Voting For Scientific Truth????

[PoliticalChic]

The argument here seems to be that neither side can fully demonstrate their position ... there's no experiment we can perform to establish the that evolution is true, and we have no experiment that establishes evolution as false ...

It's just a theory ... a framework of understanding that allows biologists to communicate ideas ... and a source of hypotheses to guide our experimentation ...

So the question I have for the OP is what theory would you replace evolution with? ... in science, it's never enough to say someone is wrong, we have to state what is right ... Einstein never just said Newton's gravity was wrong, Einstein said Newton was wrong because GR is right ...

The Big Bang Theory as stated in 1990 has been completely upended ... and a Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to the folks who proved that statement to be wrong ... get that, they proved the Big Bang Theory of 1990 was wrong ...

I think we can all agree that using the Theory of Evolution to establish social policy is wicked ... I watched some bluejays peck to death one of their smaller members the other day, that's a bad example of how humans should be treating one another IMEIO ... the male Red Fox has nothing to do with the raising of the kits, what does our society look like if mothers have to protect their babies from their fathers eating them? ...

And of course my usual disclaimer: Biologists aren't the smartest people in the world, so a third-rate science gets third-rate theories ... I think the OP expects too much of them ...

"The argument here seems to be that neither side can fully demonstrate their position ... there's no experiment we can perform to establish the that evolution is true, and we have no experiment that establishes evolution as false ...

It's just a theory ... a framework of understanding that allows biologists to communicate ideas ... and a source of hypotheses to guide our experimentation ...

So the question I have for the OP is what theory would you replace evolution with? "



Clearly Darwin's theory not only does not bear up under scrutiny, but there is evidence that the very opposite of the theory is the truth.

You question is out of order, unless you'd like to start a new thread with that query.

I might even answer it.


But the subtext in every one of the threads I post that are anti-Darwinism is this:

Why is it so important to certain ideologies that students at every level, be indoctrinated with the falsehood, that Darwin's thesis is a proven fact?


That is the question at issue.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why is it so important to certain ideologies that students at every level, be indoctrinated with the falsehood, that Darwin's thesis is a proven fact?

You have no answer to my question ... you cannot prove evolution is false ...

The schools you went to must have been severely underfunded ... I first learned about evolution in high school biology, in a school where 98% of the student body attend church every Sunday ... I asked the teacher why he kept the Holy Bible so prominently displayed?

"It's just as good a theory as Darwinism" ... but this was California, which is made of money ... they could afford to hire smarter teachers ...

 

[sealybobo]

The argument here seems to be that neither side can fully demonstrate their position ... there's no experiment we can perform to establish the that evolution is true, and we have no experiment that establishes evolution as false ...

It's just a theory ... a framework of understanding that allows biologists to communicate ideas ... and a source of hypotheses to guide our experimentation ...

So the question I have for the OP is what theory would you replace evolution with? ... in science, it's never enough to say someone is wrong, we have to state what is right ... Einstein never just said Newton's gravity was wrong, Einstein said Newton was wrong because GR is right ...

The Big Bang Theory as stated in 1990 has been completely upended ... and a Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to the folks who proved that statement to be wrong ... get that, they proved the Big Bang Theory of 1990 was wrong ...

I think we can all agree that using the Theory of Evolution to establish social policy is wicked ... I watched some bluejays peck to death one of their smaller members the other day, that's a bad example of how humans should be treating one another IMEIO ... the male Red Fox has nothing to do with the raising of the kits, what does our society look like if mothers have to protect their babies from their fathers eating them? ...

And of course my usual disclaimer: Biologists aren't the smartest people in the world, so a third-rate science gets third-rate theories ... I think the OP expects too much of them ...

Not true

Scientists have spent the past 30 years carefully tracking evolution across more than 68,000 generations of E. coli bacteria - the equivalent of more than 1 million years of human evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why is it so important to certain ideologies that students at every level, be indoctrinated with the falsehood, that Darwin's thesis is a proven fact?

You have no answer to my question ... you cannot prove evolution is false ...

