Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Why should we follow your ex recto "45% god, blah blah" over the centuries of work done by highly trained professionals?

Evolution means change over time. Google will tell you that.

FBM wrote:

Why should we follow your ex recto "45% god, blah blah" over the centuries of work done by highly trained professionals?

     I can ask you the very same question: why should I forsake the law of conservation of energy

and the law for impossibility of existence of things with self-contradictions and to start believing to a century produced 'theory' ... that has slipped into complacency by itself? Can you name at least the order of how many scientists are standing behind the laws of conservation of energy/mass/momentum, and also behind the plausibility standards based on non-contradictions within the self? All of our contemporary knowledge is built on the principles of non-contradiction and physical laws of conservation. I personally am not ready to exchange that for the fake theory of the Big Bang.

FBM wrote:

Evolution means change over time. Google will tell you that.

     The question was: What is creation through evolution supposed to mean?

In the first few seconds of the Big Bang...

Evolution means change over time. Google will tell you that.

The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism

Posted on 17 March 2010 by John Cook
A fascinating paper well worth reading is Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? (Diethelm & McKee 2009) (H/T to Jeremy Kemp for the heads-up). While the focus is on public health issues, it nevertheless establishes some useful general principles on the phenomenon of scientific denialism. A vivid example is the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, who argued against the scientific consensus that HIV caused AIDS. This led to policies preventing thousands of HIV positive mothers in South Africa from receiving anti-retrovirals. It's estimated these policies led to the loss of more than 330,000 lives (Chigwedere 2008). Clearly the consequences of denying science can be dire, even fatal.

The authors define denialism as "the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists". They go on to identify 5 characteristics common to most forms of denialism, first suggested by Mark and Chris Hoofnagle:

Conspiracy theories
When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes something is true, the denialist won't admit scientists have independently studied the evidence to reach the same conclusion. Instead, they claim scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The South African government of Thabo Mbeki was heavily influenced by conspiracy theorists claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. When such fringe groups gain the ear of policy makers who cease to base their decisions on science-based evidence, the human impact can be disastrous.
Fake experts
These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts, seeking to discredit their work. Tobacco denialists have frequently attacked Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, for his exposure of tobacco industry tactics, labelling his research 'junk science'.

Cherry picking

This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. An example is a paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which suggested a possible link with immunization. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association.

Impossible expectations of what research can deliver

The tobacco company Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard for the conduct of epidemiological studies. These stricter guidelines would have invalidated in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of cigarettes.
Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
Logical fallacies include the use of straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented, making it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environmental tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. This was attacked as nothing less than a 'threat to the very core of democratic values and democratic public policy'.
...

Psychological problems are also involved in inducing people to look at the evidence concerning the Insiders. People are usually comfortable with their old beliefs and conceptions. When Columbus told people the world was a ball and not a pancake, they were highly upset. They were being asked to reject their way of thinking of a lifetime and adopt a whole new outlook. The "intellectuals" of the day scoffed at Columbus and people were afraid they would lose social prestige if they listened to him. Many others just did not want to believe the world was round. It complicated too many things. And typical flat-earthers had such a vested interest involving their own egos, that they heaped abuse on Columbus for challenging their view of the universe. Don't confuse us with facts; our minds are made up," they said.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people think that educated
Europeans of Columbus's day believed the world was flat.

Ancient Greek mathematicians had shown that the world was round some
2,000 years before. Consider Pythagoras, Aristotle, Eratosthenes, and
Ptolemy. Their writings were well-known to Chris's contemporaries.

Some are slow to catch up. I reckon it's probably always been that way.

. . . And what exactly is it that you are trying to say with this?

Google the word "same."

Just produce something better, and the world will pave a path to your door.

Are you the living mega-brain of the millennium? That would be awesome if I knew I were conversing with such a brain.

FBM wrote:

Some are slow to catch up. I reckon it's probably always been that way.

     Instead of talking nonsense of any kind why don't you tell us what is your personal theory for the origin of the water on the Earth?

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FBM wrote:

Google the word "same."

     This is called inference by analogy that you most probably will need several decades to start understanding.

False Analogy

Definition:

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Examples:
Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)
Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.
References:
Barker: 192, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 257, Davis: 84

Just produce something better, and the world will pave a path to your door.

     Forget about my door and the pavement - why don't you simply answer the questions?

FBM wrote:

Are you the living mega-brain of the millennium? That would be awesome if I knew I were conversing with such a brain.

     What does the capacity of my brain have to do with the explanation of the origin of the water on the Earth? Would you explain the correlation?

10 Scientific Words You're Probably Using Wrong