Scientists speak out!

Scientist offer "consensus" for their deductions. They find bones and fossils, compare them to each other and when they "approximately" existed. Which generally puts 10's and sometimes 100's of thousands and occasionally millions of years of gap between their existences. They then fill in the gaps with logics. Or at least their version of logics. Which I am not proclaiming as wrong. But, considering all of the guessing that goes on for the sake of filling in the gaps, their ideas are not much more than agreed upon ideas. Naturally they tend to support one another's ideas as they all get paid by governments (quite lucratively) to perform the function of disproving God.
If one accepts their consensus, then logic could tell one that since they have proven that evolution is a fact, that that evolution could be in effect for the purpose "adaptation". In no way disproving the possibility that evolution is simply one of God's tools. Also, never having gotten close to proving one way or another the beginning. From whence life began.
Belief in a big bang or any other beginning is as faith based as believing in intelligent design. Actually, more faith based when one considers the complexity of design of any living being. Or, break it down to the complexity of the human hand or the sensitivity of the tounge that can sense a hair mixed in ones food.
The video is simply one more tactic to empower the shady tool of consensus.
Also to discredit anyone who dare question the practice.
But, were I living the good life on the backs of tax payers, I'd join the party.
Well, maybe not. I can't bring myself to deny God for the sake of a buck.

Scientist offer "consensus" for their deductions. They find bones and fossils, compare them to each other and when they "approximately" existed. Which generally puts 10's and sometimes 100's of thousands and occasionally millions of years of gap between their existences. They then fill in the gaps with logics. Or at least their version of logics. Which I am not proclaiming as wrong. But, considering all of the guessing that goes on for the sake of filling in the gaps, their ideas are not much more than agreed upon ideas. Naturally they tend to support one another's ideas as they all get paid by governments (quite lucratively) to perform the function of disproving God.
If one accepts their consensus, then logic could tell one that since they have proven that evolution is a fact, that that evolution could be in effect for the purpose "adaptation". In no way disproving the possibility that evolution is simply one of God's tools. Also, never having gotten close to proving one way or another the beginning. From whence life began.
Belief in a big bang or any other beginning is as faith based as believing in intelligent design. Actually, more faith based when one considers the complexity of design of any living being. Or, break it down to the complexity of the human hand or the sensitivity of the tounge that can sense a hair mixed in ones food.
The video is simply one more tactic to empower the shady tool of consensus.
Also to discredit anyone who dare question the practice.
But, were I living the good life on the backs of tax payers, I'd join the party.
Well, maybe not. I can't bring myself to deny God for the sake of a buck.

1. Cool. So where's the evidence for this god? How do you know this deity exists?

2. Believing that it takes faith to trust science shows that you are unaware of what science really says. You do not know how these conclusions are drawn. Believing that it's the almighty dollar driving science shows that you are unaware of why science does what it does.

3. Science never tries to disprove any deity. Never has, never will. The fact that it goes along way towards doing so is irrelevant.

4. Well, if you believe that evolutionary science takes faith... well then I guess you can do without vaccinations, DNA tests, paternity tests, most modern medicine or just about anything else that touches biology.

5. So take your pick... Prayer or vaccine. If what you say is true and you can't bring yourself to deny god for the sake of a buck... well start praying for disease to go away instead of rolling up your sleeve for that needle.

1. The problem i see among the general populace is that people expect Evolution to be a scientific replacement of god or creation, this is why people always jump to "origin of life" when talking about evolution. The fact is, evolution is not supposed to account for origin of life, origin of the universe or any other such things that creation touches on, evolution is NOT a replacement for god or for creation, it merely explains the biodiversity and NOTHING ELSE.

2. Not to mention a complete disregard for all of the work, data, evidence and time it takes to build such scientific theories. Most people have no idea what the scientific process is or how it works, most people don't know what theories and laws are. But people attack this scientific foundation out of religious fervency, but it's funny that much more complex and less evidenced theories such as string theory go completely unchallenged.

3. and no for the umpteenth million time your personal preference for the origin of the universe is not nearly as valid as hundred year old theories with mountains of physical and logical evidence no matter how much "faith" you believe is involved!

1. The beginning of life matters in the big picture. That is why evo's prefer to bypass the subject. You are right about evo not being a replacement. It is as unprovable as God is. I see "consensus" as the god of evo's.

