Support NeoGAF

[Fusebox]

Yes I am certainly muslim, but being muslim hardly means being a part of some group thinking hive mind.

Gag post? Or are you one of those non-Koran following, dog-owning, pork-eating "Claytons Muslims"..?

 

[tak]

I specifically stated (after an edit that I’m not sure you saw ) that him saying that no scientist disagreed with it was a problem for me. Also why does a scientist have to not be sane to disagree with evolution? Yes it is fact that species change over time, but that does not mean that scientist do not have the right to disagree with certain aspects of the theory.

I’m not talking about scientist that promote intelligent design.

I don't think you're reading my post I type. I never said that scientist do not have the right to disagree.

 

[speculawyer]

In any case there is no reason to believe that one cannot be skeptical and also have faith at the same time.

:lol

By my thinking the most logical and consistent view of the world by far is Sagan's agnosticism which does not concern itself with God as there is no evidence *for* it or *against* it. As he said

You don't seem to know much about Sagan. Try learning more than just watching Cosmos DVDs.

Yes I am certainly muslim, but being muslim hardly means being a part of some group thinking hive mind.

Part of a group that all believe that one certain book contains the word of God? That sounds pretty hive mind to me.

 

[favouriteflavour]

How does this shit get taught in public schools with your much valued separation of church and state?

 

[TheHeretic]

How does this shit get taught in public schools with your much valued separation of church and state?

Because Americans are full of shit. They claim they they are a Christian nation because of the word God on their currency and in their pledge of allegiance, when those are only in there because Catholic nutjobs lobbied half way through the 20th century. They only respect the amendments when it suits them to do so.

 

[Karakand]

Yes this country is absolutely ruled by those meddlesome Catholics.

 

[favouriteflavour]

religious based political parties are starting to become quite prominent in Australia at the moment and its very worrying.

 

[the_zombie_luke]

Yes this country is absolutely ruled by those meddlesome Catholics.

:lol

 

[onipex]

What? Evolution is something that the vast majority of sane scientist agree on and have very strong evidence to support it. That is why everyone basically considers it fact, it's pretty safe to assume it's fact.

I don't think you read my post.

I am reading your post. You stated that sane scientist agree that evolution is a fact. To me it seems that you are implying that a scientist has to be insane to disagree with evolution, even though you said you don’t have a problem with it.

I see this a lot with other well known scientific facts when another scientist disagrees with them and it’s always implied that a scientist that is credible, sane or has an understanding would agree. I guess it’s really just human nature to ridicule people who speak out against the majority.

 

[TheHeretic]

I am reading your post. You stated that sane scientist agree that evolution is a fact. To me it seems that you are implying that a scientist has to be insane to disagree with evolution, even though you said you don’t have a problem with it.

I see this a lot with other well known scientific facts when another scientist disagrees with them and it’s always implied that a scientist that is credible, sane or has an understanding would agree. I guess it’s really just human nature to ridicule people who speak out against the majority.

There isn't a credible biologist on the planet that doesn't think evolution happened.

 

[Slavik81]

There isn't a credible biologist on the planet that doesn't think evolution happened.

And I would presume, then, their opinion on evolution is one of the criteria by which you determine if they're credible or not?

Surely there are a handful of intelligent people who feels the evidence is lacking and that the theory is incomplete in some important way. There almost always is.

 

[Count Dookkake]

And I would presume, then, their opinion on evolution is one of the criteria by which you determine if they're credible or not?

Surely there are a handful of intelligent people who feels the evidence is lacking and that the theory is incomplete in some important way. There almost always is.

The onus is on them to propose a better model, write it up and get peer review.

Good luck, brave scientist!

 

[TheExodu5]

I think this describes most Catholics to be honest, at least for me.

The very definition of Christianity is belief in Jesus Christ as our one true path to God. Disbelief in either God or Jesus basically disqualify you.

There isn't a credible biologist on the planet that doesn't think evolution happened.

What's your definition of credible? Is it someone who believes in evolution? Have you surveyed all these "credible" biologists? Your statement doesn't seem very "credible" to me.

