Science at its worst

[PureX]

Interesting you'd jump on board with the Dunning-Kruger accusation. When it is convenient? Another pos repped me and told me Edison didn't have a science degree either. Dunning-Kruger? Seems to be some prejudism among the hoiti toiti concering the hoi poi.

I made no mention whatever of this "Dunning-Kruger accusation". I explain my own positions well enough.

That darn Darwin fish-ape-man chart is still so hard to get away from on science walls. Some have said they 'just like it' from a by-gone erroneous era and in tribute to the man :think: Christians were against the chart long before it was wrong in science circles too. :think:

When you finally bother to learn what the theory of evolution proposes, we'll discuss it. Until then, you're just blowing smoke up your own hiney.

I don't think you dishonest, I think you Archie-Bunker-prejudice and consistently terrible/wrong at proper assessment because of the prejudism.

The problem is that you don't think at all. You just auto-defend your own ignorance. And as a result you learn mostly nothing.

 

[Lon]

I made no mention whatever of this "Dunning-Kruger accusation".

:think:

The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

I was thinking the same thing.

I explain my own positions well enough.
When you finally bother to learn what the theory of evolution proposes, we'll discuss it. Until then, you're just blowing smoke up your own hiney.
The problem is that you don't think at all. You just auto-defend your own ignorance. And as a result you learn mostly nothing.

The unfounded assertion game one of your preferred? You 'think' weird about things and are consistently wrong. I've been addressing items in thread. You are attempting to address my character flaws, real or imagined lain:

 

[PureX]

It's amazing to watch people who don't know the first thing about a field of science (in this case geochronology) nevertheless anoint themselves sufficiently qualified to declare that entire field of science invalid.

I was thinking the same thing. And even more amazing is the fact that the absurdity of this never seems to occur to them. As though it's just an automatic given that they see so much more in the span of a few minutes than all the scientists of the world can see in a lifetime of in-depth study.

See, I can edit, too.

 

[Lon]

See, I can edit, too.

:doh: That IS the Dunning Kruger effect you are/were agreeing with. Simply removing the label does nothing to distance yourself lain:

 

[Caino]

I don't see it as Dunning Kruger, it's the fetish making tendency of the brain that leads people to confuse faith with cultural religious story telling. If 6 day creationism wasn't in the Bible then old earth scientific observation would be common sense to these same people. It's not because it sounds reasonable, it's because it's in the Bible and they tend not to be honest with themselves or others about their doubts because those doubts are called a lack of faith in the faith community. One poster on this site once frankly confessed that if the Bible said that the moon was made of cheese they would have to believe it.

The priesthood, a derivation of the medicine man and shaman, has long exploited fear and superstition to it's ends since evolution first produced the religious impulse.

 

[Lon]

I don't see it as Dunning Kruger, it's the fetish making tendency of the brain that leads people to confuse faith with cultural religious story telling.... One poster on this site once frankly confessed that if the Bible said that the moon was made of cheese they would have to believe it.

I'd believe the moon was made of cheese before I'd believe the U-rant-ia book and it's make-believe aliens, if I were forced to a choice.

The field of science is 'about' questioning veracity and fostering inquiry and further-inquiry. It should not matter if Christianity or any other dare question results. Results is the secondary objective of the field of science. Scientific results are the primary goal of marketing and capitalism, not science. These politically steer and fund science but there is nothing I see but a commercial need for scientific dogmatism. That isn't part of science but others try to marry indoctrination to it. That isn't what this field is at all about. Other study disciplines do, but not science.

 

[PureX]

:doh: That IS the Dunning Kruger effect you are/were agreeing with. Simply removing the label does nothing to distance yourself lain:

I didn't bring it up, I didn't refer to it, and I don't care how you or Jose label it. It's your problem to face, and to deal with. I already explained how I saw it.

 

[Lon]

:doh:

 

[Jose Fly]

First of all, there is a difference between familiarity and any degree of prowess.
Second, are you familiar or do you assert prowess regarding Dunning-Kruger?

Come on Lon, pay attention. Am I dismissing an entire field of science, even though I don't know anything about it?

Here is a Christian that agrees with you, yet he asserts that these conclusions are extrapolations. He significantly believes because there are so many different extrapolations, that all agree, that the evidence points overwhelmingly to a specific age in approximation.

And where in that are the assumptions and mere guesses that you accused geochronologists of engaging in?

