Scientists speak out!

I'm not trying to paint a picture. The scenario and the question were meant to evoke an answer. What I got from you, more hostility. They say masturbation is a good way to de-frustrate boy. lol

1. Indulge me. What was the option I brought?

2. Firing volleys must take several semesters as that seems to be one of the forte's of supporters.

3. In the sciences of medicine and technology the effects provide most of the funds due to results. Those areas are not dependent on tax payers.

4. Of course I would expect a scientist to use his best etymological skills to pass along "his" opinions. I also would expect him to use the term consensus quite often. Reducing his pretty speak to, "cause me un my buddies say it's so".

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.

6. Regarding medical and tech based sciences, you are correct.

7. Hogwash. Lying does not add credence to your ranting.
You have hostility issues boy.

I am extremely hostile towards ignorance. It is the root of all the problems in this country. You make statements, having no idea what they mean. To someone who knows what the hell they're talking about, you come off looking like a gibbering idiot.

Being the nice little whipped liberal doesn't work, time to be a bit more 'direct'.

And your little snide attempts at a personal attack shows who is the "boy" here.

Shall we continue? I think so!

Belief in a big bang or any other beginning is as faith based as believing in intelligent design.

Openminded and tolerant is there claim. Prove that science boy. After that prove how objective you are, LOL.

Caused or uncaused/cause? So you have faith too! Welcome my son.

3. 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

I have evidence. You do not. Go back to your trailer.

For the books, tolerance and openminded is YOUR belief's claim. We are open to facts. Nothing else. Since you never provide that (never have and never will), you can kindly go and take your gods with you.

can kindly go and take your gods with you

So what "caused" this "intelligent agency"?

Didn't Christians kill people who didn't believe in God?

I find that rather rude.

I don't treat people rudely when they don't "believe" in evolution. I *DO* however put a virtual boot to the teeth of people who think they know what they're talking about, but in reality know nothing. This is evident in the "evolve from monkeys" line above. If you had any applicable knowledge of evolution, you would not make such a statement.

So basically you're acting like an idiot and being treated as such.

You have an opinion, nothing more. This post is good evidence of your open mindedness, real tolerant aren't you? If you indeed did have evidence, why would you need repeated personal attacks to fend off your detractors. I have an idea your response won't be very scientific.

Say pretty please.

Don't you have to prove this "intelligent agency" exists before you ask that mr. science guy? So by this answer i would take it, your answer would be the Big Bang was a caused event? Don't you think that contradicts what i quoted you saying "Belief in a big bang or any other beginning is as faith based as believing in intelligent design. " How is this possible, then you are saying you have faith or are you saying the BB was an uncaused event?

Being objective again i see.

Don't you have to prove this "intelligent agency" exists before you ask that mr. science guy? So by this answer i would take it, your answer would be the Big Bang was a caused event? Don't you think that contradicts what i quoted you saying "Belief in a big bang or any other beginning is as faith based as believing in intelligent design. " How is this possible, then you are saying you have faith or are you saying the BB was an uncaused event?

1. Evolution is not a crapshoot. Never was, never will be. You fail to consider both halves of the concept, and focus specifically on the 'random mutaion' half, as to be expected. Yes, that is a purely random mechanism. Natural selection however, is not. It LOVES to play favorites, and if your random mutations aren't its favorite, sucks to be you.

2. How is the heart beating perfect? You've never heard of murmurs or pacemakers, have you? Your heart could sustain blood flow at a much lower rate than it is now. Quite often it sustains a much higher rate. So, where's the fine tuning in that?

3. The eye? That's easy and has been addressed so many times. Old, flawed argument.

4. Anything else to discuss?

5. In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable.

6. Wow, there it is. The glue that provides solidification. Facts: Can't have a theory without them. You'd do well to read and learn about what science says, why evolution is accepted and exactly what the evidence shows. Then you'll have a good understanding of why things are.

I am extremely hostile towards ignorance. It is the root of all the problems in this country. You make statements, having no idea what they mean. To someone who knows what the hell they're talking about, you come off looking like a gibbering idiot.

Being the nice little whipped liberal doesn't work, time to be a bit more 'direct'.

And your little snide attempts at a personal attack shows who is the "boy" here.

Shall we continue? I think so!

Belief in a big bang or any other beginning is as faith based as believing in intelligent design.

1. That one. You bring forth the option that it takes faith to believe in science. You take one big sweep at both evolutionary theory and big bang theory in calling out BB and then slipping in complexity of human senses.

What does one need to say to get this through to you: Evolution and Big Bang are separate! One does not rely on the other or need the other to function. This is ultimately what reveals your "option". You are trying to make science balance on a single fulcrum just like religion... but it doesn't work that way.

2. Or several donations to the offering plate.

3. And this has to do what with what, now?

4. If you want to get anywhere as a scientist, you're gonna fight your way through it. There is no "consensus" or elite science group. If you want to bring your new idea or theory into the arena, expect it to be ripped to shreds in a second if they find anything wrong with it. You refine, you fix errors, you add new evidence. Re-submit, pick up shredded papers. Later, rinse, repeat.

5. It's called peer review. It works on the single fact that getting a large group of scientists to agree on anything is akin to herding cats. What science as a whole agrees upon are the theories and ideas that have passed through that labcoat gauntlet and come out on the other end in one piece. Repeatedly.

6. Okay, cool. All "unproven" theories... So we can also pitch:
Gravitation theory
Atomic theory
Germ theory
Relativity
Quantum Physics
Cell theory
Plate Tectonics

Shall I go on? These are all "unproven" in the same form that you consider evolutionary theory to be. They are all theories for the same reason. There are no theories that demand an "absolute" answer.

Your idea would effectively destroy public education. Congratulations.



Guess what! Evolution is a medical and tech based science. Don't believe me? Organ transplants. Diabetes treatment. Vaccinations for smallpox and influenza. The list goes on for miles. You fail to realize just what evolutionary theory has brought us. DNA and paternity testing, evidence that is acceptable in a court of law is based solely upon the theories of genetics and evolution.

Then enlighten us all... is evolutionary theory wrong? If so, then how can you rely on the things I have mentioned above which only function properly when evolutionary theory is taken into consideration.

You have education issues. Boy.

1. Didn't Christians kill people who didn't believe in God?

I find that rather rude.

2. I don't treat people rudely when they don't "believe" in evolution. I *DO* however put a virtual boot to the teeth of people who think they know what they're talking about, but in reality know nothing. This is evident in the "evolve from monkeys" line above. If you had any applicable knowledge of evolution, you would not make such a statement.

So basically you're acting like an idiot and being treated as such.