 

[tak]

I am reading your post. You stated that sane scientist agree that evolution is a fact. To me it seems that you are implying that a scientist has to be insane to disagree with evolution, even though you said you don’t have a problem with it.

I see this a lot with other well known scientific facts when another scientist disagrees with them and it’s always implied that a scientist that is credible, sane or has an understanding would agree. I guess it’s really just human nature to ridicule people who speak out against the majority.

No, I'm not saying its wrong to disagree. There is just a huge difference between hypothesis and theories. You're grouping everything together. Different theories carry different weights of truth to them.

There are certain things in the scientific world that pretty safe bets. That's why its not completely wrong to refer to them as facts as the guy on the discovery channel did. It doesn't mean you should stop questioning them, but it doesn't mean you should put them on same level as "lesser" theories, different theories carry different weights.

EDIT: Also, I just want to add, I used the term sane because even in the scientific community there are the equivalent of hobos on the street with signs that say the world is going to end tomorrow. You're reading way to much into it. Plus, the reason why I say you're not reading what I say is because I agree with you, but it appears you think I disagree with you. The part were I differ is that I think you're reading a little to much into it in this one case.

 

[TheExodu5]

 

[Evlar]

The very definition of Christianity is belief in Jesus Christ as our one true path to God. Disbelief in either God or Jesus basically disqualify you.



What's your definition of credible? Is it someone who believes in evolution? Have you surveyed all these "credible" biologists? Your statement doesn't seem very "credible" to me.

Out of curiosity, why not?

If I said "No credible astrophysicist doubts the earth orbits the sun" would you be troubled by that claim? Would you challenge its credibility? Why or why not?

 

[TheExodu5]

Out of curiosity, why not?

If I said "No credible astrophysicist doubts the earth orbits the sun" would you be troubled by that claim? Would you challenge its credibility? Why or why not?

Because it's not factually sound.

He claims all credible biologists believe in evolution. First off, credible is a personal issue, and has to do with whether or not he believes him. Therefore, it's a very ambiguous term to use. Second, he clearly has not surveyed a sample of biologists to even attest to this.

A biologist filed suit this week against the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, asserting that the academic facility terminated him because of his religious beliefs that oppose evolution, according to an article in The Boston Globe today.

In 2004, Nathaniel Abraham was a postdoctoral fellow working for Mark E. Hahn, a Woods Hole senior scientist who studies how chemicals in the environment, including pollution, affect marine organisms. According to the Globe, Mr. Abraham told his supervisor that he did not believe in evolution and was asked to resign a month later. Mr. Hahn stated that Mr. Abraham should have known the job and the lab’s research grant from the National Institutes of Health involved using evolution to study how the chemical systems in marine organisms change over time. Mr. Hahn said that Mr. Abraham should have known that evolution was integral to the lab’s work because it was clear in the job description and in the grant proposal.

The lab’s Web site lists three topics of study in bold type, one of which is “Receptor Evolution and Diversity.” The site says that the lab researches the biochemical and molecular mechanisms that control how marine life interacts with its environment. “Our general approach is to examine these mechanisms from a comparative/evolutionary perspective,” it says.

Mr. Abraham’s lawyer told the Globe that his client had offered to make accommodations but that he was subject to harassment.

Earlier this year, an astronomer from Iowa State University claimed that he was denied tenure because of his belief in intelligent design. —Richard Monastersky

 

[Evlar]

Because it's not factually sound.

He claims all credible biologists believe in evolution. First off, credible is a personal issue, and has to do with whether or not he believes him. Therefore, it's a very ambiguous term to use. Second, he clearly has not surveyed a sample of biologists to even attest to this.

You didn't address my question. Does a credible astrophysicist who denies Kepler's heliocentric model of the solar system exist? How many astrophysicists must we interview to make that statement, or do we just have to know something about astrophysics?

EDIT: And it appears your quoted post makes my point. The guy demonstrated he didn't understand the grant he was working on and was fired for it.

 

[Big-E]

The very definition of Christianity is belief in Jesus Christ as our one true path to God. Disbelief in either God or Jesus basically disqualify you.