An extrapolation like this doesn't help science, it is too broad as to be significantly meaningful (more later, but no good science is done by huge general figures that I'm aware of).

Why, because you say so? Do you honestly think anyone is going to take your empty say-so over the long-standing consensus conclusions of the experts who actually work in the field?

Darwin was describing changes in finches and concluding that their beaks were adaptations. while I can agree with a lot of his observations, there is no reason to think 'evolution' or adaptation.

Again, pay better attention. You claimed that there was a "problem with science books" in that they "indoctrinate" by asserting "evolution did it". Where are your examples of such books doing that?

Why? Because only a finch 'with' a stronger beak would have been able to crack the nut, or only one with a longer beak would have been able to reach into the bug hole. The point? It isn't 'adaptation.' This is an erroneous conclusion. The reason some finches had stronger beaks is they mated. That's it. The others either flew away or died. The reason some other had longer beaks is they mated. One of my kids may have a longer nose than the other. The only thing that would make longer nosed children afterwards is if they had kids with another with that trait.

Ok, to be totally honest....that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. If that's reflective of the extent of your knowledge of biology, then I'll just let that speak for itself.

It's no different than someone trying to act like they're an expert on the Bible, but in doing so saying "When Noah took the 10 Commandments to Joseph and broke them on the Ark of the Covenant, Lot's wife got so mad she turned into salt and pepper".

Evolution is a sloppy bin word where 'selection' (natural unecessary, it is either cognizant or climate related), etc. Using the overall bin word 'evolution' explains nothing and isn't as helpful as 'describing' what is going on. Evolution is such a large bin word that it loses its meaning and becomes nothing less than 'evolution-did-it' every time it is employed.

Given the level of ignorance of basic biology you displayed above, your opinions on the subject aren't worth a thing.

Yes, at every turn. Look here

I didn't see the phrase "evolution did it" anywhere in there.

They throw in 'evolution' as the conclusion of the observations. One might agree with everything a scientist says, only to be shut down and walk away in dispute all because of the conclusion disagreement that isn't necessary. My brother and daughter are both science majors (one complete, the other in pursuit). They often differ on 'evolution' as conclusion yet are fully capable of doing excellent science. Why? Because agreeing with conclusion isn't what science is all about.

You're not making any sense at all.

Science is about discovering what works consistently and employing it.

Yep, and evolution has served as the unifying framework for the life sciences for over a century. It's the basis for the field of comparative genomics, which is how we figure out the functions of genetic sequences. It informs us on things like vaccine development and antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Over the same period of time, creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science. Not one thing.

So on that basis alone, evolution is clearly superior to creationism, which is utterly useless.

Simply disagreeing on the end description is unnecessary when both are agreeing on the data and what happens when such is applied to such. IOW, you, and other scientists and perhaps yes, we theologians can too, take some blame, over assert and ruin good science inquiry where we could do a lot of good if we'd just suck up our prideful conclusions. "Evolution" nor "ID" are necessary to cure cancer. Investigation and trial/error (the scientific method) is more important than indoctrination conclusions in the field of science, yet here we are arguing over exactly that. It doesn't matter to any science whether the earth is a few thousand or a few billion years old. Why? Because we have no way to actually tell. Science is exacting and needs exacting measures to function. A ballpark doesn't do anything for any field of science, not even geology.

Again, given the astounding level of ignorance of basic biology you displayed above, your opinions on the subject aren't worth anything.

I got the gist. I've seen a few different renditions regarding his prowess. How would you suggest I balance those all out? It is certainly clear from even this article that it wasn't his primary degree or focus at the time. It should be even noted he showed no academic prowess, according to your article but preferred shooting and riding to actually studying. What did you happen to see beyond these?

Never mind.

It seems to me that the Dunning-Kruger comment was nothing more than a dismissive debate employment. True?

No, it was a valid observation. In this thread we have people who obviously don't know the first thing about radiometric dating methods, yet have deemed themselves qualified to critique it. That is a very good illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

If someone said, "When Noah took the 10 Commandments to Joseph and broke them on the Ark of the Covenant, Lot's wife got so mad she turned into salt and pepper", would you consider that person to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the Bible to critique it? Would you take that person's assertions about the Bible as unquestioned gospel?

No? Now you know how we view your assertions about biology.

 

[Jose Fly]

are you actually claiming that radioactive dating techniques are an empircal science? Because the cold reality is they are not.

Why, because you say so? Do you honestly think if "SonOfCaleb" in a religious internet board says something is so, everyone else will accept it as unquestioned gospel?

