Voting For Scientific Truth????

[Hollie]

12. Of interest is the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology definition of a theory: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology | National Center for Science Education



Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Something isn’t right, here.



Now…..why is it presented to the uninformed as a proven fact?

1. It's remarkable that you don't bother to read what you cut and paste. What you cut and pasted included; ''... evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”

2. You then started whining about Darwinian theory not being testable when the article you cut and pasted identifies evolution as an accepted theory among scientists.

3. You make yourself a laughable joke.

Go to church and you will find that GOD is universally accepted among parishioners. Can they prove GOD to you? Can you prove Darwinism to me? Tell me, what exactly is the difference? Is either testable? Show me the money!

Same CREATOR similar design specifications.

Well, yes, I would generally expect to find a preponderance of church goers to believe in their version of gods. If I went to a Hindu temple in India, I would generally expect to find a preponderance of Brahma believers.

I see your point and I agree: religionism is largely a cultural matter and overwhelmingly, people’s religionism is a matter of happenstance of parentage and place of birth.

On the other hand, the sciences of biology, paleontology, chemistry and biological evolution are not culturally dependent. Isn’t that interesting?

Curious that the science disciplines noted above don’t change across cultures. Did you know that the chemistry of human biology is the same in the US as it is elsewhere across the planet?

Front Page | Department of Evolutionary Anthropology

evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu

https://www.studyiq.com/image/media/HumanEvolution.pdf

As you understand little about Darwinism (you know only the label that typically is used by religious extremists), what can I help you with?

 

[ReinyDays]

Go to church and you will find that GOD is universally accepted among parishioners. Can they prove GOD to you? Can you prove Darwinism to me? Tell me, what exactly is the difference? Is either testable? Show me the money!

Same CREATOR similar design specifications.

The difference is we can build better telescopes and start examining the atmospheres of all these exoplanets we're discovering ... if one comes up N2/O2, we've officially found advanced life ...

I don't have to prove what I see in my brother's eyes ... and farmers use less pesticides on their fields growing B.t. corn ... which is about as much a divine creation to make no difference ...

 

[LittleNipper]

12. Of interest is the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology definition of a theory: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology | National Center for Science Education



Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Something isn’t right, here.



Now…..why is it presented to the uninformed as a proven fact?

1. It's remarkable that you don't bother to read what you cut and paste. What you cut and pasted included; ''... evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”

2. You then started whining about Darwinian theory not being testable when the article you cut and pasted identifies evolution as an accepted theory among scientists.

3. You make yourself a laughable joke.

Go to church and you will find that GOD is universally accepted among parishioners. Can they prove GOD to you? Can you prove Darwinism to me? Tell me, what exactly is the difference? Is either testable? Show me the money!

Same CREATOR similar design specifications.

Well, yes, I would generally expect to find a preponderance of church goers to believe in their version of gods. If I went to a Hindu temple in India, I would generally expect to find a preponderance of Brahma believers.

I see your point and I agree: religionism is largely a cultural matter and overwhelmingly, people’s religionism is a matter of happenstance of parentage and place of birth.

On the other hand, the sciences of biology, paleontology, chemistry and biological evolution are not culturally dependent. Isn’t that interesting?

Curious that the science disciplines noted above don’t change across cultures. Did you know that the chemistry of human biology is the same in the US as it is elsewhere across the planet?

Front Page | Department of Evolutionary Anthropology

evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu

https://www.studyiq.com/image/media/HumanEvolution.pdf

As you understand little about Darwinism (you know only the label that typically is used by religious extremists), what can I help you with?

I believe you will find that Evangelical Bible churches (for an example) exhibit indigenous cultural differences from country to country; however, they believe the very same. The language may vary. The decoration may be peculiar to that location, and the musical form will likely be culturally different ---- but the Word/Message would be the same. Christ preached would be the same. The smiles would be genuine and the love would transcend cultures.

As for science, that too seems to be influenced by culture: Science and culture

 

[Hollie]

12. Of interest is the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology definition of a theory: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology | National Center for Science Education



Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Something isn’t right, here.



Now…..why is it presented to the uninformed as a proven fact?

1. It's remarkable that you don't bother to read what you cut and paste. What you cut and pasted included; ''... evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”

2. You then started whining about Darwinian theory not being testable when the article you cut and pasted identifies evolution as an accepted theory among scientists.

