Argument by bad analogy

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Good.

How come the peer review process has worked out fantastically well for launching satellites into orbit resulting in incredible developments in communication devices, ie, the internet, GPS, mobiles phones etc. Yet the same process has failed spectacularly with regard to explaining evolution. Because if evolutionary theory is wrong then that means ...[text shortened]... cientists within this diverse range disciplines are so spectacularly wrong? How did that happen?

They often get things right because all science does not depend on evolution being right or wrong. 😏

In fact most science depends on understanding and applying intelligent design. One could claim televisions and computers evolved over time, but the truth is that each stage of that so-called evolution required intelligent design input.

When scientists get it wrong in those areas of science that you mentioned, it is because they do speculation and assumptions based on faith in there evolution belief, IMO.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evidence is in the eye and the mind of the beholder. You point to something and claim that it is evidence for evolution, but I see the same thing and claim it is evidence for creation.

With a non-scientific explanation like creationism, anything can be explained away with: "That's how god chose to do it". The same cannot be said for a scientific theory, so no, evolution does not require blind faith. But you know that by now, so why I'm telling you this, I don't know.

Originally posted by C Hess
With a non-scientific explanation like creationism, anything can be explained away with: "That's how god chose to do it". The same cannot be said for a scientific theory, so no, evolution does not require blind faith. But you know that by now, so why I'm telling you this, I don't know.

You need to open your eyes. Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups who have no faith in God. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You need to open your eyes. Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups who have no faith in God. 😏

Says the man in the corner with his biblical glasses and creationist blinders on.

{Walking slowly backwards out of the room}

O-kaaaay...

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That doesn't really answer my question. How can countless scientists from pretty much every scientific discipline get it wrong for so long? Yet other scientists working with the same laws of nature, using the same scientific process get it right? How does that happen?

Are you going to have a stab at my question Kelly?

Originally posted by C Hess
Says the man in the corner with his biblical glasses and creationist blinders on.

{Walking slowly backwards out of the room}

O-kaaaay...

Well, you can explain things away with "that's what science says" or "evolution" did it. 😏

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That doesn't really answer my question. How can countless scientists from pretty much every scientific discipline get it wrong for so long? Yet other scientists working with the same laws of nature, using the same scientific process get it right? How does that happen?

Countless in ever scientific discipline may not agree with those that do too.
It is easy to make that claim, not so much to prove it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, you can explain things away with "that's what science says" or "evolution" did it. 😏

No, not really. There is a clear limit to what evolutionary theory could explain. For instance, it wouldn't be able to explain if we observed a fully formed organ complex popping into existence from one generation to the next, or monkeys giving birth to humans. There are many things that if found would immediately render evolution wrong.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Countless in ever scientific discipline may not agree with those that do too.
It is easy to make that claim, not so much to prove it.

You have misunderstood.
Many scientific disciplines produce products that you rely on every day. You presumably agree that the standard findings in those disciplines are correct as otherwise the products would simply not work. Why is it that in those disciplines scientists get it right, but in disciplines that conflict with your religion, scientists get it wrong?

I realize that the above is not quite accurate as you don't actually believe in relativity despite many working products relying on its being correct. You must think that scientist just get things right by sheer dumb luck.

Originally posted by C Hess
No, not really. There is a clear limit to what evolutionary theory could explain. For instance, it wouldn't be able to explain if we observed a fully formed organ complex popping into existence from one generation to the next, or monkeys giving birth to humans. There are many things that if found would immediately render evolution wrong.

In reality, evolution does not explain anything. Evolution or "evilution" is nothing more than a made up magic word that is supposed to turn a frog into a prince under the cover of long periods of time so no one can see it happen. Evilution is like slight of hand magic.

Real science requires observation to at least see it work. And only when the same result can be repoduced can an attempt to explain it be considered correct.

Evolution a.k.a. evilution has been rendered wrong. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have misunderstood.
Many scientific disciplines produce products that you rely on every day. You presumably agree that the standard findings in those disciplines are correct as otherwise the products would simply not work. Why is it that in those disciplines scientists get it right, but in disciplines that conflict with your religion, scientists get ...[text shortened]... ng on its being correct. You must think that scientist just get things right by sheer dumb luck.

Did you read the following answer that I gave Proper Knob?

They often get things right because all science does not depend on evolution being right or wrong.

In fact most science depends on understanding and applying intelligent design. One could claim televisions and computers evolved over time, but the truth is that each stage of that so-called evolution required intelligent design input.

When scientists get it wrong in those areas of science that you mentioned, it is because they do speculation and assumptions based on faith in their evolution belief, IMO.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In reality, evolution does not explain anything. Evolution or "evilution" is nothing more than a made up magic word that is supposed to turn a frog into a prince under the cover of long periods of time so no one can see it happen. Evilution is like slight of hand magic.

Real science requires observation to at least see it work. And only when the same res ...[text shortened]... t to explain it be considered correct.

Evolution a.k.a. evilution has been rendered wrong. 😏

Evolution explains antibiotic resistence, among many other things. In fact "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", by Theodosius Dobzhansky. You may wish to read it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Are you going to have a stab at my question Kelly?

I answered you missed it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I answered you missed it?

I read it four times, I can't make head or tail of what you're getting at. The first sentence for instance is not grammatically correct. Perhaps you could reframe it?

Originally posted by C Hess
Evolution explains antibiotic resistence, among many other things. In fact "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", by Theodosius Dobzhansky. You may wish to read it.

Antibotic resistance results from the bacteria losing genetic information. That is opposite from what evolution would predict.

Theodosius Dobzhansky may have been referring to variation and adaptation, which is sometimes referred to as micro-evolution. Many new discoveries have occurred since Theodosius Dobzhansky died. Many things don't make sense in the light of evolution by today's knowledge. We now are forced to consider intelligent design to make sense of it.