For you to imply that they are is not only fallacious its Science fiction. So if you can point me to a dating technique that is NOT flawed and that can factually, accurately, and repeatedly measure the rate of decay using a 'Scientific' method to 7 decimal places im all ears....

How about you start by explaining the mechanism that causes isotopes that decay via alpha decay to give the same results as isotopes that decay via electron capture?

 

[Jose Fly]

:think: Jose disagrees with you. He thinks you must have a degree. My point was simply to point out that Darwin didn't either.
:think: Interesting you'd jump on board with the Dunning-Kruger accusation. When it is convenient? Another pos repped me and told me Edison didn't have a science degree either. Dunning-Kruger? Seems to be some prejudism among the hoiti toiti concering the hoi poi.

Um....the Dunning-Kruger effect isn't about having degrees. :duh:

 

[Caino]

I'd believe the moon was made of cheese before I'd believe the U-rant-ia book and it's make-believe aliens, if I were forced to a choice.

The field of science is 'about' questioning veracity and fostering inquiry and further-inquiry. It should not matter if Christianity or any other dare question results. Results is the secondary objective of the field of science. Scientific results are the primary goal of marketing and capitalism, not science. These politically steer and fund science but there is nothing I see but a commercial need for scientific dogmatism. That isn't part of science but others try to marry indoctrination to it. That isn't what this field is at all about. Other study disciplines do, but not science.

Well there is what the UB calls "atheistic science", that's science with an agenda, so we would agree on that. And my book doesn't have iron chariots that are more powerful than God (in reality the so called Israelites simply lost the stupid battle, get over it already).

Real science provides real facts and those facts conflict with the Babylonian Hebrews fictional recasting of Hebrew history, written for sheep headers. Scientific facts destroy a great bit of the superstition of religion.

And for the record, the Bible has an alien appearing to Mary to inform her that his alien boss was growing inside of her. You've just been given those facts in a tidy religious package thick with speculation.

 

[6days]

Yep, and evolution has served as the unifying framework for the life sciences for over a century

Actually.... its a superfluous idea. Its a superfluous idea not only according to many creationists, but even according to some anti-creationists such as Larry Witham, author of "Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America'...published by Oxford Press

“Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word ‘evolution’ in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families."

It's the basis for the field of comparative genomics, which is how we figure out the functions of genetic sequences.

Nonsense. You are doing your best be an evangelist for evolutionism, but more like a snake oil salesman.

Comparative genomics is based on homology, mutation rates, genetic drift etc... Nothing at all to do with common ancestry beliefs.

It informs us on things like vaccine development and antibiotic resistant bacteria.

A laughable...silly argument. Both Biblical creationists and atheistic evolutionists perform the same research developing vaccines and antibiotics. They have different beliefs about the past...both observe the ability of bacteria to change into bacteria, and viruses into viruses. But only the evolutionists then think that is evidence that a bug change into a biologist.

Over the same period of time, creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science. Not one thing.

Peter Harrison, former professor of history and philosophy (and science and Religion at the University of Oxford) says...
“Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science. …

Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”

So on that basis alone, evolution is clearly superior to creationism, which is utterly useless.

Actually, modern science is founded largely on Biblical beliefs. Evolutionism though has been a cause of genocides, abortuarys, the holocaust, increased racism and often shoddy medical conclusions that has hindered science and harmed people.

 

[Lon]

Um....the Dunning-Kruger effect isn't about having degrees. :duh:

...people who don't know the first thing about a field of science.

... an entire field of science.... geochronologists....the long-standing consensus conclusions of the experts...actually...in the field?

 

[Lon]

Come on Lon, pay attention. Am I dismissing an entire field of science, even though I don't know anything about it?

Like religion? Yeah, I do see that. Oh, you mean 'science.' lain:

And where in that are the assumptions and mere guesses that you accused geochronologists of engaging in?

You don't pay attention to me either, not that either of us owe the other that lain:

Why, because you say so? Do you honestly think anyone is going to take your empty say-so over the long-standing consensus conclusions of the experts who actually work in the field?

Of course not, let's not worry about it and just keep doing court cases the rest of eternity lain:

Again, pay better attention. You claimed that there was a "problem with science books" in that they "indoctrinate" by asserting "evolution did it". Where are your examples of such books doing that?

You just above showed your disdain as well as again illustrated you are not on TOL for intelligent conversation. My example would 'easily' be dismissed, no? lain:

Ok, to be totally honest....that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. If that's reflective of the extent of your knowledge of biology, then I'll just let that speak for itself.