3. You make yourself a laughable joke.

Go to church and you will find that GOD is universally accepted among parishioners. Can they prove GOD to you? Can you prove Darwinism to me? Tell me, what exactly is the difference? Is either testable? Show me the money!

Same CREATOR similar design specifications.

Well, yes, I would generally expect to find a preponderance of church goers to believe in their version of gods. If I went to a Hindu temple in India, I would generally expect to find a preponderance of Brahma believers.

I see your point and I agree: religionism is largely a cultural matter and overwhelmingly, people’s religionism is a matter of happenstance of parentage and place of birth.

On the other hand, the sciences of biology, paleontology, chemistry and biological evolution are not culturally dependent. Isn’t that interesting?

Curious that the science disciplines noted above don’t change across cultures. Did you know that the chemistry of human biology is the same in the US as it is elsewhere across the planet?

Front Page | Department of Evolutionary Anthropology

evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu

https://www.studyiq.com/image/media/HumanEvolution.pdf

As you understand little about Darwinism (you know only the label that typically is used by religious extremists), what can I help you with?

I believe you will find that Evangelical Bible churches (for an example) exhibit indigenous cultural differences from country to country; however, they believe the very same. The language may vary. The decoration may be peculiar to that location, and the musical form will likely be culturally different ---- but the Word/Message would be the same. Christ preached would be the same. The smiles would be genuine and the love would transcend cultures.

As for science, that too seems to be influenced by culture: Science and culture

I'm not so sure about the hugs and kisses. There is more than a little friction between various Christian sects / subdivisions / denominations just here in the US.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Those are all shameless lies, and you would get laughed out of any science class.

 

[LittleNipper]

Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Those are all shameless lies, and you would get laughed out of any science class.

Test them for us then and demonstrate your findings for the general public's perusal. Thank you

 

[Hollie]

Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Those are all shameless lies, and you would get laughed out of any science class.

Test them for us then and demonstrate your findings for the general public's perusal. Thank you

First large-scale formal quantitative test confirms Darwin's theory of universal common ancestry

More than 150 years ago, Darwin proposed the theory of universal common ancestry, linking all forms of life by a shared genetic heritage from single-celled microorganisms to humans. Until now, the theory that makes ladybugs, oak trees, champagne yeast and humans distant relatives has remained...

www.sciencedaily.com

So, then. This would be a good time to provide the testing for your gods.

 

[Kilroy2]

6. Jonathan Wells makes some interesting points about accepting consensus rather than actual data:

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”



My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

Why would people put their faith in Trump?. Do they need a reason. No because all that required is to believe. The reasons will follow to support what is already believed. Ignore what is obvious for what is convenient. Apple and oranges are fruit. Do you need anything else? Well if your mind is open, yes.

Still a show of hands is just a way to count the majority. The majority usually wins. Well except in a Presidential election.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Those are all shameless lies, and you would get laughed out of any science class.

Why didn't you post any examples of it being testable, based on direct observation or experimentation,universally accepted among scientists.


Bet you can't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Jonathan Wells makes some interesting points about accepting consensus rather than actual data:

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”



My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

Why would people put their faith in Trump?. Do they need a reason. No because all that required is to believe. The reasons will follow to support what is already believed. Ignore what is obvious for what is convenient. Apple and oranges are fruit. Do you need anything else? Well if your mind is open, yes.

Still a show of hands is just a way to count the majority. The majority usually wins. Well except in a Presidential election.

" it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons. "

Do you understand what you just wrote???

It is transparently false.

 

[Kilroy2]

6. Jonathan Wells makes some interesting points about accepting consensus rather than actual data:

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”



My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

Why would people put their faith in Trump?. Do they need a reason. No because all that required is to believe. The reasons will follow to support what is already believed. Ignore what is obvious for what is convenient. Apple and oranges are fruit. Do you need anything else? Well if your mind is open, yes.

Still a show of hands is just a way to count the majority. The majority usually wins. Well except in a Presidential election.

" it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons. "

Do you understand what you just wrote???

It is transparently false.

If a task is daunting, it's intimidating or overwhelming in a way that makes you not even want to try to do it

well I can see that Darwin theories are intimidating and overwhelming and it is just a matter for most people to either believe or don't. keeps it simple. To argue is simple but to agree is daunting.

