Evolution Theory is Error

AtomicHorror

sdep wrote: »

I believe the current vogue expression is 'qft'.



Now remember, a creationism thread is for life, not just for Winterval - and we've not even hit our first thousand posts yet.

CDfm gets to be the new J C. Good. The old J C seems to be dead, and I miss his incoherent postspasms.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

CDfm gets to be the new J C. Good. The old J C seems to be dead, and I miss his incoherent postspasms.

Who is JC GOOD?

Is it a hatheist term?

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Who is JC GOOD?

Is it a hatheist term?

Well I suppose if you're having difficulty with punctuation, science is going to be tricky. So I guess this is you exiting the argument?

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well I suppose if you're having difficulty with punctuation, science is going to be tricky. So I guess this is you exiting the argument?

I think I have put my points accross well in a fairly "hostile"(with a small h) thread.

The key points being that science doesnt or never has had all the answers and its methodoligy is different to that used in religion. That mainstream christian churches have read the bible allegorically since inception and are not creationist.That science has a long way to go to even explain the earth, the universe and God. That science and its funding are not impartial but funded by interest groups and commercial interests.

God belief got degraded from " Delusional" to a mere "illogical" to science needing to be defended.

I also raised the issue that the stemcell debate is probaby industry funded and it was acknowledged.

I think I did well and provoked a debate.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

The key points being that science doesnt or never has had all the answers and its methodoligy is different to that used in religion.

I'd say science has all the answers that can be verified. Religion has hopes. Maybe that has value, but it's not an answer. Naturally the methodologies differ.

CDfm wrote: »

That mainstream christian churches have read the bible allegorically since inception and are not creationist.

This is not disputed, at least not by me. I'm not concerned with the when and how of creationism. I'm concerned by what it is right now and how to kill it.

CDfm wrote: »

That science has a long way to go to even explain the earth, the universe and God.

No scientist would dispute the first two points. But most scientists and philosophers would discard the third as having no function in our understanding of the universe at this time.

CDfm wrote: »

That science and its funding are not impartial but funded by interest groups and commercial interests.

You generalise here and do so based on very little evidence. You continue to hold an overall view of the research process that would be falsified by even a casual look at how the system actually works.

CDfm wrote: »

God belief got degraded from " Delusional" to a mere "illogical" to science needing to be defended.

I didn't spot the degrading of belief in God. As far as I'm concerned it can be delusional and illogical without any shift required. As to science being defended, it was defended against an array of baseless accusations, made by you. I notice you failed to return to your accusations that science is based upon faith. That it is equivalent to conjecture. Care to comment on those points now?

CDfm wrote: »

I also raised the issue that the stemcell debate is probaby industry funded and it was acknowledged.

Not quite. We acknowledged industry influence in science but also highlighted how this is monitored within the context of the research system. You consistently ignored that point or flatly denied it yet can provide no evidence. As to the influence of industry on the stem cell debate in particular, this is likely to exist however stem cell research is not exclusively carried out or funded by industry. In fact, it is quite heavily funded by government-run science funding bodies. Since stem cells can be isolated by anyone with the required equipment (which would be pretty much any biology lab), an industry monopoly on this is unlikely. Stem cells themselves are not a cash cow. Now the equipment and reagent sales to support that might well be, but this is as true for adult stem cell work as it is for embryonic work. So the industry motive is pretty unclear there. It's certainly not unified, cohesive, or all that strong.

CDfm wrote: »

I think I did well and provoked a debate.

I think in your criticism of science itself, you made yourself look pretty silly.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'd say science has all the answers that can be verified. Religion has hopes. Maybe that has value, but it's not an answer. Naturally the methodologies differ.



You generalise here and do so based on very little evidence. You continue to hold an overall view of the research process that would be falsified by even a casual look at how the system actually works.



I didn't spot the degrading of belief in God. As far as I'm concerned it can be delusional and illogical without any shift required. As to science being defended, it was defended against an array of baseless accusations, made by you. I notice you failed to return to your accusations that science is based upon faith. That it is equivalent to conjecture. Care to comment on those points now?



