logical. All that can be done by God deniers is hope that something turns up to make it logical. Till such time, most will retain their philosophical position, while only a few, like Anthony flew, abandon it when examining the evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,correctly spelled Lamarckian (but still not Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:23 PM @Bill D I think mine was the only post that mentioned Lamarck (took me ages to find it 'cos I missed the 'c' out). It was the one-liner "Epigenetic changes ?" I wondered when someone would pick up on someone else's recent "inheritance of acquired characterists". I quite like to bring it up in these discussions because although the Lamarck was wrong in the wider sense I still remember the outright mockery with which my paleontology professor recounted his (Lamarck's) theory. I wonder just how much sooner epigentic changes would have been recognised at a molecular level if researches had risked mockery and dared to do some experiments earlier. With people like Pete around one has to be careful to stick to a measured scientific approach. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:57 PM "Shimrod claims that positing the eternal, spiritual God of the bible removes me from the discussion, is IMO, ridiculous when he posits an explanation he has provided no evidence for ..." I provided you with a link to a website which presents loads and loads and loads of evidence ... but you don't WANT to read that evidence, do you, pete? And, yes, "positing the eternal, spiritual God of the bible" (whatever the f**k that means!) does remove you from the discussion because you've changed the terms of the debate from the logical and scientific to the "spiritual" (whatever the f**k that is!). "If there is a god, then creation is logical. If there is no god, creation ...loosely termed.. is not logical." What??!! There is nothing in those two sentences which bears any relation to logic!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:59 PM Steve, thank you for that politely and clearly expressed post. I shall try to respond likewise. Evolution isn't a solid object like the moon, but that's no reason why it should be harder to accept. Fine, but accepted as what? I am quite happy to accept it as "as one of the most important, integrative, and robust concepts in science" or, toe keep Stu happy, a theory, hypothesis or a philosophical construct. (Of those, I'd plump for theory.) You seem to think it is belittling to call it a mere "scientific concept". Surely scientific concepts are amongst the pinnacles of human achievement? Bill D says of my "show me some evolution" line that it is a trick phrase. Well, in a way, it is, but I had no choice. Things like "a phenomenon that self-evidently occurs" and "The scientific concepts surrounding the fact of evolution derive from the scientific explanations of evolution" trotted out with no supporting evidence or argument imply that evolution was there for all to see and that was the starting point for the science. As I have pointed out, Darwin says it was not. It's there in his An Historical Note at the beginning of The Origin of Species. I have mentioned this several times. Nobody has yet said they have read it. We can see the products of evolution all around us, the beauty, diversity and complexity of life on our pale blue dot. There is absolutely no other way it could have got there. ...that we have thought of ... yet. Perhaps we never will but science cannot exclude the possibility. The science (which I love - in fact, I'm a biologist who did loads of genetics and evolution and palaeobotany at university) can wait until I take a break from marvelling at what evolution has done for our beautiful planet. I don't think I will say any more for the moment than that sentence leaves me feeling very uncomfortable indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:13 PM Well that's a shame, Snail. I think there's plenty of room for imagination, dreaming and whimsy at the edges of science without threatening the scientific process. You must be a sad fellow. Are you sure your name isn't The Spock? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Ebbie Date: 19 Dec 14 - 10:19 PM Did you know that God is a scientist? I didn't either until I came across this: Genesis 30 (v. 37) Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. (v. 38) Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, (v. 39) they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. (My devout brother tried that. It didn't work.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 19 Dec 14 - 11:48 PM Snail... You mistook my intention. It was Pete who originally dared us to "show him some evolution". I was in such a hurry that I neglected to note how it was used in your post. I do try to debate the concept... not the person.... but I still assert what I said about the very idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Lighter Date: 20 Dec 14 - 06:11 AM > Did you know that God is a scientist? Well, there is the Church of Christ, Scientist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 20 Dec 14 - 08:31 AM For a moment there, it all seemed to be going so well. I should have known it wouldn't last. You wouldn't care to actually address the points in my post would you Steve? The science (...) can wait until I take a break from marvelling at what evolution/God* has done for our beautiful planet. *delete according to taste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 20 Dec 14 - 09:07 AM Bill D, I think you'll find that pete "credits" me whenever he uses the "show me some evolution" line. Very annoying. (Note to self; do not try to engage pete in any sort of discussion...ever.) I have been using it for some time. I think I've explained that my usage is to do with the nature of evolution, whether it is a concept or an observable reality. pete, as far as I can make out, simply