The schools you went to must have been severely underfunded ... I first learned about evolution in high school biology, in a school where 98% of the student body attend church every Sunday ... I asked the teacher why he kept the Holy Bible so prominently displayed?

"It's just as good a theory as Darwinism" ... but this was California, which is made of money ... they could afford to hire smarter teachers ...

"You have no answer to my question ... you cannot prove evolution is false ... "

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Mine is the pertinent question.

 

[Hollie]

You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.

Ummm... Yes. But I don't see the point is posting it. You have already made up your mind that there is none. So... What would be the point?

This should be in the religion threads... Not scientific.

GOP Climate Change Denial Set The Stage For Trump's Coronavirus Conspiracies

The right has perfected the art of misinformation and science skepticism over the years.

www.huffpost.com

And this has what to do with the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support Darwinism?

“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?”

“The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth.”

Yes. The damage done to humanity by the Christian church is difficult to fathom. Church imposition of fear and ignorance during the Dark Ages literally held back humanity for 800 years.

 

[Hollie]

The argument here seems to be that neither side can fully demonstrate their position ... there's no experiment we can perform to establish the that evolution is true, and we have no experiment that establishes evolution as false ...

It's just a theory ... a framework of understanding that allows biologists to communicate ideas ... and a source of hypotheses to guide our experimentation ...

So the question I have for the OP is what theory would you replace evolution with? ... in science, it's never enough to say someone is wrong, we have to state what is right ... Einstein never just said Newton's gravity was wrong, Einstein said Newton was wrong because GR is right ...

The Big Bang Theory as stated in 1990 has been completely upended ... and a Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to the folks who proved that statement to be wrong ... get that, they proved the Big Bang Theory of 1990 was wrong ...

I think we can all agree that using the Theory of Evolution to establish social policy is wicked ... I watched some bluejays peck to death one of their smaller members the other day, that's a bad example of how humans should be treating one another IMEIO ... the male Red Fox has nothing to do with the raising of the kits, what does our society look like if mothers have to protect their babies from their fathers eating them? ...

And of course my usual disclaimer: Biologists aren't the smartest people in the world, so a third-rate science gets third-rate theories ... I think the OP expects too much of them ...

"The argument here seems to be that neither side can fully demonstrate their position ... there's no experiment we can perform to establish the that evolution is true, and we have no experiment that establishes evolution as false ...

It's just a theory ... a framework of understanding that allows biologists to communicate ideas ... and a source of hypotheses to guide our experimentation ...

So the question I have for the OP is what theory would you replace evolution with? "



Clearly Darwin's theory not only does not bear up under scrutiny, but there is evidence that the very opposite of the theory is the truth.

You question is out of order, unless you'd like to start a new thread with that query.

I might even answer it.


But the subtext in every one of the threads I post that are anti-Darwinism is this:

Why is it so important to certain ideologies that students at every level, be indoctrinated with the falsehood, that Darwin's thesis is a proven fact?


That is the question at issue.

your cutting and pasting of edited, parsed and phony “quotes” are not questions. They’re nonsense you plagiarize from Harun Yahya.

Darwin’s theory which proposes that organisms change over time subject to environmental pressures has overwhelming factual support.

Why you press your agenda of religionism as a burqa for your ignorance is the question at issue.

 

[ReinyDays]

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Why you press your agenda of religionism as a burqa for your ignorance is the question at issue.

Thank you, Hollie, I couldn't have said that any better ...

Mine is the pertinent question.

From the OP:
But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.

From Baylor University, one of the premier theological institutions of higher learning:

Statement of Evolution

Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.

Citation ...

You should post your rhetoric in the Philosophy or Religion forums ... here in the Science forum we do tend to follow scientific method ... if you choose to not answer a scientific challenge, then you're WRONG ... every time ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Why you press your agenda of religionism as a burqa for your ignorance is the question at issue.

Thank you, Hollie, I couldn't have said that any better ...

Mine is the pertinent question.

From the OP:
But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.