2. Yes, much work goes into theory building. Much tax money as well.
Much money and work goes into building football teams. For all but one, at the end of the year, it is just work and money.
You of course are mistaken in assuming that people of intelligent design do not support the sciences. Of course there are a few exceptions.

3. And, for the 1st time in "our" brief history, You can not prove your ridiculous statement.

1. Ah, just as I thought. You think that mine is an attempt to disprove evolution and declare God the victor. lol. Not so. I can't prove God. Never intended to nor ever intend to. Just not buying into the god of consensus either.
2. How common. When one can not prove his point, "ATTACK".
Sure I understand why scientist do what they do. I know it's not all about the money. But, money is a factor. Nor do I have a problem with what they do. Merely reacting to their attack on intelligent design believers in the video.
3. View the video.
4. You seem to think I see science as a waste. I do not. And, I appreciate the many efforts and effects. I simply don't consider the science of evolution as proven. Therefore, it has no right to be favored in the classroom.
5. lol.

1. But we AREN'T talking about the big picture and thats part of the problem. we are talking about biodiversity, why would you jump to origin of life when we are talking about evolution?

2. Intelligent design supporters support their sciences (or what they call science), which of course is not science at all, while rejecting all mainstream science that conflicts with their political and religious views. Most intelligent design supporters and creationists are lawyers and politicians NOT scientists.

3. What is so ridiculous in believing that solidified scientific theory is more reliable than the belief of the common folk?

1. Ok, I'll talk biodiversity with you. What shall we discuss? The fossil record? Galapagos? The movement of minor bone structures? The complexity of parts?
How the function of the eye just came about on it's own. How the beating heart made perfectly the adjustments the number of beats it would take to sustain blood flow in all the different species. All of these and millions of more functions simply falling into place from "chance". Imagine that.
2. You're right because lawyer's and politician's life styles and reputations are not reliant on some form of results from the practice of building theories in the field of science.
3. What is the glue that provides the solidification of the theories? "Consensus". Consensus between a league of people who can not prove their theories and attempt to bully others who like wise can not prove their claims.

1. these things work WELL but they do not work PERFECTLY in any respect, and the reason for this? Millions of years of evolution at work to refine each of these systems, there is no evidence to suggest they came about all at once already refined. none at all.

2. For the most part their jobs and reputations are not dependant upon scientific research. The main difference being that politicians pursue an agenda, whereas scientists pursue only the evidence.

3. The glue that holds all theories together is the evidence. What use is a scientist who cannot prove his claims? Furthermore scientists who claim they KNOW that something is true without any evidence will absolutely lose their job and their career.

1. Sure,these things work well. So, here we go, back to that dreaded point of when it began. The combination of events that had to come together to cause that first action called life. Call it a zygote of a cell or call it Adam. Whatever you like. The events that had to simultaneously occur to make the living being live are quite phenomenal. Not only the act of jump starting the mechanism of life, then the actions that would be required to make it able to sustain it's own life. Such as instincts and other necessities required to keep a new born being alive long enough to procreate with another being that just happened to evolve from nothingness to life.

2. Yes, they are in hot pursuit.

3. Odd you should mention that. Of course you are spot on concerning medical science and technology based science. They should be thanking God that those standards do not exist for evolutionary theory.

1. Ah, just as I thought. You think that mine is an attempt to disprove evolution and declare God the victor. lol. Not so. I can't prove God. Never intended to nor ever intend to. Just not buying into the god of consensus either.

2. How common. When one can not prove his point, "ATTACK".
Sure I understand why scientist do what they do. I know it's not all about the money. But, money is a factor. Nor do I have a problem with what they do. Merely reacting to their attack on intelligent design believers in the video.

3. View the video.

4. You seem to think I see science as a waste. I do not. And, I appreciate the many efforts and effects. I simply don't consider the science of evolution as proven. Therefore, it has no right to be favored in the classroom.

5. lol.

1. Sure,these things work well. So, here we go, back to that dreaded point of when it began. The combination of events that had to come together to cause that first action called life. Call it a zygote of a cell or call it Adam. Whatever you like. The events that had to simultaneously occur to make the living being live are quite phenomenal. Not only the act of jump starting the mechanism of life, then the actions that would be required to make it able to sustain it's own life. Such as instincts and other necessities required to keep a new born being alive long enough to procreate with another being that just happened to evolve from nothingness to life.