thinks it doesn't exist. As an aside, I see that when I thought Stu was quoting me and then having a go at me for my "ignorant delusions" and my "stand against the forces of reason", he had in fact been quoting pete quoting me so, qualified apology Stu because it still read as if it was me you were having a go at. Even Steve thought so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 20 Dec 14 - 06:23 PM Seems I did get what snail meant, but whether viewed as concept or observable reality, or as I believe non reality and invalid concept, his challenge still stands, and I endorse it for what it's worth, and till that challenge is met, belief in evolutionism is a nun evidenced faith position. And what does shimrod do to counter this argument;...direct me to a website ! I could do that too, but I endeavour to frame my own arguments , albeit with input from other sources. But shimrod could do the same....if there is nothing in his own discipline that has any bearing on origins ( !), but rather , it seems to me, prefers to hide behind sources he claims evidence evolutionism. It seems perfectly logical to me, that there is a creator because there is a creation. That is not an argument from ignorance but from observable and experimental simple science. Everything which is made has a maker, and intelligence can not ,has never been seen to, arise from mere chemicals. Evolutionism can not even account for the simple chemicals arising from nothing, let alone intelligence arising from matter. And to conclude with ref to snail saying no one saying they have read the relevant beginning of origins. I did plough through enough of it to read that he, Darwin himself acknowledged that what he was suggesting was open to other interpretations. Which I presume means that he knew it was a concept, and not as definite as some here who say it is real, or true !. ....or are so evangelical in their atheism outright reject creation or intelligent design. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 20 Dec 14 - 06:50 PM "Everything which is made has a maker, and intelligence can not ,has never been seen to, arise from mere chemicals." Pete... that is something between a tautology, a slogan and an opinion. It makes all sorts of assumptions which depend on interpretations of 'make' and 'maker'. It is very close to just saying everything has a "cause", but even that simpler form needs explication of the context in which one is discussing causality. It *seems* to be intuitively obvious, but when examined carefully, it just depends on linguistic conventions. I will grant that your meaning 'might' be true, but we can't exactly 'see' the beginning, any more than we can see 'evolution' as a process. MY point is that even IF there was a Creator such as you believe in, all the evidence we can gather merely describes, as best we can, what happened after Creation. I do wish that your 'simpler' version could be verified, but it is not something that anyone can ever know... barring some Divine intervention... like writing in the sky in all languages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Lighter Date: 20 Dec 14 - 07:21 PM We have seen human beings and certain animals "making things." The universe, however, does not seem to be much like the things we have seen made. Was it made or did it make itself or has it existed eternally, the Big Bang being no more than a local, specialized phenomenon? Why should the universe require a maker in the same way that a watch does? And if it did, what evidence is there that *any* human religion can tell us anything about that maker? Maybe the cosmos needs a maker and maybe it doesn't. Or maybe it did at its inception and that maker has long since moved on to make other universes. Or maybe "maker" is far too simplistic a concept. And that, I believe, is about all that can be said on the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 21 Dec 14 - 02:28 AM "or as I believe non reality ..." Yes, pete, you believe in "non reality" all right! "And what does shimrod do to counter this argument;...direct me to a website ! I could do that too ..." As you appear to get all of your 'information' from crackpot, redneck websites, I thought that I would direct you to a sane one! But you prefer to hold on to your FAITH in silly fairy tales, don't you? As I said before, I could tie myself in knots trying to explain evolution to you but you would merely shout I DON'T BELIEVE YOU! (and others would jump on me for any terminological inexactitudes) so, rather than play those games, I think that it's best if you get your information from the 'horse's mouth' - as it were. "Everything which is made has a maker, and intelligence can not ,has never been seen to, arise from mere chemicals. Evolutionism can not even account for the simple chemicals arising from nothing, let alone intelligence arising from matter." That demented jumble is so full of wild assumptions and preferred explanations that it's difficult to know where to start! Your particular preferred explanation is that everything was created by the God of the Bible - but that particular creation myth is just one among thousands. In addition, to a questioning mind, the explanation "the God of the Bible did it" is no explanation at all because that questioning mind needs to know where God came from and where he got his materials from. Did he gets his materials from 'nothing', pete? I thought that that, according to you, was 'impossible'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 21 Dec 14 - 06:36 PM We can of course imagine anything might happen, as you ,s mostly think happened in your evolution story...... I cannot prove there is a creator God, anymore than you can prove abiogenesis and everything else unobservable in the general theory of evolution. You can point to certain data and evidence, but as just about anything you might cite could be accounted for in the creation model, it boils down to a