To openly support Trump is daunting. I would disagree. To openly support Trump is simple. There is nothing intimidating or overwhelming. He tells you what you want to hear and you do not filter if it (right or wrong) as it creates a moral dilemma. Go to any Trump rally , they are on TV with their shirts and hats waving there hands like they just don't care.

Even if what you say has any meaning, you would then question the support for Obama. Why would people not want to support Obama. He was great. Well if your repub then it is simple. You are a repub and cannot support Obama as it is a moral dilemma.

 

[esalla]

6. Jonathan Wells makes some interesting points about accepting consensus rather than actual data:

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”



My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

Why would people put their faith in Trump?. Do they need a reason. No because all that required is to believe. The reasons will follow to support what is already believed. Ignore what is obvious for what is convenient. Apple and oranges are fruit. Do you need anything else? Well if your mind is open, yes.

Still a show of hands is just a way to count the majority. The majority usually wins. Well except in a Presidential election.

" it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons. "

Do you understand what you just wrote???

It is transparently false.

If a task is daunting, it's intimidating or overwhelming in a way that makes you not even want to try to do it

well I can see that Darwin theories are intimidating and overwhelming and it is just a matter for most people to either believe or don't. keeps it simple. To argue is simple but to agree is daunting.

To openly support Trump is daunting. I would disagree. To openly support Trump is simple. There is nothing intimidating or overwhelming. He tells you what you want to hear and you do not filter if it right or wrong as it creates a moral dilemma. Go to any Trump rally , they are on TV with their shirts and hats waving there hands like they just don't care.

Even if what you say has any meaning, you would then question the support for Obama. Why would people not want to support Obama. He was great. Well if your repub then it is simple. Your a repub and cannot support Obama as it is a moral dilemma.

How would a theory be intimidating?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Jonathan Wells makes some interesting points about accepting consensus rather than actual data:

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”



My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

Why would people put their faith in Trump?. Do they need a reason. No because all that required is to believe. The reasons will follow to support what is already believed. Ignore what is obvious for what is convenient. Apple and oranges are fruit. Do you need anything else? Well if your mind is open, yes.

Still a show of hands is just a way to count the majority. The majority usually wins. Well except in a Presidential election.

" it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons. "

Do you understand what you just wrote???

It is transparently false.

If a task is daunting, it's intimidating or overwhelming in a way that makes you not even want to try to do it

well I can see that Darwin theories are intimidating and overwhelming and it is just a matter for most people to either believe or don't. keeps it simple. To argue is simple but to agree is daunting.

To openly support Trump is daunting. I would disagree. To openly support Trump is simple. There is nothing intimidating or overwhelming. He tells you what you want to hear and you do not filter if it right or wrong as it creates a moral dilemma. Go to any Trump rally , they are on TV with their shirts and hats waving there hands like they just don't care.

Even if what you say has any meaning, you would then question the support for Obama. Why would people not want to support Obama. He was great. Well if your repub then it is simple. Your a repub and cannot support Obama as it is a moral dilemma.

You have no idea what the conversation is about.

Government school grads have no problem supporting Darwin, even th

6. Jonathan Wells makes some interesting points about accepting consensus rather than actual data:

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”



My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

Why would people put their faith in Trump?. Do they need a reason. No because all that required is to believe. The reasons will follow to support what is already believed. Ignore what is obvious for what is convenient. Apple and oranges are fruit. Do you need anything else? Well if your mind is open, yes.

Still a show of hands is just a way to count the majority. The majority usually wins. Well except in a Presidential election.

" it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons. "

Do you understand what you just wrote???

It is transparently false.

If a task is daunting, it's intimidating or overwhelming in a way that makes you not even want to try to do it

well I can see that Darwin theories are intimidating and overwhelming and it is just a matter for most people to either believe or don't. keeps it simple. To argue is simple but to agree is daunting.

To openly support Trump is daunting. I would disagree. To openly support Trump is simple. There is nothing intimidating or overwhelming. He tells you what you want to hear and you do not filter if it right or wrong as it creates a moral dilemma. Go to any Trump rally , they are on TV with their shirts and hats waving there hands like they just don't care.