From Baylor University, one of the premier theological institutions of higher learning:

Statement of Evolution

Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.

Citation ...

You should post your rhetoric in the Philosophy or Religion forums ... here in the Science forum we do tend to follow scientific method ... if you choose to not answer a scientific challenge, then you're WRONG ... every time ...

Nothing in my posts relies on theology, but those who have passed through government schooling are unaware of the neo-Marxist influence to which they have been subjected and they love to claim that any disagreement with the Darwinian propaganda is based on religion.
Quite the opposite.
My point is that the greatest part of the debate about Darwin is by those who demand its acceptance as a bulwark against any belief in a Creator, who might have played a role in evolution.

On a number of occassions, neo-Marxist, atheistic scientists, admit that they will say anything as long as it opposes religion.
That's the basis of Marxism.

For example:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
Richard C. Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.



Quite a weird take, especially if one tries to call it 'science.'

I notice that when dunces....you.....can't answer my question, you try to change the subject in this way.





But…..when it suits their purpose, God makes an appearance in their arguments.



Note how evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma, a Darwinist, uses God as an argument for Darwin.

“There are many examples, such as the eyes of vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs, in which functionally similar features actually differ profoundly in structure. Such differences are expected if structures are modified from features that differ in different ancestors, but are inconsistent with the notion that an omnipotent Creator, who should be able to adhere to an optimal design, provided them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), p. 49


Wait….. what???

God “should be able to stick to as a plan,” .....he's hypothesizing about what He would have done is evidence for Darwin???

Notice….I didn’t bring religion into the discussion, a geneticist and an evolutionary biologist, did.




Nothing new, really.
“On the last page of the first edition, published in November 1859, where Darwin speculated on the origin of the earliest forms of life from which all other species have descended, no reference to “the Creator” is made.” Darwin’s Philosophical Imperative and the Furor Theologicus

 

[sealybobo]

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Why you press your agenda of religionism as a burqa for your ignorance is the question at issue.

Thank you, Hollie, I couldn't have said that any better ...

Mine is the pertinent question.

From the OP:
But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.

From Baylor University, one of the premier theological institutions of higher learning:

Statement of Evolution

Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.

Citation ...

You should post your rhetoric in the Philosophy or Religion forums ... here in the Science forum we do tend to follow scientific method ... if you choose to not answer a scientific challenge, then you're WRONG ... every time ...

Nothing in my posts relies on theology, but those who have passed through government schooling are unaware of the neo-Marxist influence to which they have been subjected and they love to claim that any disagreement with the Darwinian propaganda is based on religion.
Quite the opposite.
My point is that the greatest part of the debate about Darwin is by those who demand its acceptance as a bulwark against any belief in a Creator, who might have played a role in evolution.

On a number of occassions, neo-Marxist, atheistic scientists, admit that they will say anything as long as it opposes religion.
That's the basis of Marxism.

For example:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
Richard C. Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.



Quite a weird take, especially if one tries to call it 'science.'

I notice that when dunces....you.....can't answer my question, you try to change the subject in this way.





But…..when it suits their purpose, God makes an appearance in their arguments.



Note how evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma, a Darwinist, uses God as an argument for Darwin.

“There are many examples, such as the eyes of vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs, in which functionally similar features actually differ profoundly in structure. Such differences are expected if structures are modified from features that differ in different ancestors, but are inconsistent with the notion that an omnipotent Creator, who should be able to adhere to an optimal design, provided them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), p. 49


Wait….. what???

God “should be able to stick to as a plan,” .....he's hypothesizing about what He would have done is evidence for Darwin???

Notice….I didn’t bring religion into the discussion, a geneticist and an evolutionary biologist, did.




Nothing new, really.
“On the last page of the first edition, published in November 1859, where Darwin speculated on the origin of the earliest forms of life from which all other species have descended, no reference to “the Creator” is made.” Darwin’s Philosophical Imperative and the Furor Theologicus

You saw that article I posted? Trump isn’t responsible for you science deniers. Republicans before trump laid the ground work denying climate change because the corporations pay republicans to deny it. They don’t want to pay to go green.

