660 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

Then speak out and do something! We cant help that the most ignorant Christians are also the most outspoken. It IS YOUR responsibility to take back YOUR religion from the ignorant literalist fundies. Until sensible Christians speak more loudly than the crazies, this will become the face of Christianity, and the face of the Republicans.If you guys want some real entertaining crevo/evo debates, go to freerepublic (the most coservative forum out there) and do a search for "evolution".They have some diehard intelligent science PHD's who constantly fight against ignorant creationists. The creationists think that the evo-conservatives are not real conservatives, and the evo-conservatives think that the creationists are ruining the conservative movement! It's really the best entertainment on the web for my money! Especially if you like to see republicans rip themselves apart from the inside!

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

But it has genetic ties: it's cellular mutation. but if you want to get technical talk about leukemia, talk about diabetes, talk about genetic disorders and then weigh in the genetic progression. Yes, there's variation and dominant genetics. Such as human mouths, soon wisdom teeth will not exist because the human mouth is getting smaller (I for one, don't have any)...but is that because "we eat soft foods and so don't need as many teeth" or is it because we are just seeing a manifestation of dominant and recessive genes through mating? Our food selection doesn't affect our mating these days.I don't talk about nature as a deity, they talk about nature as a deity. Talking of it's ability to eliminate and select desirable and undesirable when it may be so hard to tell at the beginning processes of evolution for mating or survival to matter. Therefore, no selection occured. You have to think of the extensive amount of time it would take for something to gradually move from surface photo-receptors to an indented one to something more indented and directional to filled in, etc etc, genetically. Freak accident would work better...probability? not likely. I think I'll stick to the intelligent design theory. Even Aristotle believed in an "unmoved mover" that started it all. A first cause that began a chain of causes.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@Esstee:MOM is worse in its confusion about science that those it accuses of so-called 'cherry picking'. The film claims that a frozen mammoth found in Russia in 1977 is proof that an advance civilization existed in Antarctica 12,000 years ago. They further try to substantiate such claim with complete fallacies.The movie also claims that the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1532 is evidence that Antarctica was ice-free during human history because when overlaid, it traces the coastline of antarctica so closely. The **glacial** coasline of antarctica. Its not even close to the glacier-free coastline.The 'documentary' also claims that artifacts found in the gold-bearing gravels of California provide convincing evidence of the existence of modern man in California around 55 million years ago. That claim was not based on actual finding, but on a vague affidavit given by Superintendent J. H. Neale of the Montezuma Tunnel Company, published by Becker in 1891. both the video and book ignore the contradictory statements made by Mr. Neale to and documented by Holmes (1889) and Sinclair (1908).This what 'Mystery of Man' did: it mixed rumors which look like scientific findings and actual scientific findings to cast doubt on scientific findings regarding the age and history of man. It in no way validates your earlier assessment: "Thats completely false, the scientific community(body) is biased and runs on cherry picked facts and research data. Here is a comprehensive documentary illustrating just how researchers "cherry pick" science to satisfy there own needs."While no scientist can claim perfect objectivity, its still true that scientists can't cherry pick their findings, because they know their research will be replicated by others, especially if its controversial in any way. You accusation that the entire scientific community is biased sounds more like a conspirancy theory than any statement of merit.Your claim rests on a movie, mine on how science works.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I am not denying your response to the documentary, the point that what I am raising is that generally we know very little about what goes on behind closed laboratory doors. Is there reason to believe that those engaged in scientific pursuits are less influenced by the baser human characteristics such as prejudice, rivalry, ambition and greed? a Psychologist once wrote “Personal preferences and human emotions are said to be suppressed by the scientist in the interest of securing truth,” “However, the annals of both early and contemporary science suggest that this portrayal is less than accurate.”In a similar vein, columnist Alan Lightman wrote in the magazine Science 83 “The history of science is replete with personal prejudices, misleading philosophical themes, miscast players. . . . I suspect all scientists have been guilty of prejudice at times in their research.”Recent study on the subject show that even scientific luminaries of the past were not above using unethical methods to advance their own ideas or theories. Isaac Newton is often called the father of modern physics for his pioneering work on the theory of universal gravitation. The idea, when published in his famous treatise Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, was strongly opposed by some contemporary scientists, including the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. This resulted in an extended feud between them that was not put to rest until the end of their lives.Richard S. Westfall asserted that, to strengthen his position, Newton made some “adjustments” in the Principia so that his calculations and measurements would more closely support his theory, making it more convincing. In one example, accuracy of one part in 3,000 was claimed, and in another his computations were carried to seven decimal places, something quite unheard of in those days. “If the Principia established the quantitative pattern of modern science,” wrote Westfall, “it equally suggested a less sublime truth—that no one can manipulate the fudge factor so effectively as the master mathematician himself.”Newton allowed himself to be drawn into another controversy that eventually got the better of him. To claim priority over Leibniz for the invention of calculus, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Newton, as president of the esteemed Royal Society, “appointed an ‘impartial’ committee [made up mostly of his adherents] to investigate the issue, secretly wrote the report officially published by the society, and reviewed it anonymously in the Philosophical Transactions,” thus crediting himself with the honor.That a man of Newton’s stature would resort to such tactics is indeed a paradox it demonstrates that conscientious and honorable though a scientist, or anyone, may be in other things, when his own reputation or interest is at stake, he can become quite dogmatic, irrational, even reckless, or take a shortcut. “It seems a reasonable, not to say trite, thought that scientists are human, subject to the same frailties as we all are, heroic, cowardly, honest and sly, silly and sensible in about the same measure, expert in some fields, but not in many,” writes consultant Roy Herbert in New Scientist. Though this view may not be held universally in the world of science, he adds, “I find no difficulty in accepting that.”What, though, about the supposedly close-knit, self-correcting and self-policing structure of science—the processes of review, refereeing and replication?In the wake of the widely publicized recent series of frauds in prestigious research institutes, the Association of American Medical Colleges issued a report setting out guidelines on how to deal with fraud in research. The report, in essence, maintained that “the overwhelming probability that fraudulent data will be detected soon after their presentation” is a safeguard against unethical practices.This assessment, however, did not sit well with many others, both inside and outside the scientific community. For example, a New York Times editorial, calling the report “a shallow diagnosis of science fraud,” pointed out that “none of the frauds was originally brought to