Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[Donzo]

The religion of evolution is based on assumptions that are suported by so relatively few datapoints that calling it science is laughable. That is not to say that science is not a part of the evolutionary argument, but it is used in much the same manner that any religion would choose to use it... only when it suits them. I've noticed this with several fossil discoveries... a fossile is fit into an intermediate filling position based on preconceived notions rather than science. There's no real proof that the "intermediary creature" was anything more than a deformed lizard, but it can help support someone's view, so you make it fit the model. Now... a whole colony of intermediate creatures would be something akin to scientific data. At least... that's how the absolute science that people seem to be saying evolution is based on works. The sad thing is... that's not what evolution is based on. It's based on assumptions that were never proven that must be disproven to be thrown out. Many call that faith.

Well said.

[midnight Target]

But wrong

[Donzo]

But wrong

Elaborate please.

[midnight Target]

Aside ftom the fact that there are more "data points" than we could possibly list in this thread, and aside from the attempt to twist the hypothesis of the scientific method into some kind of "preconceived notion", the attempt to compare a dogma that is irrevocable no matter what the evidence to a process that requires evidence is the definition of silly.

[Donzo]

Aside ftom the fact that there are more "data points" than we could possibly list in this thread, and aside from the attempt to twist the hypothesis of the scientific method into some kind of "preconceived notion", the attempt to compare a dogma that is irrevocable no matter what the evidence to a process that requires evidence is the definition of silly.

As Mini D pointed out some of these data points could be nothing more than deformed animals.  If there were many of these found then it would show that there were in fact intermediate creatures filling the gaps.  This is not the case.  So the point is that when just one of something is found that fits what is expected to be found, it is believed to be fact.  There is no proof.  It just fits so it's accepted.  If someone took Joseph Merrick's bones and buried them in some remote space when he died and someone stumbled upon them in 2008, would they be thought to be the bones of a modern day human?

[moot]

I'm no specialist on evolution.  MiniD, it sounds like you've studied the matter, so you could probably point out how all the points and counter-points in favor of evolution on the articles at the skeptic and newscientist websites I linked to don't stand up to reason.
I can imagine that some people break the rules of science by putting faith into it, but I really doubt that there's some sort of vast conspiracy across a field so varied as evolutionary theory (as varied as the churches of christianity probably) to prevent scientificaly correct data to be published because it somehow breaks some status quo.  That's the whole point of science, to keep making new status quos and testing them till they fall apart and provide better "status quos".
If someone doesn't follow that systematic, he's not representative of science.  There is no "religion" of science.  There might be people who act like it, but science itself has nothing wrong with it, nor does it refute or support religion in any way.

Lambo, you don't know God's word. You know what you suppose is God's word, and that's no more credible than what Ahmed supposes he knows about Allah's word, or what Mokombu ideates about Brahman.
I doubt you felt the same way sitting thru those classes as I do reading that article and your posts. I have a thing about consistency, about logic, and when I read something that's full of bumps and holes like a bad road, it makes my eyes swim and I get pissed off making efforts to resolve the logical aberrance just so I can be sure of what the author is trying to say.  I can't stand irrationality, and you quoting a religious book like it's got any scientific authority just pokes my eyes out.  You didn't notice inconsistencies in the science classes' material itself. You felt like it was all wrong because it didn't fit with whatever you thought was supposed to fit between science and religion. There's no such thing.
You could easily leave the religion and science separate, where they belong, but instead mix it together undiscriminately, and that's aberrant nonsense. I don't have a problem with you, it's not a matter of respect. I'm ok with you or anyone else seeing some things differently than I do, but not with nonsense being passed off as sense.  That's insanity.

Good luck,
<S>

[moot]

Donzo you need to find some specialist and see what he has to say.  There's some good value to philosophical debate on a text forum like this, because its medium is well adapted to the subject matter (ideas), but what you're saying about evolutionary theory is basicaly armchair expertise. 

[moot]

when just one of something is found that fits what is expected to be found, it is believed to be fact.  There is no proof.  It just fits so it's accepted. 

Back this up with evidence.

[Donzo]

...but what you're saying about evolutionary theory is basicaly armchair expertise. 

And you base this on what?  Would you be one of those specialist you recommend I find?

[Donzo]

Back this up with evidence.

Archaeopteryx was believed to be the "missing link" between reptiles and birds and accepted as such.  This turns out not to be case.

