Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[YoursTrue]

That was refuted over ten years ago. Why would you refer to a dishonest article such as that? Would you like to go over why that is from a lying source?

See? That's what I'm saying. From the article, "And the institute believes that the 1,000 plus scientists who have signed the statement represent the tip of a massive iceberg. “While that number surely represents a scientific minority, it also no doubt vastly understates the number of Darwin-doubting PhD scientists,” wrote Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer at Evolution News."
So who is lying here?

 

[YoursTrue]

By the way, a scientist was fired from his job at university after his finding challenges the current theory of evolution.
University Fires Scientist After Dinosaur Discovery Challenges Evolution

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did a search on it with Google Scholar. Most of the results are about disagreements between researchers. Do researchers have mock debates with each other where they call their own views “scientific” and “evidence based,” and opposing views “unscientific,” and call each other “science deniers”? I would need to see some examples of how they use the words “science” and “evidence” in discussing their disagreements with each other in professional journals and conferences.

I have been to a lot of conferences, but I usually don't hear battling researchers calling other researchers unscientific or referring to their views as evidence-based. They ask questions. The discuss the evidence. Point out flaws. Discuss methods. I have seen some heat, but for the most part, it is pretty free of action. I saw Stephen Gould once in 1996. He gave a great lecture that was very interesting, but he was also pompous a**. E.O Wilson was much cooler and more accessible. They are usually much stiffer with the grad students at times, but even then there is some level of decorum.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

See? That's what I'm saying. From the article, "And the institute believes that the 1,000 plus scientists who have signed the statement represent the tip of a massive iceberg. “While that number surely represents a scientific minority, it also no doubt vastly understates the number of Darwin-doubting PhD scientists,” wrote Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer at Evolution News."
So who is lying here?

That entire list is constructed on an ethical house of cards. The idea that they are supporting is being skeptical of the theory of evolution. They are not casting it out. Scientists are trained to be skeptical. To question and test. Some of the signers were mislead about what they were signing. There is a paucity of biologists on that list. Being skeptical does not mean that they think the theory is garbage and being a Darwin-doubter in this day and age is a little silly, since the theory has been revised since his time and much evidence has been added by so many others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

See? That's what I'm saying. From the article, "And the institute believes that the 1,000 plus scientists who have signed the statement represent the tip of a massive iceberg. “While that number surely represents a scientific minority, it also no doubt vastly understates the number of Darwin-doubting PhD scientists,” wrote Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer at Evolution News."
So who is lying here?

If has been over a decade, if there was a mythical, massive group of lurker scientists, there would be some indication of it. The Disco Institute can't even provide evidence that it is more than that small group that was lied to, to begin with, just to get them to sign.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See? That's what I'm saying. From the article, "And the institute believes that the 1,000 plus scientists who have signed the statement represent the tip of a massive iceberg. “While that number surely represents a scientific minority, it also no doubt vastly understates the number of Darwin-doubting PhD scientists,” wrote Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer at Evolution News."
So who is lying here?

Your source. Too bad that you do not understand it.

Did you even read what the scientists signed? It was not an opposition to the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If has been over a decade, if there was a mythical, massive group of lurker scientists, there would be some indication of it. The Disco Institute can't even provide evidence that it is more than that small group that was lied to, to begin with, just to get them to sign.

There were some real scientists that signed that misleading petition. When they found out what it was they asked that their names to be removed. They were not. That alone makes it dishonest.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can anyone tell me how to find research articles on topics where there is disagreement between researchers, that are not behind paywalls?

Most research articles don't have a point/counterpoint format. They are reports about the work, the specific methods, the results and a discussion of those results. There are letter sections in journals like Science and Nature were there are responses to research reports and counter responses. `In some ways, they look like half of what you see here. Other journals have these sections too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's almost like being on a jury. Sometimes the evidence doesn't make sense to the juror. Sometimes the evidence is questionable, as in hearsay or assumption, if you know what I mean. That is one reason I will not be on a jury.

Ever since that incident in Seattle in '85, I can't be on a jury.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now that you mention it, is nothing really nothing? Because I remember one teacher saying in reality, although math has a sign zero, there really is no zero. And so maybe later we'll continue this conversation.

Not for nothing, you may be onto something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ever since that incident in Seattle in '85, I can't be on a jury.

What do you have against Madonna?

Madonna 1985 Virgin Tour Seattle

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m denying all the claims that people make of knowing anything, in public debating, including everything that they think they know, that they call “science.” I’m saying the whole idea of believing things because they’re “scientific” or “evidence based” is wrong. I’m saying that in public debating, using “science” and “evidence” is as fallacious as using religious scriptures. That what I mean by saying that I’m denying science. I’m denying the validity of all arguments from “science” and “evidence,” in public debating.

Have you considered the difference between believing and accepting? Believing is without evidence and accepting is based on the evidence. Both of these occur. Sometimes in the same person.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you have against Madonna?

Madonna 1985 Virgin Tour Seattle

I can't talk about it.

I kind of liked her a little back then.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, that is part of the problem. No, pure nothingness does not exist and has never existed.

The Big Bang theory does NOT say the universe came from nothing. In fact, it is a description of what has happened to the universe *after* the start of the current expansion phase.

What, if anything, happened before that is not known. There are several hypotheses, but we cannot test between them because we don'thave the data from the times involved.

It is possible that time started at some point and that it is simply meaningless to talk about 'before' that.

It is possible that there was a previous universe that underwent a 'Big Crunch'.

It is possible that the universe alternatively expands and contracts forever.

It is possible that universes 'bud off' from a larger expansion that is ongoing.

There are many other options, but I don't need to go into them all.

The point is that we don't have the data to distinguish which, if any, are correct.

I am not so certain that is true, or at least, there may be exceptions. In searching for Donald Trumps humility, nothing has been found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, a scientist was fired from his job at university after his finding challenges the current theory of evolution.
University Fires Scientist After Dinosaur Discovery Challenges Evolution

Nope, That is a lie as well.. The man was not a scientist. He was not even fired.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope, That is a lie as well.. The man was not a scientist. He was not even fired.

He was some sort of equipment operator, training people how to use it. If I remember right, he was proselytizing in a public university.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope, That is a lie as well.. The man was not a scientist. He was not even fired.

How many times does this have to be put to bed, before we stop seeing it cycle through?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He was some sort of equipment operator, training people how to use it. If I remember right, he was proselytizing in a public university.

Yes, and his contract was not renewed. The university would probably have won in court. The only thing going against them was the comment of one employee of the university about not allowing him to spread his religious nonsense. They were probably worried by that a bit. Not by the fact that what he was spread was religious nonsense, but that the statement of the one university employee could look prejudicial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many times does this have to be put to bed, before we stop seeing it cycle through?

Probably another ten years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Probably another ten years.

At least.