This is evidence religion is bad for people. First you doubt evolution, then global warming and now Dr Fauci and the cdc.

This country is doomed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Why you press your agenda of religionism as a burqa for your ignorance is the question at issue.

Thank you, Hollie, I couldn't have said that any better ...

Mine is the pertinent question.

From the OP:
But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.

From Baylor University, one of the premier theological institutions of higher learning:

Statement of Evolution

Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.

Citation ...

You should post your rhetoric in the Philosophy or Religion forums ... here in the Science forum we do tend to follow scientific method ... if you choose to not answer a scientific challenge, then you're WRONG ... every time ...

Nothing in my posts relies on theology, but those who have passed through government schooling are unaware of the neo-Marxist influence to which they have been subjected and they love to claim that any disagreement with the Darwinian propaganda is based on religion.
Quite the opposite.
My point is that the greatest part of the debate about Darwin is by those who demand its acceptance as a bulwark against any belief in a Creator, who might have played a role in evolution.

On a number of occassions, neo-Marxist, atheistic scientists, admit that they will say anything as long as it opposes religion.
That's the basis of Marxism.

For example:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
Richard C. Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.



Quite a weird take, especially if one tries to call it 'science.'

I notice that when dunces....you.....can't answer my question, you try to change the subject in this way.





But…..when it suits their purpose, God makes an appearance in their arguments.



Note how evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma, a Darwinist, uses God as an argument for Darwin.

“There are many examples, such as the eyes of vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs, in which functionally similar features actually differ profoundly in structure. Such differences are expected if structures are modified from features that differ in different ancestors, but are inconsistent with the notion that an omnipotent Creator, who should be able to adhere to an optimal design, provided them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), p. 49


Wait….. what???

God “should be able to stick to as a plan,” .....he's hypothesizing about what He would have done is evidence for Darwin???

Notice….I didn’t bring religion into the discussion, a geneticist and an evolutionary biologist, did.




Nothing new, really.
“On the last page of the first edition, published in November 1859, where Darwin speculated on the origin of the earliest forms of life from which all other species have descended, no reference to “the Creator” is made.” Darwin’s Philosophical Imperative and the Furor Theologicus

You saw that article I posted? Trump isn’t responsible for you science deniers. Republicans before trump laid the ground work denying climate change because the corporations pay republicans to deny it. They don’t want to pay to go green.

This is evidence religion is bad for people. First you doubt evolution, then global warming and now Dr Fauci and the cdc.

This country is doomed.

"....science deniers...."



What science are you mumbling about????

 

[abu afak]

"You have no answer to my question ... you cannot prove evolution is false ... "

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Mine is the pertinent question.

Three points here DISHONEST Quote-mining loony Political Sheik.

1. She's admitting SHE also can't prove evolution is false. oops.
2. She's wrong. HER/ (any of hundred actually) gods/dogs could appear and explain it all to us, how he kweated evewyting!, but alas all 'he' (LOL) left was a ludicrous POS bible because the men who actually wrote it didn't know anything about science.
3. Many other real things Could have proved evolution false (and still could). BUT as it turns, out, every new relevant science of the last 160 years is either consistent with, or outright helps Confirm Evolution. (Wrongly situated fossil, Radiometric dating, DNA, etc, etc)

You can't debate me you 70 IQ Dishonest Wretch.


`

 

[sealybobo]

"You have no answer to my question ... you cannot prove evolution is false ... "

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Mine is the pertinent question.

AT Least 3 FALLACIES at work here by DISHONEST Quote-mining loony Political Sheik.

1. She's admitting SHE also can't prove evolution is false. oops.
2. She's wrong. HER/ (any of hundred actually) gods/dogs could appear and explain it all to us, how he kweated evewyting!, but alas all 'he' (LOL) left was a ludicrous POS bible because the men who actually wrote it didn't know anything about science.
3. Many other real things Could have proved evolution false (and still could). BUT as it turns, out, every new relevant science of the last 160 years is either consistent with, or outright helps Confirm Evolution.