I didn't say Christian, I said Catholic. If you were brought up Catholic you would know there actually is a difference. I know it sounds absurd but it is just the way it is.

 

[TheExodu5]

EDIT: And it appears your quoted post makes my point. The guy demonstrated he didn't understand the grant he was working on and was fired for it.

How does that matter? He was a biologist who did not believe in evolution. I'm not proving or disproving evolution, I'm just saying there will always be people who oppose the theory in any field.

I didn't say Christian, I said Catholic. If you were brought up Catholic you would know there actually is a difference. I know it sounds absurd but it is just the way it is.

I was brought up a Catholic. Catholicism is a segment of Christianity. It's part of it. To be a Catholic, you need to be a Christian.

Both Catholics and Christians need to follow the "word of God" (The Bible), and The Bible states that the only path to God is through Jesus. The end.

 

[Slavik81]

The onus is on them to propose a better model, write it up and get peer review.

Good luck, brave scientist!

That's great, but my point was that his argument was likely to be somewhat circular.

 

[Count Dookkake]

That's great, but my point was that his argument was probably circular.

That's great, but that is how it is done.

 

[Big-E]

I was brought up a Catholic. Catholicism is a segment of Christianity. It's part of it. To be a Catholic, you need to be a Christian.

Both Catholics and Christians need to follow the "word of God" (The Bible), and The Bible states that the only path to God is through Jesus. The end.

Catholicism to me always felt more apart of my culture then my religion or faith. Being of European descent, Catholicism shaped the culture for so many years that its become a part of my heritage even though I don't really believe. Going to Catholic school all my life, I know lots of people who don't necessarily believe in God but will still consider themselves Catholic. I know this sounds absolutely insane but when Catholicism has been ingrained in your culture for over 1000 years then it becomes something more than just a religion.

 

[Slavik81]

That's great, but that is how it is done.

In which case it's a true, but largely irrelevant statement. It doesn't say much about the actual validity of the theory.

You can't use the credibility of those who support a theory as support for it if you define those who are credible as those who support it. It's just a regress. What makes your criteria for the assessment of their credibility credible?

Do you see the problem there?
(Fortunately, the logic behind the theory of evolution does not suffer from those problems.)

 

[PhlegmMaster]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth

"According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms about 0.14%."


I imagine "respectable academic credentials" means having gotten a Ph.D at a decent university.

 

[TheExodu5]

Catholicism to me always felt more apart of my culture then my religion or faith. Being of European descent, Catholicism shaped the culture for so many years that its become a part of my heritage even though I don't really believe. Going to Catholic school all my life, I know lots of people who don't necessarily believe in God but will still consider themselves Catholic. I know this sounds absolutely insane but when Catholicism has been ingrained in your culture for over 1000 years then it becomes something more than just a religion.

At least it's not as bad as Slayer's lead singer thinking he's Catholic. :lol

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth

"According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms about 0.14%."


I imagine "respectable academic credentials" means having gotten a Ph.D at a decent university.

Of course, I doubt those 480,000 scientists were surveyed, so the percentage should be a great deal higher. And then there are also scientists who would not speak out publicly against evolution for fear of losing their job.

 

[Lesath]

Of course, I doubt those 480,000 scientists were surveyed, so the percentage should be a great deal higher. And then there are also scientists who would not speak out publicly against evolution for fear of losing their job.

:lol

...shit, you're serious?

 

[TheExodu5]

:lol

...shit, you're serious?

You're an idiot if what you think I said is false. 480,000 is a large enough sample group for both of those to be true.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Of course, I doubt those 480,000 scientists were surveyed, so the percentage should be a great deal higher.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

And then there are also scientists who would not speak out publicly against evolution for fear of losing their job.

Surveys are usually done anonymously.



Thank you for demonstrating your imperviousness to data. I hope the other posters in this thread will be smart enough to realize that discussion with you is futile.

 

[TheExodu5]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.



Surveys are usually done anonymously.



Thank you for demonstrating your imperviousness to data. I hope the other posters in this thread will be smart enough to realize that discussion with you is futile.

What bit you in the ass?