Not quite. We acknowledged industry influence in science but also highlighted how this is monitored within the context of the research system. You consistently ignored that point or flatly denied it yet can provide no evidence. As to the influence of industry on the stem cell debate in particular, this is likely to exist however stem cell research is not exclusively carried out or funded by industry. In fact, it is quite heavily funded by government-run science funding bodies. Since stem cells can be isolated by anyone with the required equipment (which would be pretty much any biology lab), an industry monopoly on this is unlikely. Stem cells themselves are not a cash cow. Now the equipment and reagent sales to support that might well be, but this is as true for adult stem cell work as it is for embryonic work. So the industry motive is pretty unclear there. It's certainly not unified, cohesive, or all that strong.



I think in your criticism of science itself, you made yourself look pretty silly.

AH - you are science centric - a true fan and love it and are very enthusiatic.
I will bet when you see a beautiful woman you think - look at the biology of that wan.

But you only look at things verifiable from a scientific point of view. Empirical studies and cant conceptualise anything outside that. You look at the micro.

I often make comments on science issues in the same way atheists do on religous issues. But I will say that while academically or in ideal laboratory conditions peer review or clinical research has its place. It deals with fields where such study adds value. It only deals with areas that can be studied that way.

Science would be pretty useless at predicting the behavior of women in shoe shops at the January sales. Or why Metalica and AC/DC sound better to me than Beethoven.

On stemcell research only drug companies etc could afford the kind of licencing and regulatory stuff to actually apply the technoligy -have clinical trials and the like. Its fairly hefty financially to regulate and market stuff like drugs and treatments. Take the regulation of herbal remedies - I believe St Johns Wort was available for a few euro in health food stores until recently as a depression supplement whereas it is now classed as a drug and can only by supplied by a doctors perscription and a chemist - so the cost to obtain it will escalate from 5 euro to 150 euro. Thats an estimate but the point is that science is an industry that even regulates herbal remedies and views them as profit centers- to say that lobbying to legalise embryonic stemcell research is not hugely funded is well plain silly.

I accept science but by your logic I should rely on a verifiable scientific source for everything. Science alone is quite limited in building a holistic view of the world universe and everything- it tries but it cant. Its like Julian Webber -the cello player - somehow I cant see him filling in for Lemmy in Motorhead any day soon. It just wouldnt be the same- yet they are both musicians but it wouldnt work.

So to say to me to rely on science as a source for my religious or spiritual beliefs - well no sale.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

I often make comments on science issues in the same way atheists do on religous issues.

With the difference that most atheists are well-informed about religion and from your posts, you appear to have no appreciation and no accurate information about science, scientists, the scientific method, scientific ethics, etc, etc.

Richard Feynman talked about this, from around thirty seconds in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhXzK5RxvUg

CerebralCortex

Its so annoying how you hide behind sophistry and rhetoric CDfm. For example wtf were you thinking or trying to say here:

CDfm wrote: »

Science alone is quite limited in building a holistic view of the world universe and everything- it tries but it cant. Its like Julian Webber -the cello player - somehow I cant see him filling in for Lemmy in Motorhead any day soon. It just wouldnt be the same- yet they are both musicians but it wouldnt work.

That makes absolutely no sense. Unfortunately you fail to mention any other method for understanding the universe ignoring the fact that science is the only method that attempts the study of things. The rest is just wishful thinking.

I think I know what you're trying to say: "science hasn't the ability to give me the reason I'm here" so you choose to follow someone else's completely unfounded reason because it appeals to natural urges which you and everyone has.

Nothing you have said in that post has any basis in truth and just because you dress it up in rhetoric means nothing. I must commend you though in your use of rhetoric in that it makes it very challenging to reply to you.

An example of a complete falsity and lack of understanding of the purpose of science:

CDfm wrote: »

Science would be pretty useless at predicting the behavior of women in shoe shops at the January sales. Or why Metalica and AC/DC sound better to me than Beethoven.