You can't debate me you 70 IQ Dishonest Wretch.
`

Her argument is that scientific consensus has been wrong before.

i don’t think evolution is one that religious people will ever debunk. They have zero evidence against it. Any questions we can’t answer neither can they.

And it’s pretty obvious like not wearing masks, denying global warming is just another thing republicans are forced into going along with because they toe the party line on every subject.

Long before corona republicans were denying science so no surprise today they believe republican politicians over the scientific community.

 

[Hollie]

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Why you press your agenda of religionism as a burqa for your ignorance is the question at issue.

Thank you, Hollie, I couldn't have said that any better ...

Mine is the pertinent question.

From the OP:
But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.

From Baylor University, one of the premier theological institutions of higher learning:

Statement of Evolution

Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.

Citation ...

You should post your rhetoric in the Philosophy or Religion forums ... here in the Science forum we do tend to follow scientific method ... if you choose to not answer a scientific challenge, then you're WRONG ... every time ...

Nothing in my posts relies on theology, but those who have passed through government schooling are unaware of the neo-Marxist influence to which they have been subjected and they love to claim that any disagreement with the Darwinian propaganda is based on religion.
Quite the opposite.
My point is that the greatest part of the debate about Darwin is by those who demand its acceptance as a bulwark against any belief in a Creator, who might have played a role in evolution.

On a number of occassions, neo-Marxist, atheistic scientists, admit that they will say anything as long as it opposes religion.
That's the basis of Marxism.

For example:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
Richard C. Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.



Quite a weird take, especially if one tries to call it 'science.'

I notice that when dunces....you.....can't answer my question, you try to change the subject in this way.





But…..when it suits their purpose, God makes an appearance in their arguments.



Note how evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma, a Darwinist, uses God as an argument for Darwin.

“There are many examples, such as the eyes of vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs, in which functionally similar features actually differ profoundly in structure. Such differences are expected if structures are modified from features that differ in different ancestors, but are inconsistent with the notion that an omnipotent Creator, who should be able to adhere to an optimal design, provided them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), p. 49


Wait….. what???

God “should be able to stick to as a plan,” .....he's hypothesizing about what He would have done is evidence for Darwin???

Notice….I didn’t bring religion into the discussion, a geneticist and an evolutionary biologist, did.




Nothing new, really.
“On the last page of the first edition, published in November 1859, where Darwin speculated on the origin of the earliest forms of life from which all other species have descended, no reference to “the Creator” is made.” Darwin’s Philosophical Imperative and the Furor Theologicus

You shouldn’t be surprised that Douglas J. Futuyma would question the notion of magical creator gods who are apparently rather incompetent as creators go.

Here. I have a ‘’quote’’ for you. Sometimes an explanation of terms and definitions are helpful for the religious extremists.


A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

 

[Hollie]

What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?

No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.



1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.

The religious extremist has provided an outline of the Scientific Method.

lovely!

We can thus apply the critique to examine the natural world.

How do we apply the Scientific Method to supernatural entities that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exist outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, who live in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and are uncreated themselves and use methods and means we can never know or hope to understand and that stand outside of any examination?

Gee whiz. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, here.

Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"You have no answer to my question ... you cannot prove evolution is false ... "

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Mine is the pertinent question.

Three points here DISHONEST Quote-mining loony Political Sheik.

1. She's admitting SHE also can't prove evolution is false. oops.
2. She's wrong. HER/ (any of hundred actually) gods/dogs could appear and explain it all to us, how he kweated evewyting!, but alas all 'he' (LOL) left was a ludicrous POS bible because the men who actually wrote it didn't know anything about science.
3. Many other real things Could have proved evolution false (and still could). BUT as it turns, out, every new relevant science of the last 160 years is either consistent with, or outright helps Confirm Evolution. (Wrongly situated fossil, Radiometric dating, DNA, etc, etc)

You can't debate me you 70 IQ Dishonest Wretch.


`

Read more carefully.