1) Were all 480,000 scientists surveyed? If the question is no, then you cannot base a percentage around the total number of scientists...you need to base it out of the survey sample size.

2) Nothing is anonymous.

edit: in fact, the 1997 poll on that page even shows that 5% of scientists had a creationist view, and 40% believed in theistic evolution. Now, that's a pretty darn big discrepancy with the so called 480,000 scientist survey (3500% discrepancy).

 

[Druz]

Thank you for demonstrating your imperviousness to data. I hope the other posters in this thread will be smart enough to realize that discussion with you is futile.

Did you see his earlier posts? I can almost always tell when discussion is a complete waste of time with someone.
THANK YOU FOR TRYING PHLEGMOVERLORD

 

[Azih]

You're more than welcome to be aggrieved when someone criticizes your favorite video game but nobody says, "You are a douchbag being straightforward about your hatred of my favorite video game!" Well, some might but they aren't being very fair.

Again, I was very specific about saying that it wasn't criticism that was the problem (straightforward or otherwise) it was *rude* criticism. Being straightforward about hating MGS4 is fine, saying the only people who could possibly like MGS4 are mentally incompeetant weeaboos for example is not.

It may seem that way to people who think religion deserves some kind of special reprieve.

What I'm saying is that if you're trying to communicate your ideas to individuals then generalising and stereotyping them as being stupid for holding the ideas they currently do is counterproductive and extremely harmful to both the communication of your idea and to constructive dialouge in general. The subject matter is irrelevant.

 

[KTallguy]

Wow @ Exodu5.

And until someone can provide a compelling counter-theory with measurable, quantifiable evidence that has been confirmed, cross-checked, etc., there's no reason to abandon the modern theory of Evolution, that is supported by plenty of data and the studies of scientists worldwide with the most modern equipment available.

Could there be a God behind the scenes, intelligently installing fossils in the ground and using his might

Spoiler

y noodly appendage

to manipulate our carbon dating tools? Sure!

But we can't prove it or even quantify it with our current tools, nor find any evidence... is blind faith all you serve here?

 

[Dali]

edit: in fact, the 1997 poll on that page even shows that 5% of scientists had a creationist view, and 40% believed in theistic evolution. Now, that's a pretty darn big discrepancy with the so called 480,000 scientist survey (3500% discrepancy).

I suppose it could be seen as a discrepancy if the whole field of science was composed solely of earth and life scientists. The figures you are quoting are from just "scientists" which I assume is all scientists, not just ones whose fields would have a greater focus and be more dependent on a theory like evolution.


edit:

Damn dude, it even says it right below that table.

The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc.

 

[TheExodu5]

I suppose it could be seen as a discrepancy if the whole field of science was composed solely of earth and life scientists. The figures you are quoting are from just "scientists" which I assume is all scientists, not just ones whose fields would have a greater focus and be more dependent on a theory like evolution.


edit:

Damn dude, it even says it right below that table.

It could be the sole cause of the discrepancy, but I'd be a little skeptical of that. I'm not sure what proportion of the scientific community geologists and biologists represent, but I'd think it would be over 1/35.

Not like it's a big deal anyways...I was just speculating.

Wow @ Exodu5.

And until someone can provide a compelling counter-theory with measurable, quantifiable evidence that has been confirmed, cross-checked, etc., there's no reason to abandon the modern theory of Evolution, that is supported by plenty of data and the studies of scientists worldwide with the most modern equipment available.

Could there be a God behind the scenes, intelligently installing fossils in the ground and using his might

Spoiler

y noodly appendage

to manipulate our carbon dating tools? Sure!

But we can't prove it or even quantify it with our current tools, nor find any evidence... is blind faith all you serve here?

Of course it shouldn't be abandoned. It certainly has impact on the study of fields like biology and chemistry.

It's just illogical to consider it a 100% foolproof fact, rather than a well grounded theory. I think most scientists realize it's not an unchanging fact. I just have a problem with the former who just as hard headed as the religious people discarding it completely because it conflicts with their faith (which as many posters have indicated to me earlier in this thread, it does not necessarily conflict).