Like you, I have several fields of study and so you don't rate on my radar either. It is mutual lain:
There is never an excuse for a scientist to even say such a thing (reserving inane vitriol for another time by contrast). See here While no scientist wants to disagree with Gould, this particular 'evolution expert' says the finches were all the same but the beaks. Well, that is not speciation and so much for your inept assessment here. Nice try, but you make me question your 'science' degree at every turn. lain:

It's no different than someone trying to act like they're an expert on the Bible, but in doing so saying "When Noah took the 10 Commandments to Joseph and broke them on the Ark of the Covenant, Lot's wife got so mad she turned into salt and pepper".

You certainly are not. lain:

Given the level of ignorance of basic biology you displayed above, your opinions on the subject aren't worth a thing.

Given your inept supposed 'science-expertise' assessment, your input isn't desired anyway :noway:

I didn't see the phrase "evolution did it" anywhere in there.

Again you don't pay attention, but lest we forget, you are not here for that reason anyway. You are inept.

You're not making any sense at all.

Incredibly better than you are but again, lest any forget, you are here for fun and ridicule, not some noble scientific pursuit, by your own admission.

Yep, and evolution has served as the unifying framework for the life sciences for over a century. It's the basis for the field of comparative genomics, which is how we figure out the functions of genetic sequences. It informs us on things like vaccine development and antibiotic resistant bacteria.

I'd disagree but "something something something stupidest thing I've ever read..." No? You make your own bed here on TOL, Jose. Nobody looks for anything but mockery and 'fun' from you because that is your only stated purpose. I use you to make points regarding your honesty and integrity as well as any scientific prowess you assert you possess. I doubt your capabilities given that is your stated reason for TOL existence.

Over the same period of time, creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science. Not one thing.

Pure assertion on your part. Creationists were against the fish to man chart long before science admitted it was an incorrect portrayal as well.

So on that basis alone, evolution is clearly superior to creationism, which is utterly useless.

And this falls in line with your fun and mocking purposes on TOL lain:

Again, given the astounding level of ignorance of basic biology you displayed above, your opinions on the subject aren't worth anything.

Way to over-play, over-assert your science prowess :noway:

Never mind.

Pretty much as I think of the piece of paper your degree is written on could produce at this point lain:

No, it was a valid observation. In this thread we have people who obviously don't know the first thing about radiometric dating methods, yet have deemed themselves qualified to critique it. That is a very good illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I'd disagree for two reasons 1) Dunning-Kruger doesn't apply to laymen websites like this one directly. The expertise for this website is whatever allows for cross-over discussion between science and religion. If you understand this, you are 'half' qualified potentially. 2) The website being laymen, is graced by those with any particular degree. You 'could' be a valued person here. You choose not to be but it is no reason for the disdain that you may possess the degree. It again amounts to your elitist self-love and infatuation disdaining the hoi poi and pretty much the essence of this repost of your's

If someone said, "When Noah took the 10 Commandments to Joseph and broke them on the Ark of the Covenant, Lot's wife got so mad she turned into salt and pepper", would you consider that person to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the Bible to critique it? Would you take that person's assertions about the Bible as unquestioned gospel?

First, I don't think the comparison viable because this wouldn't be said by a cognizant individual trying to assert something. I suppose there is something to how prideful the guy is asserting that which is wrong. I don't think this passes comparison viability, Jose.

No? Now you know how we view your assertions about biology.

lain: You demean your own profession. :Z

 

[Caino]

True, the church and all of it's associated superstition and pseudo-biographical claims held people in the bondage of ignorance for ages. But simply put, people had enough of your distortions of history and threats of magic spells! They grew a set, risked torture and murder by the Christian religion in order to pursue the real world of facts. It was only a matter of time before the sins of religion would be exposed.

 

[Lon]

... book doesn't have iron chariots that are more powerful than God (in reality the so called Israelites simply lost the stupid battle, get over it already).

Aren't and weren't you just a sloppy theologian?
:think: Deuteronomy 20:1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. See Judges 1:27-32 after that. It isn't that "God" couldn't, but that "Judah" couldn't, and the incorrect reason why. Sad you rely on atheist websites for your information

Real science provides real facts and those facts conflict with the Babylonian Hebrews fictional recasting of Hebrew history, written for sheep headers. Scientific facts destroy a great bit of the superstition of religion.