1. Ok, I'll talk biodiversity with you. What shall we discuss? The fossil record? Galapagos? The movement of minor bone structures? The complexity of parts?
How the function of the eye just came about on it's own. How the beating heart made perfectly the adjustments the number of beats it would take to sustain blood flow in all the different species. All of these and millions of more functions simply falling into place from "chance". Imagine that.

2. You're right because lawyer's and politician's life styles and reputations are not reliant on some form of results from the practice of building theories in the field of science.

3. What is the glue that provides the solidification of the theories? "Consensus". Consensus between a league of people who can not prove their theories and attempt to bully others who like wise can not prove their claims.

1. Life is self-sustaining. The reason? Those that do not sustain life die, those that do survive will reproduce. It is simply a matter of trial an error at that point, this would explain the 98% extinction of all species that ever lived.

2. indeed, but it is a long process.

3. Sorry i do not follow. What is it exactly you are implying with this statement?

1. You bring an option, I ask you to back it up.

2. I say good, let the scientists fire a few volleys in return.

3. Money is a factor in funding, not in a scientist's desire to research. We live in a capitalist society and that means money makes the little world go round, however knowledge is more important than money.

4. I watched the vid about two and a half months before Fatal posted it. Science is not in the job of specifically trying to disprove one thing. Science is not working to disprove a deity, science is not working to hide a creator. But if you toss one of these arguments in front of a scientist, expect him or her to shred it to pieces, as would be expected.

5. Fail. Flat out fail. You miss not only the science behind evolution, but also the main reason behind its position in a classroom.
"The controversy" as creationists like to call it, has no place in a classroom. If you want to challenge scientific theories, do them in the scientific arena through peer review and research, do NOT bring the uneducated youth into this who are no more capable of debating evolutionary theory than they are understanding rocket science. The classroom teaches what is most accepted, what has the most lines of objective evidence and what has the most facts.

6. Science is NOT a democracy. There is no "Well I don't believe it, so we need to teach both sides!". One thing is taught: Facts. That's it.

7. Well you're the one that doesn't believe evolution to be "proven", and vaccines and disease research are HEAVILY based upon what is known through evolutionary theory. If it isn't proven then hey, those vaccines must be "wild guesses", right?
You can stomp around all day about evolution not being "proven" and how it shouldn't be in classrooms, but you won't put your b*lls on the table and ditch what it has given you.
What's that called, again?

The last line trips you up so badly: "evolve from nothingness to life". Shows you don't understand evolutionary theory, much less being capable of debating the topic. Also, your requirements for life... wow, you missed that by a longshot. Why would basic amino acids need instinct or sexual reproduction? Life was hundreds of millions of years away from even the most basic versions of those mechanisms. There wasn't even any genetic code.

You're trying to turn the origin of life into this cosmic orchestra that nobody could ever play. Why does it have to be so difficult? You're quick to point out that science can't put a solid finger on life's origin, but then you come up with this epic story of how all things had to be aligned perfectly for this to happen. You don't know that. It could have been any sort of thing from asteroids to a pink unicorn to His Holiness the FSM. So, why the need to inject such a story?

1. So, if we leave a baby. Any baby on it's own, it can live?

My point was, go back to the exact moment in time when a living being evolved into what can be defined as "alive". What was the catalyst that drove it into the state of being alive?

Science is of course rightly legitimized by the study of medical and technological events and effects. Which have graced the species with many advancements.
Stepping out of those realms into evolution and the dreaded beginning of earth and life where proof is illusive has caused them to resort to using consensus and personal attacks on others who simply do not accept consensus as proof.

This skeptic does not discount their theories of evolution as it applies to adaptive evolving. But, when one does not buy into the theories of humans evolving from fish or monkeys they are treated rather rudely. IE: Sabz's post. lol

5. I don't disagree with you on this completely. My compromise, leave out all unproven theories that demand an absolute answer. Let parents deliver their beliefs on the issues. Let students interested in Religious theology take up the study when they are paying their way through the college of their choice. The same process made available to students of evolution.