 

[onipex]

EDIT: Also, I just want to add, I used the term sane because even in the scientific community there are the equivalent of hobos on the street with signs that say the world is going to end tomorrow. You're reading way to much into it. Plus, the reason why I say you're not reading what I say is because I agree with you, but it appears you think I disagree with you. The part were I differ is that I think you're reading a little to much into it in this one case.

I thought about a while after I made that post and I was reading to much into it.

 

[KTallguy]

Exodu5, no scientist is saying the evolution is a completely disprovable fact that transcends time and space and human understanding.

But Bible-Belt Christians are claiming that something else is.

There's your difference.

 

[TheExodu5]

Exodu5, no scientist is saying the evolution is a completely disprovable fact that transcends time and space and human understanding.

But Bible-Belt Christians are claiming that something else is.

There's your difference.

Oh you're wrong about that one. Just look at some of the claims in this thread.

 

[Ranger X]

Being skeptic = Atheist? Agnostic?

:lol :lol :lol

This thread is passion.

 

[Dali]

It could be the sole cause of the discrepancy, but I'd be a little skeptical of that. I'm not sure what proportion of the scientific community geologists and biologists represent, but I'd think it would be over 1/35.

Not like it's a big deal anyways...I was just speculating.

Are you including the theist view as being anti-evolution? The way the survey question is presented, scientists that picked that point of view can still agree with evolution without compromise.

So what you are looking at is less than 1% of earth and life scientists agree with creationism and 5% of all scientists do.

Since your hiding from the truth speculating, speculate on the fact that since biologists and other life scientists deal directly with evolution the percentage of those that would agree with something contrary to the basis of their studies would be higher than say a computer scientist. It would make sense for the majority of scientists that see validity in creationism would be outside of the fields it affects.

 

[Jonm1010]

Oh you're wrong about that one. Just look at some of the claims in this thread.

Its falsifiable, creationism isnt. If someone in this thread claims otherwise, there wrong. And to your earlier post, even if we dont have 100% of the evidence we have enough to conclude that we know natural selection happens and that evolution takes place. We may not have the intricate details on how a given species of frogs knee joint evolved over time but we dont need that to understand the overall theory has overwhelming evidence in support of it, whereas creationism has none.

As for the article on how many biologist agree or disagree with evolution or accept creationism. thats fine they can do that, but that doesnt mean they are right.

 

[Jack Random]

What's your definition of credible? Is it someone who believes in evolution? Have you surveyed all these "credible" biologists? Your statement doesn't seem very "credible" to me.

In science, you can't just make wild statements without backing them up.

It's nothing without forming a hypothesis, publishing your findings, and debating them with peers, and then making a theory that can then be rigorously tested though the above process...

The act of avoiding this process is what makes a scientist lack credit

 

[Buttchin]

What bit you in the ass?

1) Were all 480,000 scientists surveyed? If the question is no, then you cannot base a percentage around the total number of scientists...you need to base it out of the survey sample size.

2) Nothing is anonymous.

edit: in fact, the 1997 poll on that page even shows that 5% of scientists had a creationist view, and 40% believed in theistic evolution. Now, that's a pretty darn big discrepancy with the so called 480,000 scientist survey (3500% discrepancy).

"The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc."



Ohh BTW you gues do realize that evolution was threatened by the advancement in DNA technology but was able to not only withstand the onslaught of new testing possibilities it offered... IT became stronger as then it became clear the DNA was the mechanism of transfer of the traits to the next generation.

If anything the theory of evolution is only going to get more and more exact as new and different technologies are developed.... If evolution could pass the DNA test completely unscaved its going to take one heck of a brilliant mind (think Einstein figuring out why newtons calculations worked using the theory of relativity) to even put a dent in its armor (meaning the predictions it has made and the uses its had in medicine, biology environmental science etc./)

and even that's probably not going to be a complete overhaul but just a new way of looking at it. Again much the same way newtons equations are still valid now they just are now fully explained as to why they work when for hundreds of years they just knew they were accurate)

 

[sammy]

TheExodu5, sure does have some fight in him.... but he's smart enough to understand that Yahweh is the one true aim of Creationist studies. and since it has a goal that is anything other than an objective "?" it cannot be considered as science.