What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"You have no answer to my question ... you cannot prove evolution is false ... "

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Mine is the pertinent question.

AT Least 3 FALLACIES at work here by DISHONEST Quote-mining loony Political Sheik.

1. She's admitting SHE also can't prove evolution is false. oops.
2. She's wrong. HER/ (any of hundred actually) gods/dogs could appear and explain it all to us, how he kweated evewyting!, but alas all 'he' (LOL) left was a ludicrous POS bible because the men who actually wrote it didn't know anything about science.
3. Many other real things Could have proved evolution false (and still could). BUT as it turns, out, every new relevant science of the last 160 years is either consistent with, or outright helps Confirm Evolution.

You can't debate me you 70 IQ Dishonest Wretch.
`

Her argument is that scientific consensus has been wrong before.

i don’t think evolution is one that religious people will ever debunk. They have zero evidence against it. Any questions we can’t answer neither can they.

And it’s pretty obvious like not wearing masks, denying global warming is just another thing republicans are forced into going along with because they toe the party line on every subject.

Long before corona republicans were denying science so no surprise today they believe republican politicians over the scientific community.

Not my argument.



Tons of real scientists agree that Darwin's theory has been disproven....yet it is taught in schools as fact.


Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)

etmcmull - No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism

NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION Scientists' Research and Darwinism Edited by Emerson Thomas McMullen, 2002 Introduction Science has many limitations, but probably its worst shortcoming involves history. For example, if scientists did not know about the Battle of Waterloo, a turning point in history,

sites.google.com

20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660




Now what do you say?

 

[Hollie]

"You have no answer to my question ... you cannot prove evolution is false ... "

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Mine is the pertinent question.

AT Least 3 FALLACIES at work here by DISHONEST Quote-mining loony Political Sheik.

1. She's admitting SHE also can't prove evolution is false. oops.
2. She's wrong. HER/ (any of hundred actually) gods/dogs could appear and explain it all to us, how he kweated evewyting!, but alas all 'he' (LOL) left was a ludicrous POS bible because the men who actually wrote it didn't know anything about science.
3. Many other real things Could have proved evolution false (and still could). BUT as it turns, out, every new relevant science of the last 160 years is either consistent with, or outright helps Confirm Evolution.

You can't debate me you 70 IQ Dishonest Wretch.
`

Her argument is that scientific consensus has been wrong before.

i don’t think evolution is one that religious people will ever debunk. They have zero evidence against it. Any questions we can’t answer neither can they.

And it’s pretty obvious like not wearing masks, denying global warming is just another thing republicans are forced into going along with because they toe the party line on every subject.

Long before corona republicans were denying science so no surprise today they believe republican politicians over the scientific community.

Not my argument.



Tons of real scientists agree that Darwin's theory has been disproven....yet it is taught in schools as fact.


Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)

etmcmull - No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism

NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION Scientists' Research and Darwinism Edited by Emerson Thomas McMullen, 2002 Introduction Science has many limitations, but probably its worst shortcoming involves history. For example, if scientists did not know about the Battle of Waterloo, a turning point in history,

sites.google.com

20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660




Now what do you say?

Pretty funny that you would cut and paste from a collection of ID'iot creationers at the Disco'tute.

Identify any research material submitted by the Disco’tute for peer review.

You can’t because the charlatans there do no research.


The Disco’tute is little more than a repository for hacks and charlatans. Please identify the research papers submitted for peer review by the well-known hacks at the Disco’tute. What reference material published by the Disco’tute hacks are used by any college or university?


Even if we are generous regarding standards and criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the entirety of the ID’iot creationist movement is virtually zero. Rather pathetic, especially considering the long history and funding of the movement. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID’iot creationist research.

As an example of just how fraudulent the Disco’tute really is:

Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image

A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.

Hey, do the one where it looks like you're on the moon next.
Discovery Institute

 

[Hollie]

But let's be honest, the Disco'tute groupies have no business in a science themed thread.