[moot]

I base it on the fact that you blanket state all scientists as following the pattern you described. 

I'm suggesting you find a specialist that's done more than argue practical science on an abstract forum, that actualy has studied the subject matter. I'm saying there's probably enough material on the net from outreach-like organisations (if you could call em that) and/or publications like skeptic and newscientist mag (both of which I linked, knock yourself out refuting it all, shouldn't be hard if they're as numbskulled as you suggest they are) which have a lot of the meat and potatoes of evolutionary theory that's debated.

That dino never was something I took for granted as the missing link.  The first thing I learned about science was that nothing is for sure, there's only the best fitting hypothesies that sometimes have a small enough degree of uncertainty to warrant continuing down the road they propose.  If I thought so, quite a lot of other people did too. 
And that's just one case. You need to show that this pattern was widespread enough in all of the peer reviewing of all hypothesies and theories in all of science's domains to suggest there's something wrong with scientific process.  One small fart doesn't mean you you've got gangrene in the plumbing.

[SkyRock]

The religion of evolution is based on assumptions that are suported by so relatively few datapoints that calling it science is laughable. That is not to say that science is not a part of the evolutionary argument, but it is used in much the same manner that any religion would choose to use it... only when it suits them. I've noticed this with several fossil discoveries... a fossile is fit into an intermediate filling position based on preconceived notions rather than science. There's no real proof that the "intermediary creature" was anything more than a deformed lizard, but it can help support someone's view, so you make it fit the model. Now... a whole colony of intermediate creatures would be something akin to scientific data. At least... that's how the absolute science that people seem to be saying evolution is based on works. The sad thing is... that's not what evolution is based on. It's based on assumptions that were never proven that must be disproven to be thrown out. Many call that faith.

Which science have you been studying?   You're so far off base, that it is weird!  You are totally discounting soo much evidence in disputing the fringes of the discoveries.  There is a world of evidence for evolution, that is why even in "christian rich" Mississippi, they teach it.  Don't be fooled by the quest to find "reason" for faith, faith is a conscript to ignorance! 

I imagine that many on this BBS are loyal to the christian faith, and that for most of the thinking world, is like being loyal to the Cubs.....yes there is a possiblity that they might win the pennant, but in reality, we know different!  hee heee

[Donzo]

I do however get frustrated with the intentions of most religous people.  The blatant holier than thou attitudes that is common amoung the religions.

I imagine that many on this BBS are loyal to the christian faith, and that for most of the thinking world, is like being loyal to the Cubs.....yes there is a possiblity that they might win the pennant, but in reality, we know different!  hee heee

Sounds like the "we" (the thinking people) know better than the religious people.  Right, SkyRock? 

Talk about blatant attitudes

[Mini D]

I'm sorry that you feel I'm discounting evidence. I never said any such thing. I do believe that the amount of data needed to prove simple theories greatly outweighs the data collected to prove the origin of the universe, our species and every living creature. Yet to watch you guys go, any questioning of that is met with accusations of ignorance. I have collected more data in my 15 year reasearch career than most biologists, botanists and paleantologists will ever collect... all to prove things much less significant than the origins of life. There's a reason they're called "soft sciences".

All you have to look at is how wrong they've been shown to be, then "adjusted". All you have to look at are the conlcusions that are drawn from finding a jawbone with 3 teeth in tact.

There is one thing that the professor got right when he was talking about one of the professors that were fired: He was fired because he didn't get enough grant money. This is the principle job of professors when they are working for a company (colleges are companies). They need to do what is needed to bring in grants. Their research needs to be seen as something important enough to invest in. They'll tell whatever lies, cherry pick whatever data and defend it until the end (at risk of being exposed). If you don't recognize these traits in professors, you haven't worked with them.

Science as we see it now is politics in disguise. Scientific method is being used as a shield for people with agendas. I cannot believe how prevelent the "All scientists agree, so it's now scientific fact..." is thrown out when there is no such thing. Science is not an absolute. Science is a tool of humans. It is used in whatever manner someone sees fit. With some things, there can be conclusive results, but with many others it is just a method of supporting an argument (if you know where to pick the data) despite having no real proof.

Hell... they can't even predict the weather and you think they understand the origins of life, the universe and everything.

[Mini D]

I guess it's just odd that people professing to be advocates of science are the most prone to scream herassy these days.