light through the standard mechanisms by which scientists check each other’s work.”In fact, a member of the report committee, Dr. Arnold S. Relman, who is also an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, likewise disagreed with the report’s conclusion. “What kind of protection against fraud does peer review offer?” he asked. “Little or none.” To back up his argument, Relman continued: “Fraudulent work was published in peer-reviewed journals, some with very exacting standards. In the case of the two papers we published, no suggestion of dishonesty was raised by any of the referees or editors.”As for the effectiveness of replication in spotting fraud, there appears to be a vast gap between theory and practice. In today’s highly competitive field of scientific research, scientists are more concerned with breaking new ground than with repeating what someone else has done. Even if a scientist’s work is based on an experiment done by someone else, the experiment is rarely repeated in exactly the same form. The problem of replication is further compounded by what is sometimes called salami science. Some researchers deliberately ‘slice up’ their experimental findings into small bits in order to multiply the number of publishable works. This “affords an opportunity for dishonesty, because such reports are less likely to be verified by others.” Researchers well know that unless an experiment is really important, it is unlikely that anyone will try to repeat it. It has been estimated that as much as half of all published papers are “unchecked, unreplicated, and maybe even unread.”What these cases of fraud in research demonstrate is that the ideal that science is pure is limited and that not all members of the scientific community are equally ready to abide by it. The facts show that within the self-policing and self-correcting mechanism of science there are enough loopholes that anyone bent on beating the system and who knows his way around it could do it. As in everything else, economics plays a large role in the world of science. The days of the self-supporting, inventive tinkerers are apparently over. Scientific research today is big money, and much of it is funded by government, industry or other foundations and institutions. Yet the economic crunch and budget cuts have made grants harder and harder to get. According to the National Institutes of Health, which funds some 40 percent of all biomedical research done in the United States on a yearly budget of about $4 billion, only about 30 percent of applicants for NIH grants receive them, whereas in the 1950’s the figure was about 70 percent.What this means for the researchers is that the emphasis has been shifted from quality to quantity—the ‘publish or perish’ mentality. Even established scientists often find themselves more occupied with raising funds to keep their expensive laboratories going than with working in them. This was what led to the downfall of a doctor who was receiving over half a million dollars in grants.The pressure to succeed is felt early along in the life of aspiring scientists, especially those in the medical field. This early conditioning is easily carried over into the professional career where the pressure is even more intense. “In an environment which can ever permit success to become a more coveted commodity than ethical conduct, even the angels may fall,” lamented Ebert.The current situation was well summarized by Stephen Toulmin of the University of Chicago, when he said: “You can’t change something into a highly paid, highly competitive, highly structured activity without creating occasions for people to do things they never would do in the earlier, amateur stage.”A brief excursion into the world of scientific research has provided us with a glimpse of the scientist at work. It is obvious that, despite their training, scientists are just as much subject to human frailties as they are imbued with virtues. Donning the white lab coat does little to change the picture. In fact, if anything, the pressures and competition in today’s world of science may well make it all the more tempting to seek out the shady shortcuts.The phenomenon of fraud in science is a reminder to all of us that science, too, has its skeletons in the closet. Though they are usually kept well out of sight, they are there, nonetheless. Their occasional exposure ought to make us realize that though science and scientists are often put on a pedestal, their place on it should be carefully reevaluated.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"the point that what I am raising is that generally we know very little about what goes on behind closed laboratory doors."Actually, scientists do publish explicit details of what goes on 'behind laboratory doors'. Unless you work for a pharmaceutical or tobacco company, that is."As for the effectiveness of replication in spotting fraud, there appears to be a vast gap between theory and practice. In today?s highly competitive field of scientific research, scientists are more concerned with breaking new ground than with repeating what someone else has done. Even if a scientist?s work is based on an experiment done by someone else, the experiment is rarely repeated in exactly the same form."That explains how cold fusion got looked over :-)--No scientists can or does claim to be without flaw, nor does anyone claim that science is 'flawless'. Historians point to the persecution of Galileo as an example of a scientists that got into trouble not because of his heliocentric views, but because of his openly crass treatment of the Catholic church, which held considerable political power at the time and didn't necessarily disagree with him. Science, however, as a process, works quite well. Your well founded assertions of instances of scientific fraud and bias, however, seem to be aimed at casting doubt on selected scientific findings in general using the doubtability of selected scientific findings and cases of scientific fraud. More interesting still, done at first using arguments from a documentary most of which are easily refuted by a little research and common sense. Then later by other reputable sources citing evidence that scientists are biased and sometimes such bias goes unchecked or unnoticed.Logically, however, that's actually guilt by association and nearly the entire substance of your point. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy, and not very useful as a method since it attempts to invalidate selected scientific findings based on the unrelated actions of others not participating in the findings in question. Such as: some fly/bacteria/virus didn't gain the genetic information to evolve an adaptation to its environment because Newton fudged his numbers (I realize that's not a specific argument you make, however), or some logically similar argument.To rant a bit, the argument seems often to go like this: "Scientists are capable of bias and fraud. So the chance exists that scientific findings of any kind anywhere contain bias or possibly fraud. Thus [insert scientific evidence of human evolution here] is doubtable. Evolution is therefore only a theory and not proven." Demonstrating complete misunderstanding of how science works.That's obviously not the exact argument you make here, but its one that gets repeated by creationists, evangelicals, fundamentalists, and other opponents of evolution everywhere. After injecting doubt about science from unrelated research or individuals, that doubt is then leveraged into wholesale dismissal of some scientific finding. You know, its particularly aggressive to use someone's own process of self examination as a tool to dismiss or condemn. Science is a particularly easy target for such a tactic, since it doesn't assume to infallible. Such an assumption may put much of science at a disadvantage in the face of dogma, but it would be wrong to take it as a weakness of science.Were science the wholesale fraud you paint it out to be, its hard to believe airplanes would take off and land at all, or that we would any useful vaccines, or be able to put anything at all into oribt, on the moon, or on mars.Science isn't perfect, and neither are scientists. But guilt by association is a logical fallacy, and not a valid basis to support a complete misunderstanding between scientific theory and scientific finding or declare some theory 'unprovable' or some unpalatable finds as 'fraud'. In either case, guilt by association is an invalid way to disprove theory or dismiss findings.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