faith position. And despite your greater academic standing,your belief that defies observational and experimental science betrays a philosophical rather than evidenced belief. Lighter has a lot of maybes, and bill wants a sign in the sky.....in all languages . But as far as the bible is concerned creation is the evidence of a creator. That of course is rejected by you, and you interpreted the evidence to accommodate evolutionism, and only allowing a vague possibility of a starter maker. Shimrod, continues to evade framing his own arguments for his creation myth, but were I to do the same, it would be totally unacceptable. And did you spot the out of context quote at the beginning. Would I be quoting out of context, maybe, if I note that he admits he could tie himself up in knots explaining evolution ! . Maybe that is why he don't frame his own arguments. His insistence that God has to come from somewhere, or that he needed somewhere to get his materials from, is not the description of the biblical God. His demands merely mean that he rejects God. I agree that getting material from nothing is impossible, but as scripture says...what is impossible with men, is possible with God. And I reckon that's a whole lot more logical than everything from nothing without a creator |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:42 AM "But as far as the bible is concerned creation is the evidence of a creator." The idea that people create things, therefore everything around us must have been created is an hypothesis based on an analogy - but there is no evidence to support that hypothesis. And why should I believe the old myths in the Bible? " ... if I note that he admits he could tie himself up in knots explaining evolution !" I have, in fact, avoided tying myself in knots by pointing you to an authoritative source. I also repeat that I'm more inclined to accept the authority of scientists - who have accumulated copious amounts of evidence over the last century and a half - than I am to accept the authority of a bunch of fundamentalist religious fanatics who have chosen to believe that the myths related in an old book represent the absolute truth. "His insistence that God has to come from somewhere, or that he needed somewhere to get his materials from, is not the description of the biblical God. His demands merely mean that he rejects God. " No, I question (rather than absolutely "reject") the authority of the Bible. "I agree that getting material from nothing is impossible, but as scripture says...what is impossible with men, is possible with God." That load of pious claptrap answers nothing! I'm not impressed by piety, pete. " ... I reckon that's a whole lot more logical than everything from nothing without a creator" There's nothing logical about it - just what you choose to believe! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Bill D Date: 22 Dec 14 - 11:06 AM " it boils down to a faith position." No Pete... it does not. There is a big difference between "faith" in a story written in old manuscripts and 'confidence' in an ongoing, methodical study of evidence. I have explained many times that you are playing fast & loose with definitions of 'faith'. "as far as the bible is concerned creation is the evidence of a creator." Again... circular reasoning: you believe the Bible explains God, then believe God 'inspired' the Bible. Each depends on the other, and both depend on blind acceptance. You would reject that sort of reasoning about other things, but when it's about the creation of the universe, it's just fine? Wow.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 22 Dec 14 - 12:16 PM "he had in fact been quoting pete quoting me so, qualified apology Stu because it still read as if it was me you were having a go at" No worries. "but as just about anything you might cite could be accounted for in the creation model" With all respect, that is one steaming great pile of bullshit. Seeing as you are so anti-science Pete, you might be better off concentrating on your own spiritual path rather than making yourself look like a total thickie (which I'm sure you're not). Thing is, you're so far from understanding any of the science it's ridiculous. You really have no fucking clue. Not an inkling. I read the New Testament when I was in my twenties after being raised a good Christian. I do know about the subject as I had years of church services, groups for young teenagers and who know what else. In the end (and after much deliberation), I decided to reject the existence of your Abrahamic God on the same grounds I dismiss the existence of the Lock Ness Monster (something else I was really fascinated by when I was younger); theres not a jot of evidence. In the end your fundamentalist, literalist mates are simply trying to distract any degree of debate on the validity of creationism by making up words and theories that shoehorn or misrepresent the facts to support their own worldview. This isn't science (which already has a robust and thorough system of peer review to ensure it's integrity and veracity), it's making shit up. Whilst you continue to be influenced not by scientists (many people of faith themselves) but by people making shit up, then this conversation is pointless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 14 - 12:35 PM Can any one point to a good summary of the various creation myths (three of them is it ?) in the Old Testament ? I heard about them in a sermon by an Anglican Bishop but it's too big a book to read looking for them. The Bishop was sympathetic to the plight of that old guy (was it Moses ?) trying to set out the old stories in sensible way but he (the Bishop) was not a creationist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:45 PM How about addressing the argument, stu. It is easy to acuse and abuse, but not so easy to frame a convincing argument . My argument is quite simple.....show me an interpretation of the data that can only