[Closed] Evolution - I`m not buying it.

Sorry for a late reply but,

http://www.christiansagainstdinosaurs.com/

This is Poe's Law in action, it's satire.

but I know a lot about science

[img] [/img]

Aracer earlier.

[quote=Euro ]

... but I know a lot about science

are you going to explain what you think is special about that comment?

Let's try an analogy here - if somebody was a heart surgeon, would it be reasonable in a discussion on ankle injuries for them to declare that they didn't know much about ankles, but know a lot about medicine?

I am always amazed at how many scientist attribute evolution to Charles Darwin when the term wasn't even mentioned until the sixth edition of TOoS

All these clever people rarely mention his grandfather or Wallace. But their word is "sacrosant" nonetheless. Have "faith " in such people???

We formulate conclusions based on available knowledge and evidence.

Sounds quite an arrogant assertion when it seems to me we do no more that formulate hypotheses and reject some of them. Not much more....

I'm disappointed THM. It usually takes you far less than seven pages to attempt to troll me.

detailed, well argued response noted

TBH, missed the author, the comment was was stood out esp in the context of the scientific method

teamhurtmore - Member
We formulate conclusions based on available knowledge and evidence.
Sounds quite an arrogant assertion when it seems to me we do no more that formulate hypotheses and reject some of them. Not much more....

sapience
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Wikipedia.
sa·pi·ent (s??p?-?nt)
adj.
Having great wisdom and discernment.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin sapi?ns, sapient-, present participle of sapere, to taste, be wise; see sep- in Indo-European roots.]

detailed, well argued response noted

I'm just amused that in a ten page thread with over 300 comments, my comment on page 3 (ish?) was the one (of two) you chose to respond to.

Your argument seems to be on the semantics of "conclusion" vs "hypothesis" - which is fine, I'll cheerfully accept "hypothesis" as a more appropriate word. "Conclusion" was perhaps a clumsy word, I didn't realise there was going to be a test.

Your argument seems to be on the semantics

Sorry, do you mean him or me (or someone else)?

Not you Cougar.... Thm and semantics are closing in on a few others at times, almost trying to avoid the actual discussion...

Cool and groovy, just checking. As you were. (-:

I'll cheerfully accept "hypothesis" as a more appropriate word. "Conclusion" was perhaps a clumsy word,

Excellent, precision is what one ecpect from scientists. Mile gets himself into regular pickles on the EU thread due to a lack of it.

"Excellent, precision is what one ecpect from scientists. Mile gets himself into regular pickles on the EU thread due to a lack of it"
I think that you'll find his name is Mike,and there's an x in expect THM (Pedant alert)

I just assumed it was an attempt at humour (while avoiding the actual discussion)

This has probably been said in 10 pages but I ain't checking!

I saw a quote the other day, attributed (probably spuriously) to Dawkins:

"I no longer ask people if they believe in evolution, I ask them if they understand evolution."

I think that you'll find his name is Mike,and there's an x in expect THM (Pedant alert)

True and noted. But STW Is ageist and this current version of the forum with its tiny screen plus apple autocorrect means that those of us of a certain age (and needing reading glasses) have posts littered with typos. On a phone I have no idea about typos until the send post button is activated - well that's my excuse 😉

Don't think THM does humour,or precision Mike.

humour, or precision

Cmon 😉

THM - social scientist pulls up natural science on lack of rigour 🙂

Frankly, pretending that economics is either precise or even a science is a leap of faith at times (some might say always!)

The over reliance on mathematical approaches has given little more than an illusion of both. Economics is at best very messy and imprecise. But I am sceptical on any scientists who are over confident in conclusions - hence my earlier post.

But I am sceptical on any scientists who are over confident in conclusions - hence my earlier post.

I'm more sceptical of people without enough detailed knowledge to comment calling the work of others into doubt when it comes to science.

You should try the EU economics and politics threads - oh wait a minute.

Climate change is a very good example of the dangers of definitive conclusions BTW but that's another thread.

Back to evolution and the proper Darwin and Wallace perhaps?

Replication error

I think the point is that all scientists are sceptics (especially of their own data, bordering on neurotic ime), including climate ones, once politics (or religion) gets involved it becomes dogmatic.

New ideas are supposed to be criticised and attacked, if they stand up and are reproducible then they become accepted.

Working on genomics for the last 20 years I know plenty of people who've had to reverse their deeply held opinions as new data & interpretation has turned the world upside down.
That's what makes science so exciting!
Anthropology, evolution and genetics are constantly upheaving, because the better able we are too zoom in on our ancestral tree the messier & older it becomes.

Apropos of nothing: Ancestry.com advert on tv last night where the guy 'discovered' he was a Viking boiled my piss, ****ing daily mail of science those clowns!

The news media really doesn't help either. Reporting of science is terrible.

bump

nice summary of our ancient dna & anthropology

and cool stuff about unkown species in our ancestry

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09jqtg5

Sorry missed the rest of this thread

Aracer
YOU ... but I know a lot about science

ME... This thread is full of gems, but this one stands out.

BACK TO YOU ...are you going to explain what you think is special about that comment?

Let's try an analogy here - if somebody was a heart surgeon, would it be reasonable in a discussion on ankle injuries for them to declare that they didn't know much about ankles, but know a lot about medicine?

Let's leave the analogies if you don't mind.

Maybe our definitions of "a lot' are completely different but i tend to think that we (as in humans) don't know that much. More than we did 200 years ago, yes, and more than we did last week, but it's a fairly new thing to us. And subject so vast (we don't even know how vast) in which we are discovering new things every day. - which generally ask more questions than provide answers. So imo only a [s]fool[/s] special person would think they know a lot about it

You might find [url= http://www.ancient-origins.net/opinion-guest-authors/evolution-wisdom-study-evolution-perception-understood-ancient-religions-020863 ]this[/url] interesting.
It reads about how the evolution of wisdom is viewed trough different religions.

It has long been my view that one thing which cannot be passed to another person or to the next generation is wisdom. Knowledge yes, wisdom no. That has to be acquired by the individual.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
Socrates
“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.”
? Isaac Asimov

Interesting review of AN Wilson’s book about Darwin, the reviewer nicely rips Wilson’s anti-Darwin opinions apart.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/darwin-endless-trial/