Originally posted by vishvahetuMore of the war that should not be. Waste of time.
Nine tenths of the talk on evolution, is sheer nonsense, not founded in observation, and wholly unsupported by facts.
This Museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.
In this great Museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of the species.
Dr Ethridge Palentologist of the ...[text shortened]... umentary
___________________
(Inside the Mind of the Cheating Scientist)
Vishva
Originally posted by ua41Actually I would go much stronger: 90 - 99%
Its definitely a generous portion of biology, but I wouldn't give it that strong of a percentage.
There is almost nothing in biology that cannot be properly understood except in the light of evolution.
We can study taxonomy, and the way things work, but we wont understand why they are that way without evolution.
As for understanding things like reproduction strategies, epidemiology etc you won't go anywhere without taking evolution into account.
Can you name one part of biology that is not better understood by taking evolution into account?
Originally posted by twhiteheadMaybe with the more applicable mannerisms (medicine/physiology) which is what I suppose I do tend to stick biology with. But you had already mentioned that yeah we can understand things and functions but the foundation for anything unifying is in evolution.
Actually I would go much stronger: 90 - 99%
There is almost nothing in biology that cannot be properly understood except in the light of evolution.
We can study taxonomy, and the way things work, but we wont understand why they are that way without evolution.
As for understanding things like reproduction strategies, epidemiology etc you won't go anywh ...[text shortened]... an you name one part of biology that is not better understood by taking evolution into account?
Ha, my biochem classes were pretty much all cell evolution/genetics etc, suppose you're right
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knob1.disagreement about history. Carbon dating,( and other methods), have shown that a lot of accepted history needs to be rewritten.
Turbulence/disagreement/upheaval about what?
What powers that be?
How do they take that to their advantage?
2.the Illuminati.
3.They pay scientists to manipulate statistics to show that their new inventions are safe, for example.
There is much turbulence in the scientific community with many young scientists questioning the old ways. Much of this has to do with humanity, (like starving people not being fed while billions are spent on the military). While you may not think this has anything to do with scientists, I beleive all these leading people,(scientists,politcians even movie stars), have important roles tp play to expose their little piece of truth.
I'm not going to give links or examples at this stage. I just want to guage your reaction so far and see if you give my general contention any weight or if you are drawn at the hip and just waiting to fire🙂
Originally posted by karoly aczeldisagreement about history. Carbon dating,( and other methods), have shown that a lot of accepted history needs to be rewritten.
1.disagreement about history. Carbon dating,( and other methods), have shown that a lot of accepted history needs to be rewritten.
2.the Illuminati.
3.They pay scientists to manipulate statistics to show that their new inventions are safe, for example.
There is much turbulence in the scientific community with many young scientists questioning ...[text shortened]... give my general contention any weight or if you are drawn at the hip and just waiting to fire🙂
Sorry Karoly but you're going to have to be a bit more specific here. What disagreeement? Which scientists? Which part of histroy?
They pay scientists to manipulate statistics to show that their new inventions are safe, for example.
Evidence my dear boy, evidence.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobCan I just wriggle out of this now.
[b]disagreement about history. Carbon dating,( and other methods), have shown that a lot of accepted history needs to be rewritten.
Sorry Karoly but you're going to have to be a bit more specific here. What disagreeement? Which scientists? Which part of histroy?
They pay scientists to manipulate statistics to show that their new inventions are safe, for example.
Evidence my dear boy, evidence.[/b]
I just wanted to guage how the likes of you may react to my proposals.
But I will give an idea of what I was thinking.
1.There is disagreement about biblical history. Carbondating has blown some former truths out of the water(Am I right on that one?)
2.The atom bomb. As Billy Bragg sings" Doctor Oppenheimers optism failed, at the first hurdle..." What is Billy refferring to you think?
In a typical day I take in lots if info. I would love to post over at science but my brain doesn't function like that. I'm terrible at producing evidence. So please excuse me and possibly help with my general contentions.