:eek:

sink

CDfm wrote: »

Science would be pretty useless at predicting the behavior of women in shoe shops at the January sales. Or why Metalica and AC/DC sound better to me than Beethoven.

Behavioural Science

I propose a hypothesis that CDfm's brain is structured differently to that of a sceptic and he is incapable of understanding a sceptics frame of thought. Either that or he is just wilfully ignorant.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Science would be pretty useless at predicting the behavior of women in shoe shops at the January sales.

There's been a lot of research done into consumer behavior across many different disciplines, though you're unaware of it. If you're interested -- and I assume you're probably not -- you can find out more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_behaviour
http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/

Out of interest, have you ever said to yourself "Whoa there, maybe I should stop talking since I don't think I know what I'm talking about"?

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

With the difference that most atheists are well-informed about religion and from your posts, you appear to have no appreciation and no accurate information about science, scientists, the scientific method, scientific ethics, etc, etc.

Richard Feynman talked about this, from around thirty seconds in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhXzK5RxvUg

for such a bright guy he had amazing humility.

i do understand the methods and rigors in my own field and because i do i can only generalise about science.

The Mad Hatter

Or there's the field of Music Cognition regarding your second question - not to mention that much classical music takes practise and time to really appreciate.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

There's been a lot of research done into consumer behavior across many different disciplines, though you're unaware of it. If you're interested -- and I assume you're probably not -- you can find out more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_behaviour
http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/

Out of interest, have you ever said to yourself "Whoa there, maybe I should stop talking since I don't think I know what I'm talking about"?

Whoa - thats not science -look at the clip

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

I think I have put my points accross well in a fairly "hostile"(with a small h) thread.

The thread only became "hostile" when you continued to post inaccurate and down right wrong points about how you think science works, ignoring practically everyone who has pointed out the errors in your posts.

It is hard for anyone to take you that seriously when you continue to make the same points over and over after it has been explained to you that they are wrong.

CDfm wrote: »

The key points being that science doesnt or never has had all the answers and its methodoligy is different to that used in religion.

Well just like when ever someone says "all the answers" that really depends on what the questions were, but if the question was "what is the universe and how does it work" then science has never claimed to have all the answers and in fact if it did there would be no scientists!

What keeps scientists going is the unknown, the unanswered questions. That is in fact the whole point of science!

Once again you misrepresent science and scientific standards based on this completely inaccurate (and I must say rather juvenile) idea you seem to have in your head about what "science" actually is.

As someone else said about 4 pages ago, if you just stopped for a second and listened to what some of the actual scientists (not me) are explaining to you you yourself might get some answers.

CDfm wrote: »

That science and its funding are not impartial but funded by interest groups and commercial interests.

Every time you say that you simply again demonstrate that you do not understand the scientific process nor are you listening to what you are being told here.

I could pay you a million euro to say that 2+2 is 5 but anyone who looked at your equation would know it is wrong instantly. No matter how much money I pay you that isn't going to change. I could pay you a million to say 2+2=5 and pay someone else a million to say you agree with me. Again, not going to change the fact that you cannot justify mathematically the equation.

The same is true with science, the scientists have to justify their work or their work is ignored.

So unless you are claiming that "interest groups" pay off not just scientists but everyone else in the world to keep quiet, your point doesn't hold.

CDfm wrote: »

I think I did well and provoked a debate.

I think you just demonstrated you know very little about science and seem completely uninterested in learning.

You seem to have a completely inaccurate picture in your head about how science works, that servers your theological agenda to demonise science and promote religion as an alternative (at least that is how it comes across)

You don't do the stereotype of the "ignorant believer" much help ...

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

I accept science but by your logic I should rely on a verifiable scientific source for everything.

Only for things you actually want to know.

Most religious people, in my experience, don't actually want to know much about what is happening with regard to religion, particularly their religion, because that opens up the possibility that what they believe could turn out to be wrong (knowing something some times involves facing the possibility that what you previously believed or hoped was true isn't actually true)

This I believe is the root of the hostility some (a lot) believers have to science, the fact that science often doesn't confirm or support the things they hope are true.