this is better<a class="user" href="http://thecreationfallacy.blogspot.com/&quot;&gt;http://thecreationfallacy.blogspot.com/&lt;/a&gt;

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Genesis 1:1 “In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”Who and what is this God you speak of?From the point of view of Relativity:At the speed of light an entity exists, and these are its characteristics. Time ceases to exist as a dimension and so does length, while the dimensions of height and width become infinite. With infinite mass everything in this universe would have to come from that entity, but would not be a part of that entity. There would be nowhere in this universe both in time and dimension that this entity would not exist. Leaving only knowledge and understanding in question.So can an infinite God who has no beginning exists? Mathematically it is possible, so how can that which is impossible for us to find show Himself? As pointed out, this entity exists in the infinite past as well as the infinite future; so one method would be to transmit a message about the future so that when it happens it is apparent that no one could have guessed the outcome. Genesis 14:1 “I AM WHO I AM”Isaiah 41:22 “Bring in your idols to tell us what going to happen. Tell us the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.”Isaiah 46:10 “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient of times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.”There were over 300 prophecies of the ‘coming’ Messiah that were fulfilled by Yeshua haMashiach, Jesus the Christ, and that is not all. Israel is at the heart of a flood of prophecies that are in the process of coming to pass as we watch. The rebuilding of the Temple but not the outer courts is found in Revelation 11:1-2. A war against Israel by Russia, Iran, and a coalition of Muslim countries excluding Egypt and Iraq is found in Ezekiel 38-39. The fall of the United States is predicted based on Daniel 8:5 and 8:8.2nd Peter 3:3-4 “First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this ‘coming’ He promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation”Notice here that the Evolutionists are pointed out explicitly in 2nd Peter 3:5-6 “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s Word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.”The two points are that in the “End Times” people would deny that G-d created the universe as stated in Genesis 1, and they would also deny the “Flood” in Genesis 6-9.I tell the truth, YHWH, is in the past as well as the future, and just as the prophecies of the future will come true, anyone that claims anything other than what is written is a fool.Psalm 14:1 “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”Proverbs 12:15 “The way of a fool seems right to him,”For those that say there is no God, you are given this advice:Isaiah 55:6 “Seek the LORD while He may be found”Matthew 7:7-8 “Ask and it will be given to you; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.”

• Reply