He's also aware that Intelligent Design is a buzzword that stems from a re-edit of "of panda's and people" to replace the word "creationism" ---- it's trying to prove Yahweh as well, not the postulation that an all-powerful being exists (which all scientists are, by their nature, open to)

Evolution isn't fuel for us Athiests, no more than the earth being round.... it is never about "believing" in evolution, but based on all the probing humans have done (as well as every single person who has ever taken a flu-shot) it is a theory that would be wise to "subscribe" to ....... at the very least is sure is interesting and children should be exposed to it in science class

 

[AntoneM]

lol, I can't believe that some of you continue to present reasoned arguments to believers in this thread. They have been told what is true, you can't convince them otherwise.

 

[sammy]

lol, I can't believe that some of you continue to present reasoned arguments to believers in this thread. They have been told what is true, you can't convince them otherwise.

it just strikes a nerve .... any religion that can be a tool used to subvert education is a religion that can be used as a tool for genocide within a few generations.

 

[Azih]

That's like saying that while you acknowledge that the most nutritious fruit is guava, you personally believe that the most nutritious fruit is apples.

A more accutate analogy would be aknowledging that the most nutrious food is guava but choosing to eat a Snickers bar anyway for other reasons.

The most logically consistent worldview is Sagan's. The reasons that I am Muslim are seperate.

Another way of putting it is that a skeptic only believes what he knows, whereas an agnostic theist acknowledges that he doesn't know and yet believes anyway.

Yup, that describes me pretty well.

In a sense, a gnostic theist like Hadji is closer to true skepticism than you are, because he believes what (he thinks) he knows.

I seperate what I *know* from what I *believe* and am mindful of the difference. If something that I know contradicts something I believe then I change what I believe. That's where my skepticism is. Conflating belief with knowledge makes it very hard to change either. The certainty of knowledge gets combined with the loose standards of belief.

It's amusing to me that Carl said that you have to ask people what they mean by "God" in order to know what they believe, and yet he didn't bother to say what he meant by it in that paragraph.

He left the definition of God to the person he was asking the question of and proceeded based on the answer. It's an approach that acknowledes the individual instead of lumping them into an imprecise stereotype.

While evidence is always required to believe that something exists (if you're a skeptic), it's not always required to believe that something doesn't exist. To use Sagan's favorite example, there can be no evidence for or against the existence of an invisible, undetectable dragon living in my garage. Does this mean a rational person should be agnostic about this dragon? Should he always keep in mind the possibility that he might be eaten alive whenever he visits my garage? No. The rational (skeptical, scientific) position with regard to a invisible dragon in my garage is belief that it does not exist. Strong a-dragonism, if you will. The same reasoning applies to the God of theists.

I've read that parable. Sagan actually concluded by remaining agnostic about the dragon, extremely dismissive of it, but agnostic nonetheless.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

 

[Jack Random]

it just strikes a nerve .... any religion that can be a tool used to subvert education is a religion that can be used as a tool for genocide within a few generations.

subverting education is just as bad as genocide

 

[Xabora]

 

[deepbrown]

Because to me "God" is just the very everything of life. God isnt some figure who made the earth in 7 days. God, is a metaphor for.. all the good in life. its not like i can pick up a block of cheese and say this is my god.

My god, if i should even call him that. isnt a god. its just, to me, physics is god, gravity is god, biology is god, miyamoto is god. anything that makes life worth living, is what makes it God.

so my god will not be smiteing me either, as he has no powers whats so ever. He is a metaphor, an Idea.

I kinda realized now we're both on the same side im just arguing for the sake of it.

I do not beleive anything in the bible to be true, theyre just stories. I do not beleive there is a GOD. ie the ONE GOD. as nutters believe. God is just a word, if some one asked me what i thought it was, i use to describe the essence of everything.

ugh i really dont even know what my point is lol.

Do i believe in God? No.

Am I catholic? Yes.

Lol...I have no idea what you're talking about. But I admire your panache