An example would be near death experiences. There is quite a lot of support, growing all the time, for the theory that NDEs are caused by stress on the brain, provoking an hallucination in the person, producing feelings of floating and the perception that they are seeing their own body.

There has been some resistance to this idea from people who cling to the idea that NDEs are in fact religious in nature, they are say people going towards heaven and then coming back.

These people don't actually want to know what is happening with a NDE, because such investigation could lead to the unpleasing conclusion that NDEs are not in fact religious experiences but merely hallucinations.

They prefer to embrace the "answer" (made up as it is) that NDEs are religious experiences.

There are countless examples of things like this in every area of religion and supernatural belief. The claim the science "doesn't have the answers" is really just another way of saying "science doesn't confirm what we want to be true, so we are going to disregard it"

It is simply a retreat into the more pleasing comforting arms of ignorance and imagination. The "answers" religion provides are just speculation and conjecture, the "truth" of them is measured not in how accurate they are (since there is no method to actually test that) but in how comforting and pleasing they are. How often has a Christian on the Christianity forum said "well Christianity makes me happy, thats all I need to know"

It is simply a retreat from reality. So ultimately the system you use for learning depends on your priorities, do you want to learn how something actually is, even if that means facing the possibility that it isn't how you hoped it would be, or do you simply want to find an answer that is comforting to you, unconcerned over the issue of how accurate or true it is.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

i do understand the methods and rigors in my own field and because i do i can only generalise about science.

So why do you feel ok about generalizing in such an inaccurate way?

If one of us characterized your field (what is it, btw?) as ignorant or narrow-minded in the same way that you characterize science, do you think that you'd get cheesed off?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

The thread only became "hostile" when you continued to post inaccurate and down right wrong points about how you think science works, ignoring practically everyone who has pointed out the errors in your posts.


Well just like when ever someone says "all the answers" that really depends on what the questions were, but if the question was "what is the universe and how does it work" then science has never claimed to have all the answers and in fact if it did there would be no scientists!


Once again you misrepresent science and scientific standards based on this completely inaccurate (and I must say rather juvenile) idea you seem to have in your head about what "science" actually is.

So unless you are claiming that "interest groups" pay off not just scientists but everyone else in the world to keep quiet, your point doesn't hold.


You seem to have a completely inaccurate picture in your head about how science works, that servers your theological agenda to demonise science

You don't do the stereotype of the "ignorant believer" much help ...

Jeez Wicknight - I said "hostile" with a small "h" - I meant non-believer friendly not that posters arent friendly.

My particular interest is philosophy and ethics etc.

From a science perspective thats what I would look at.

From a funding perspective to build a picture of funding mechanisms and external structures and transactional analysis of how issues might be prioritised.

I dont actually have a theological aghenda - I have my own beliefs - if I see someone misrepresenting something I say it- but I often do that on the Christian threads when I see people misrepresenting christianity.

The Richard Feynman link was more informative. The real situation is probably a synthesis between the two.

I hope you dont think I am anti-science.

Goduznt Xzst

CDfm wrote: »

I hope you dont think I am anti-science.

So really, getting to the crux of this. Do you think that Scientists should factor God into the empirical, testable, demonstrable protocols of Science? Or are you trying to say that Science is as much of an unknown as Religious teaching, so we might as well hedge our bets and go with the option that has fringe benefits :rolleyes:

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So really, getting to the crux of this. Do you think that Scientists should factor God into the empirical, testable, demonstrable protocols of Science? Or are you trying to say that Science is as much of an unknown as Religious teaching, so we might as well hedge our bets and go with the option that has fringe benefits :rolleyes:

I dont think you can.

But you might look at it on ethics.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

I hope you dont think I am anti-science.

I haven't made my mind up whether you are anti-science or not. You apparently don't know what science is, so it is hard to say if you are 2anti-science".

I guess ultimately it depends on your motivation for ignoring what people, including a lot of actual scientists, have been saying to you, is it anti-science that motivates this or simply ignorance.