The Discovery Institute Is A Con-Profit Scam

Yesterday, David Klinghoffer, a fellow at the creationist “think tank” the Discovery Institute and the author of the absurdly titled book How Would God Vote?: Why the Bible Commands You…

cenlamar.com

Over the last several years, the Discovery Institute has raised well over $20 million, donations that are almost entirely eaten up in salaries and administrative costs. On average, since 2008, the Discovery Institute has spent less than 13% of its annual revenue on program activity and phony “grants.” Put another way, the Discovery Institute spends nearly 90% of the tax-deductible donations it receives every year on salaried employees, consultants, lawyers, lobbyists, accountants, and administrative and overhead expenses, and that’s being generous.

 

[ReinyDays]

What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards ... (it supports your ignorant opinion) ... science requires repeatable experimentation AND a theory that supports the results of the experiments ...

You've refused to provide the theoretical basis for your claims ...
How about we try and ask you for your experimental basis for your claims? ...

... or are your claims just simply parroting what can be cherry-picked from others? ...

=====

Just curious ... most folks reading this will have had far more schooling than I ... but outside of biology class, I sure don't remember anyone discussing Evolution ... just never seemed to come up in the Neo-Marxism classes I took ... yeah, I absolutely kept my distance from the College of Liberal Arts ... better money in the sciences at the time ...

 

[sealybobo]

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Why you press your agenda of religionism as a burqa for your ignorance is the question at issue.

Thank you, Hollie, I couldn't have said that any better ...

Mine is the pertinent question.

From the OP:
But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.

From Baylor University, one of the premier theological institutions of higher learning:

Statement of Evolution

Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.

Citation ...

You should post your rhetoric in the Philosophy or Religion forums ... here in the Science forum we do tend to follow scientific method ... if you choose to not answer a scientific challenge, then you're WRONG ... every time ...

Nothing in my posts relies on theology, but those who have passed through government schooling are unaware of the neo-Marxist influence to which they have been subjected and they love to claim that any disagreement with the Darwinian propaganda is based on religion.
Quite the opposite.
My point is that the greatest part of the debate about Darwin is by those who demand its acceptance as a bulwark against any belief in a Creator, who might have played a role in evolution.

On a number of occassions, neo-Marxist, atheistic scientists, admit that they will say anything as long as it opposes religion.
That's the basis of Marxism.

For example:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
Richard C. Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.



Quite a weird take, especially if one tries to call it 'science.'

I notice that when dunces....you.....can't answer my question, you try to change the subject in this way.





But…..when it suits their purpose, God makes an appearance in their arguments.



Note how evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma, a Darwinist, uses God as an argument for Darwin.

“There are many examples, such as the eyes of vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs, in which functionally similar features actually differ profoundly in structure. Such differences are expected if structures are modified from features that differ in different ancestors, but are inconsistent with the notion that an omnipotent Creator, who should be able to adhere to an optimal design, provided them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), p. 49


Wait….. what???

God “should be able to stick to as a plan,” .....he's hypothesizing about what He would have done is evidence for Darwin???

Notice….I didn’t bring religion into the discussion, a geneticist and an evolutionary biologist, did.




Nothing new, really.
“On the last page of the first edition, published in November 1859, where Darwin speculated on the origin of the earliest forms of life from which all other species have descended, no reference to “the Creator” is made.” Darwin’s Philosophical Imperative and the Furor Theologicus

You shouldn’t be surprised that Douglas J. Futuyma would question the notion of magical creator gods who are apparently rather incompetent as creators go.

Here. I have a ‘’quote’’ for you. Sometimes an explanation of terms and definitions are helpful for the religious extremists.


A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

I know evolution says we all came from the same ancestor. Originally we were all single cell organisms. BUT, maybe reptiles came from something different than mammals. And insects. Maybe all mammals are related but is it possible tha insects evolved from some other original source?

Im sure science has a lot of reasons why they believe we are all related but it is crazy that some creature split and one relative became mammals and the other one became reptiles. They’re so different.

But I’ll bet you science has enough information to convince me I just don’t know what they say on this even though I watched the cosmos several times both Sagan and Tyson