Even if what you say has any meaning, you would then question the support for Obama. Why would people not want to support Obama. He was great. Well if your repub then it is simple. Your a repub and cannot support Obama as it is a moral dilemma.

He is wrong on either the first part or on the second part.

No way both can be correct.

 

[Hollie]

Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Those are all shameless lies, and you would get laughed out of any science class.

Why didn't you post any examples of it being testable, based on direct observation or experimentation,universally accepted among scientists.


Bet you can't.

First large-scale formal quantitative test confirms Darwin's theory of universal common ancestry

More than 150 years ago, Darwin proposed the theory of universal common ancestry, linking all forms of life by a shared genetic heritage from single-celled microorganisms to humans. Until now, the theory that makes ladybugs, oak trees, champagne yeast and humans distant relatives has remained...

www.sciencedaily.com

I know. You feel stupider-er than usual, right?

 

[Kilroy2]

6. Jonathan Wells makes some interesting points about accepting consensus rather than actual data:

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”



My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

Why would people put their faith in Trump?. Do they need a reason. No because all that required is to believe. The reasons will follow to support what is already believed. Ignore what is obvious for what is convenient. Apple and oranges are fruit. Do you need anything else? Well if your mind is open, yes.

Still a show of hands is just a way to count the majority. The majority usually wins. Well except in a Presidential election.

" it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons. "

Do you understand what you just wrote???

It is transparently false.

If a task is daunting, it's intimidating or overwhelming in a way that makes you not even want to try to do it

well I can see that Darwin theories are intimidating and overwhelming and it is just a matter for most people to either believe or don't. keeps it simple. To argue is simple but to agree is daunting.

To openly support Trump is daunting. I would disagree. To openly support Trump is simple. There is nothing intimidating or overwhelming. He tells you what you want to hear and you do not filter if it right or wrong as it creates a moral dilemma. Go to any Trump rally , they are on TV with their shirts and hats waving there hands like they just don't care.

Even if what you say has any meaning, you would then question the support for Obama. Why would people not want to support Obama. He was great. Well if your repub then it is simple. Your a repub and cannot support Obama as it is a moral dilemma.

You have no idea what the conversation is about.

Government school grads have no problem supporting Darwin, even th

6. Jonathan Wells makes some interesting points about accepting consensus rather than actual data:

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”



My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

Why would people put their faith in Trump?. Do they need a reason. No because all that required is to believe. The reasons will follow to support what is already believed. Ignore what is obvious for what is convenient. Apple and oranges are fruit. Do you need anything else? Well if your mind is open, yes.

Still a show of hands is just a way to count the majority. The majority usually wins. Well except in a Presidential election.

" it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons. "

Do you understand what you just wrote???

It is transparently false.

If a task is daunting, it's intimidating or overwhelming in a way that makes you not even want to try to do it

well I can see that Darwin theories are intimidating and overwhelming and it is just a matter for most people to either believe or don't. keeps it simple. To argue is simple but to agree is daunting.

To openly support Trump is daunting. I would disagree. To openly support Trump is simple. There is nothing intimidating or overwhelming. He tells you what you want to hear and you do not filter if it right or wrong as it creates a moral dilemma. Go to any Trump rally , they are on TV with their shirts and hats waving there hands like they just don't care.

Even if what you say has any meaning, you would then question the support for Obama. Why would people not want to support Obama. He was great. Well if your repub then it is simple. Your a repub and cannot support Obama as it is a moral dilemma.

He is wrong on either the first part or on the second part.

No way both can be correct.

quite the dilemma

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Jonathan Wells makes some interesting points about accepting consensus rather than actual data:

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”



My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

Why would people put their faith in Trump?. Do they need a reason. No because all that required is to believe. The reasons will follow to support what is already believed. Ignore what is obvious for what is convenient. Apple and oranges are fruit. Do you need anything else? Well if your mind is open, yes.

Still a show of hands is just a way to count the majority. The majority usually wins. Well except in a Presidential election.

" it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons. "

Do you understand what you just wrote???

It is transparently false.

If a task is daunting, it's intimidating or overwhelming in a way that makes you not even want to try to do it

well I can see that Darwin theories are intimidating and overwhelming and it is just a matter for most people to either believe or don't. keeps it simple. To argue is simple but to agree is daunting.