The central point you seem to have been ignoring or simply not understood is that all the concerns you have about attempting to learn stuff (conjecture, bias, motivation, trust, deception!!! etc) have all long ago been recognized as being issues and the entire scientific system is build up around resolving them.

They aren't problems with science, they are problems with learning, problems that science was invented for the purpose of dealing with

And (possibly more importantly) no other system is, particularly not religion. Which is why it is so amusing to have religious people giving out about the "problems" with science.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

AH - you are science centric - a true fan and love it and are very enthusiatic.
I will bet when you see a beautiful woman you think - look at the biology of that wan.

Don't be ridiculous.

CDfm wrote: »

But you only look at things verifiable from a scientific point of view. Empirical studies and cant conceptualise anything outside that. You look at the micro.

Such ignorance. You can't even demonstrate a basic understanding of the subject matter you argue yet you presume to know me to the core from some internet posts on a single topic.

CDfm wrote: »

I often make comments on science issues in the same way atheists do on religous issues.

Some of us were once religious. You were never a scientist in the philosophical or professional sense. You seem unable to understand what either means nor the difference between them.

CDfm wrote: »

But I will say that while academically or in ideal laboratory conditions peer review or clinical research has its place. It deals with fields where such study adds value. It only deals with areas that can be studied that way.

Science would be pretty useless at predicting the behavior of women in shoe shops at the January sales. Or why Metalica and AC/DC sound better to me than Beethoven.

Assuming this narrow minded statement were true, what is your point?

CDfm wrote: »

On stemcell research only drug companies etc could afford the kind of licencing and regulatory stuff to actually apply the technoligy -have clinical trials and the like.

So how come the Irish government fund that very work in NUI Galway, including clinical trials? The money comes from SFI. Not a drugs company. You are spoofing. You have no knowledge whatsoever of your subject matter and you look like a total fool.

CDfm wrote: »

Its fairly hefty financially to regulate and market stuff like drugs and treatments. Take the regulation of herbal remedies - I believe St Johns Wort was available for a few euro in health food stores until recently as a depression supplement whereas it is now classed as a drug and can only by supplied by a doctors perscription and a chemist - so the cost to obtain it will escalate from 5 euro to 150 euro.

On what basis? St Johns Wort is not patentable and thus there is no monopoly on it's production or sale. If it is approved for sale, then it is approved for sale. If some company decides to sell it for €150 but it can be sold for €5 then a competitor will step up and do that. This is not at all the same as conventional drugs which are intellectual property for a set time. The same with stem cells- they can be produced by literally anyone who can do cell culture.

CDfm wrote: »

Thats an estimate but the point is that science is an industry that even regulates herbal remedies and views them as profit centers- to say that lobbying to legalise embryonic stemcell research is not hugely funded is well plain silly.

Again, generalising about what "science" is.

CDfm wrote: »

I accept science but by your logic I should rely on a verifiable scientific source for everything.

When did I say that? I'm not asking you to do any such thing. I think it should inform policies, laws and morals, but how you ultimately make your choices is no concern of mine. Throw a dice if you like.

CDfm wrote: »

Science alone is quite limited in building a holistic view of the world universe and everything- it tries but it cant. Its like Julian Webber -the cello player - somehow I cant see him filling in for Lemmy in Motorhead any day soon. It just wouldnt be the same- yet they are both musicians but it wouldnt work.

You can differentiate between different kinds of musician. But science is an industry controlled by industry funded by industry. Maybe you should look as closely at science as you have at metal music.

CDfm wrote: »

So to say to me to rely on science as a source for my religious or spiritual beliefs - well no sale.

When did I say this? It's an argument some use to justify their own position.

Dave!

I see contempt for science in most of your posts CDfm. You just spent ages trying to show us that scientists are biased and print lies because they're in the pocket of [whoever]! By coincidence I was looking up an old thread for someone, and noticed this post by you:

CDfm wrote: »

Another example of unethical scientists scamming.Publishing unchecked articles in supposedly rigorously checked scientific journals.

He should be in jail for the scam he pulled and the damage he caused to people and the health children but the scientific community is self policing and protects its own.