I think there is a kernel of truth to what vishva is saying, scientists are human after all, I watch the Big Bang Theory from time to time🙂
edit: there is a link to a one hour movie that exposes the illuminati on my home page. If you can be bothered watching that. Apparently the writers indicate that all the info in that film can be backed up. I think its called "The Awakening"
Originally posted by karoly aczelBut you were talking about scientists, not creationists. The Biblical account does is not "accepted history" and therefore does not need rewriting. You seemed to be suggesting that scientists disagreed with each other, yet your defense seems to be that they disagree with creationists.
1.There is disagreement about biblical history. Carbondating has blown some former truths out of the water(Am I right on that one?)
I think there is a kernel of truth to what vishva is saying, scientists are human after all, I watch the Big Bang Theory from time to time🙂
I am sure you have disagreed with you parents at one time (as have we all). Does it follow that there is a 'kernel of truth' in the claim that "there is much turbulence/disagreement/upheaval in your family"?
I am sure that scientists have made mistakes in Chemistry and disagree about a couple of points but does that mean there would be a 'kernel of truth' in the claim that
"Nine tenths of the talk on Chemistry, is sheer nonsense, not founded in observation, and wholly unsupported by facts. "
vishva has admitted ignorance of Evolution yet persists in attacking it with outright lies that he copies and pasts of creationist websites. These websites are created by people he has also accused of being dishonest.
If you have a specific point about science and disagreement amongst scientists, then you might make some sense, but there is no 'kernel of truth' in what vishva has said. Only a 'kernel of dishonesty'.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not necessarily agreeing with vishva on this one. His attack on science seems unwarranted though I bet he doesn't see it as an attack , just "truth spreading", or whatever.
But you were talking about scientists, not creationists. The Biblical account does is not "accepted history" and therefore does not need rewriting. You seemed to be suggesting that scientists disagreed with each other, yet your defense seems to be that they disagree with creationists.
[b]I think there is a kernel of truth to what vishva is saying, scie re is no 'kernel of truth' in what vishva has said. Only a 'kernel of dishonesty'.
Are you saying that science books are not re-written? Or that new books are always adding and changing science? Nothing is static. Some changes are predictable, some are more difficult to predict.
(edit:I love it when the text comes up big and bold like that unintentionally-it means it must be the Truth😀 )
Originally posted by karoly aczelHe is perfectly well aware that it is an attack on the Theory of Evolution. I am sure he would readily admit it. He is also well aware that he does not himself believe most of the claims he is making. Again, he would probably readily admit as such.
I'm not necessarily agreeing with vishva on this one. His attack on science seems unwarranted though I bet he doesn't see it as an attack , just "truth spreading", or whatever.
Are you saying that science books are not re-written?
Not very often, certainly not when it comes to theories.
And even so, it does not amount to "... much turbulence/disagreement/upheaval in the scientific community" which seems to imply a lot more than the simple fact that we learn more every day.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut disagreement/turbulence/upheaval are a symptom of change are they not?
He is perfectly well aware that it is an attack on the Theory of Evolution. I am sure he would readily admit it. He is also well aware that he does not himself believe most of the claims he is making. Again, he would probably readily admit as such.
[b]Are you saying that science books are not re-written?
Not very often, certainly not when it comes community" which seems to imply a lot more than the simple fact that we learn more every day.[/b]
Perhaps I over-dramatize.
Like I inferred, some scientists theories have been used for purposes other than that which they intended. Ironically , we have learned a lot about matter by trying to destroy it (war).
Also the people in charge that make 80% of the worlds wealth selling oil dont really want new technology to disrupt their power-balance, in this way many scientists trying to sovle the energy problems have been labelled crackpots after their initial use was not needed. ie, Tesla.
Do you really believe that the powers that be would let someone come along and make free and clean energy? I hardly think so.
Originally posted by karoly aczelYou over-dramatize to the point that it is incorrect.
But disagreement/turbulence/upheaval are a symptom of change are they not?
Perhaps I over-dramatize.
Do scientists sometimes disagree? Of course. They disagree often.
Do scientists regularly change their hypothesis, or come up with new ones? Of course.
Do Theories get updated, improved on etc? Of course.
But disagreement/turbulence/upheaval is still a very inaccurate description of the scientific community.