To openly support Trump is daunting. I would disagree. To openly support Trump is simple. There is nothing intimidating or overwhelming. He tells you what you want to hear and you do not filter if it right or wrong as it creates a moral dilemma. Go to any Trump rally , they are on TV with their shirts and hats waving there hands like they just don't care.

Even if what you say has any meaning, you would then question the support for Obama. Why would people not want to support Obama. He was great. Well if your repub then it is simple. Your a repub and cannot support Obama as it is a moral dilemma.

You have no idea what the conversation is about.

Government school grads have no problem supporting Darwin, even th

6. Jonathan Wells makes some interesting points about accepting consensus rather than actual data:

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”



My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

Why would people put their faith in Trump?. Do they need a reason. No because all that required is to believe. The reasons will follow to support what is already believed. Ignore what is obvious for what is convenient. Apple and oranges are fruit. Do you need anything else? Well if your mind is open, yes.

Still a show of hands is just a way to count the majority. The majority usually wins. Well except in a Presidential election.

" it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons. "

Do you understand what you just wrote???

It is transparently false.

If a task is daunting, it's intimidating or overwhelming in a way that makes you not even want to try to do it

well I can see that Darwin theories are intimidating and overwhelming and it is just a matter for most people to either believe or don't. keeps it simple. To argue is simple but to agree is daunting.

To openly support Trump is daunting. I would disagree. To openly support Trump is simple. There is nothing intimidating or overwhelming. He tells you what you want to hear and you do not filter if it right or wrong as it creates a moral dilemma. Go to any Trump rally , they are on TV with their shirts and hats waving there hands like they just don't care.

Even if what you say has any meaning, you would then question the support for Obama. Why would people not want to support Obama. He was great. Well if your repub then it is simple. Your a repub and cannot support Obama as it is a moral dilemma.

He is wrong on either the first part or on the second part.

No way both can be correct.

quite the dilemma

Sarcasm???

Insignificant in your view?????

Perhaps, then, you should explain why you rushed headlong in to address it (incorrectly).

 

[esalla]

Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Those are all shameless lies, and you would get laughed out of any science class.

Why didn't you post any examples of it being testable, based on direct observation or experimentation,universally accepted among scientists.


Bet you can't.

First large-scale formal quantitative test confirms Darwin's theory of universal common ancestry

More than 150 years ago, Darwin proposed the theory of universal common ancestry, linking all forms of life by a shared genetic heritage from single-celled microorganisms to humans. Until now, the theory that makes ladybugs, oak trees, champagne yeast and humans distant relatives has remained...

www.sciencedaily.com

I know. You feel stupider-er than usual, right?

Hollie can you tell us about the organisms that you said were observed speciating?

 

[LittleNipper]

Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Those are all shameless lies, and you would get laughed out of any science class.

Test them for us then and demonstrate your findings for the general public's perusal. Thank you

First large-scale formal quantitative test confirms Darwin's theory of universal common ancestry

More than 150 years ago, Darwin proposed the theory of universal common ancestry, linking all forms of life by a shared genetic heritage from single-celled microorganisms to humans. Until now, the theory that makes ladybugs, oak trees, champagne yeast and humans distant relatives has remained...

www.sciencedaily.com

So, then. This would be a good time to provide the testing for your gods.

You say your beliefs are entirely "SCIENTIFIC" ---- if not they are no more "SCIENTIFIC" than those of mine ----- however, mine are older and have a lone history of believers. These believers created the colleges, universities, school systems, scientific institutions, techniques research, and archaeological institutions and hospitals. These are what my GOD established through Christians across Europe and the Americas.

So, I believe you should put-up or at least show humility towards those who earnestly see that your beliefs are far from flawless and without dissenters worthy of consideration.

 

[LittleNipper]

6. Jonathan Wells makes some interesting points about accepting consensus rather than actual data:

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”



My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.

Why would people put their faith in Trump?. Do they need a reason. No because all that required is to believe. The reasons will follow to support what is already believed. Ignore what is obvious for what is convenient. Apple and oranges are fruit. Do you need anything else? Well if your mind is open, yes.

Still a show of hands is just a way to count the majority. The majority usually wins. Well except in a Presidential election.

My guess is that if Trump is Republican and Biden's party is on the verge of a conversion to SOCIALISM, then the answer of whom one should be voting for should be most obvious ----- especially if one holds to the US Constitution as it was intended.