I will guess you will tell us now theres no evidence. Another scientific cover up.

You're constantly trying to undermine "science" with this kind of silly stuff, and it does you no favours. It just makes you look anti-intellectual or anti-science, and it makes it seem as though you're in some way fearsome of scientific discovery. To me it looks like you're afraid more scientific discovery will mean that there is less reason for you to believe in a god, and it might make your position -- and your long held beliefs -- untenable.

Your thoughts seem all over the place by the way.

Goduznt Xzst

CDfm wrote: »

I dont think you can.

I asked 2 questions, which one is this a response to.

CDfm wrote: »

But you might look at it on ethics.

In what sense? An example would help.

CDfm

Dave! wrote: »

I see contempt for science in most of your posts CDfm. You just spent ages trying to show us that scientists are biased and print lies because they're in the pocket of [whoever]! By coincidence I was looking up an old thread for someone, and noticed this post by you:



To me it looks like you're afraid more scientific discovery will mean that there is less reason for you to believe in a god, and it might make your position -- and your long held beliefs -- untenable.

Your thoughts seem all over the place by the way.

Believe what you want - but I am sorry if it comes accross that I have an anti science bias or prejudice as I dont.

What I am trying to do is understand the ethos in a way that makes sence to me. That might mean asking dumb questions to build a picture and get a feel for whats what. Many athiests especially those who are here are very knowledgeable on scripture etc moreso than most believers- so a lot of thought has gone into it.

So sorry if a bias based on my belief comes accross as I can be a bit of a smartarse and skeptic.I find it easier to ask very simple questions and this is probably more to my business skills then my religious beliefs. Sorry if anyone is offended.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Such ignorance. You can't even demonstrate a basic understanding of the subject matter you argue yet you presume to know me to the core from some internet posts on a single topic.



Some of us were once religious. You were never a scientist in the philosophical or professional sense. You seem unable to understand what either means nor the difference between them.



Assuming this narrow minded statement were true, what is your point?



So how come the Irish government fund that very work in NUI Galway, including clinical trials? The money comes from SFI. Not a drugs company. You are spoofing. You have no knowledge whatsoever of your subject matter and you look like a total fool.



On what basis? St Johns Wort is not patentable and thus there is no monopoly on it's production or sale. ......... The same with stem cells- they can be produced by literally anyone who can do cell culture.

Sorry about the beautiful woman comment -I couldnt resist.

My point is that I would expect that science operates in a regulatory environment while you do have peer review it is not possible for the non-scientist to discriminate between it. I use embryonic stemcell harvesting from aborted foetuses to make a point on christian ethics. Not all funding is state grant aid lots is industry sponsored.

In the main the direct contact we have with science is drug companies or say the tobacco industry is an example of where scientrific studies are used in court. Or the pharmaceutical lobby groups ormedical scandals.

I have worked in the marketing and product development of financial products in a regulated environment - so the application of regulation is based on cultural factors and accepted practice as well as regulation.I am posing questions and asking is there bias and differentiation in the quality of the reviews based on the funding mechanisms and the resources of the competition.

So my point is that certain areas lend themselves to empirical studies etc and some do not. Religion is one of the areas that do not. In fact the Feynman link pointed that out on pseudo-science that takes the form of research controls as a quality mark but really is makey upey pretend science- quantifiable research methods but.....After watching the Feynman link I am very comfortable with all of this and do not see any inconsistancy at all.

So I apologise for being thick but I am trying to achieve a balanced overview of science in this context and am glad I am fortunate that I can- but I need to understand it in terms of stuff I understand.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I asked 2 questions, which one is this a response to.



In what sense? An example would help.

I dont think you can factor God into empirical studies in the sence of the phenomena you are describing so in the main no.

God isnt testable scientifically.

On the ethics side there will be overlap between areas - stemcell research is an example of this where science and religion have an interest. But it is the exception and not the rule.

Allegory is completely lost on scientists - ya just find the bible and christianity very challenging but then it wasnt written as a science paper.