You sadly, settle for two-dimensional answers, such is your adherence to your book. My brother and daughter do science just fine holding on to the Bible truths and their fields of science (biology both of them).

And for the record, the Bible has an alien appearing to Mary to inform her that his alien boss was growing inside of her. You've just been given those facts in a tidy religious package thick with speculation.

:nono: A spiritual being is not to be confused with science-fiction and this kind of inaccurate assessment does indeed confuse the two. The UB sloppily conflates them but not the Bible.

True, the church and all of it's associated superstition and pseudo-biographical claims held people in the bondage of ignorance for ages. But simply put, people had enough of your distortions of history and threats of magic spells! They grew a set, risked torture and murder by the Christian religion in order to pursue the real world of facts. It was only a matter of time before the sins of religion would be exposed.

I've no problem with corrections. They do have to come from within the walls with those of vested interest, however. You again are uncritically sloppy here with your vernacular, however. There is no superstition or magic lain:

 

[Jose Fly]

Actually.... its a superfluous idea. Its a superfluous idea not only according to many creationists, but even according to some anti-creationists such as Larry Witham, author of "Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America'...published by Oxford Press

Given that Witham is a journalist/artist, I really don't care about his opinions on biology. At the very least his opinions are secondary to the actual facts on the ground.

The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word ‘evolution’ in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families."

As you've been shown before, we can go to the most prestigious journal in the world (PNAS) and do a search for papers that have the word "evolution" either in the title or abstract. The results? Over 4,000 papers at just this one journal in the last 20 years (that's over 80 per year).

If we go to the journal Nature and do the same type of search, we get almost 3,000 papers.

In 2005, the AAAS (the folks who publish the journal Science) named "Watching evolution in action" the Breakthrough of the Year.

Where's the equivalent from creationism?

Nonsense. You are doing your best be an evangelist for evolutionism, but more like a snake oil salesman.

Comparative genomics is based on homology, mutation rates, genetic drift etc... Nothing at all to do with common ancestry beliefs.

You're just plain wrong 6days. MORE and MORE.

What I can't figure out is why you think your "Nuh uh" baseless say-so is more compelling than the consensus view among the people who actually work in the field.

A laughable...silly argument. Both Biblical creationists and atheistic evolutionists perform the same research developing vaccines and antibiotics. They have different beliefs about the past...both observe the ability of bacteria to change into bacteria, and viruses into viruses. But only the evolutionists then think that is evidence that a bug change into a biologist.

Really? What vaccines have been developed based on the "Biblical model of creation"?

Peter Harrison, former professor of history and philosophy (and science and Religion at the University of Oxford) says...
“Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science.

What has creationism contributed in the last 100 years?

Evolutionism though has been a cause of genocides, abortuarys, the holocaust, increased racism and often shoddy medical conclusions that has hindered science and harmed people.

Your desperate mud slinging is noted.

 

[Caino]

Aren't and weren't you just a sloppy theologian?
:think: Deuteronomy 20:1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. See Judges 1:27-32 after that. It isn't that "God" couldn't, but that "Judah" couldn't, and the incorrect reason why. Sad you rely on atheist websites for your information

You sadly, settle for two-dimensional answers, such is your adherence to your book. My brother and daughter do science just fine holding on to the Bible truths and their fields of science (biology both of them).

:nono: A spiritual being is not to be confused with science-fiction and this kind of inaccurate assessment does indeed confuse the two. The UB sloppily conflates them but not the Bible.

I've no problem with corrections. They do have to come from within the walls with those of vested interest, however. You again are uncritically sloppy here with your vernacular, however. There is no superstition or magic lain:

Bible worshipers have an onboard reality translator in their brains which everything must pass through in order to maintain the holy mans claim that God wrote the Bible. And yes, there are plenty of so called Christian scientist who must do the same thing to maintain misapplied faith and credibility at the same time. When the Bible says God was unable to defeat Iron chariots the Bible worshiper runs that through the theology translator to get the desired results. It's a form of self delusion.

In the UB we know that the Israelites intermixed with the Canaanites and they still are a mixture. When the Hebrew redactors rewrote and exaggerated all those old stories they left clues of the former and more accurate history. They had no idea we would one day have DNA and genetics. The Canaanites were never driven out completely.

 

[Lon]

They had no idea we would one day have DNA and genetics. The Canaanites were never driven out completely.

It is statements like this that make me think you've never read a verse of the Bible in your life

Genesis 36:2