be accounted for according to your belief. I have previously shown data that don't fit evolutionism, but of corse, you can always fall back on the ...science is a process....line! In other words a faith position ! Ie you believe that accepted at one time science can be put on hold till something turns up to validate your devotion to evolutionism !. Bill,, I also keep telling you, that when you believe something for which there is not conclusive evidence ,that is IMO, a faith position. I reckon circular reasoning goes both ways. You assume it is true, and so you look to the authorities that confirm your belief. The fact is, people, even many scientists believe stuff that they do not have any evidence of.....only interpretation of data. Shimrod... Hypothesis based on an analogy? Well, no one could accuse you of that....you got a hypothesis based on fanciful ideas. What kind of analogy can you use for an everything from nothing via no one belief.....and you call that science ! Again, it is your faith position, and I doubt you can even find an analogy to use. You say you are ..inclined to accept the authority if scientists....,as long as it is the ones that agree with you eh! Apart from the fact that there are a lot of scientists that don't buy it, it is an invalid argument anyway. most scientists at one time were geocentric....and wrong !. So go on, prove me wrong, show me some evolution?!. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Dec 14 - 07:00 PM And Bill thinks it's worth debating that. Christ on a bloody bike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: TheSnail Date: 23 Dec 14 - 08:14 PM Previously from me - You wouldn't care to actually address the points in my post would you Steve? Apparently not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 23 Dec 14 - 08:54 PM Are you Keith, Snail? Think I may have told you before that I post what I want to post and do not jump through hoops, yours or anyone else's. Anyway, you haven't told me yet whether you think the moon is more real than evolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:22 AM "So go on, prove me wrong, show me some evolution?" Is that it Pete? After that ramble you come back to the tactic of constantly repeating this creationist mantra? "It is easy to acuse and abuse, but not so easy to frame a convincing argument ." Grow up Pete. Part of your tactic is to treat this not as a debate but a war of attrition. That approach appeals to some of the more belligerent types here who profess their admiration for your 'taking a stand' whilst overlooking your own ability to insult and generalise. More fool the fools. "In other words a faith position ! Ie you believe that accepted at one time science can be put on hold till something turns up to validate your devotion to evolutionism" Really? Is that all you've got? After all these threads with links provided (you have to actually read them yourself, no-one can do that for you) you're reduced to trotting out these hackneyed old arguments. Also, best not assume to know my thoughts on this or any other subject Pete, as your assumption is invariably rather wide of the mark. By the way, my PhD project now includes the evolution of the dinosaur taxa I'm working on. Result! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 24 Dec 14 - 05:05 AM No, Pete, you've parroted "data that don't fit evolutionism" from crackpot, red-neck websites! You've continually demonstrated that you don't really understand the arguments. You also demand over and over again that we show you some evidence for evolution but we all know that if we did so you would only reject it out of hand whilst parroting more nonsense. The data is out there, Pete, just get off your sad, fundamentalist arse and read it! Oh yes, science IS a process - live with it! Scientists are also obliged to interpret the evidence that they gather and if those interpretations fail to support the creation myths of a bunch of Bronze Age, middle-eastern goatherds - well, tough!! Live with that as well! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: skarpi Date: 24 Dec 14 - 06:46 AM the climate turn in , in many weather ways more powerful weathers the glacier is melded with more speed than ever , I dive pass few off them many time ´s every year I see it change , but scientist are in two groups one that say all is ok , and another that say every thing is going to end in a disaster ...so who are paying the first one to say don´t worry be happy ..... in Iceland the weather , glaciers and the heat . the cold ..every thing has changed ...so be on alert this is no joke ...the earth is a living thing and if we don´t take care if as we should do , it will kick back and just wait and see , the mother earth will do so ...so take care of it , we only have one Earth ...and no plan B ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 24 Dec 14 - 07:58 AM Big oil, skarpi, that's who. Even if there was the slightest degree of uncertainty about humanity-driven global warming, it would still be highly irresponsible and highly immoral to do nothing. Even if it was fifty-fifty we would have to act as if it were real. But we're not and we are going to be stuffed. Watch the windmills go round (sometimes), let them ease your conscience, step on the gas and whack up the central heating! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist... From: Stu Date: 24 Dec 14 - 08:14 AM Actually Skarpi, the data are unequivocal and it's the way the consensus is portrayed in the media is skewed. Naysayers (often not involved in climate research) are given equal airtime despite being in a tiny minority. In fact, as scientists tend not to have the PR machine of the other vested interests many are resigned to never getting their message across as the media (which part of the establishment) essentially colludes to keep their research out of the news. Disaster is coming, and there's very little anyone can do about it. |
