You don't need direct observation in science, it is important but not essential.

So prove me wrong and tell me why we can make that assumption.



Clearly, you again have no idea. I gave you a pretty ok list of different types of rocks that tell us lots of information about early earth. We know temperatures, atmospheric conditions, etc. Zircons are great at preserving information. You need to have the knowledge of how these things works, before you can be skeptical about them. There is a lot we have "figured out" about earth 400 million years ago and billions of years ago. I am sorry you are not aware of how this is done.So show us you have the knowledge and tell us what can be learned from Zircons and how it can be learned?





Which I think you are wrong about, that you would call evolution a religion, I think shows what little you understand of it, especially when you keep contending about the conditions of the earth as if that is a main staple of evolution. Sorry If I missed it somewhere, can you point out these outrageous postulates that evolution has?



This is your so-called "scientific community" taking advantage of the young people is it?





I am going to sigh right here. Can you please again point out your problems with the claims of evolution? Ill say it again though, theories are full of facts, observations, hypotheses etc. Evolution is presented as a fact, because that is what it is. Biological evolution is a fact of life. The underlying mechanisms are presented as theory, hypotheses, observations, facts when relevant.



Because a scientist makes a statement that is not representative of the whole or even a majority. If you wish to get the best information on a current subject in science please read an annual review, as these are done by the top scientists in the field in that particular area and are subjected to peer-review. One person is not representative of the scientific community, Just like the "attacks" on creationism. Most scientist really are just too caught up in their work to be involved in the public arena. You are blaming scientist for something most, and I do mean the vast majority, take no part in, whether that be censorship of incorrect peer statements or creationism. Really you need to be point the finger at the media for the way they present the few quotes they get from full-time scientist and how they use them, and the few liaisons between the science and the public.




I doubt then, you have ever met an evolutionary biologist. There is no angry scientists trying to shut up its critics. As I said, most scientists are far to concerned with their work to stop and help educate the public, besides the 3 or so classes some teach every year. Frankly I think that is a shame, maybe if more scientists were interested in the publics understand of science we would not have to be having this talk right now, and maybe we would not have such an uninformed public that some 48% think lasers are focused sound waves. Tell me how are people supposed to be skeptical when their understanding of science is that wrong?

Hmmm

And yet.....the producers of the documentary I mentioned said the EXACT same thing that I did and suddenly no one wants to deal with that?

Here's the thing. Which no one has addressed at all. I've stated it over and over again and each time the argument is taken in a completely different direction and the actual point I have made, is ignored.

When SCIENTISTS renowned in their field publicly make declarative statements in the NAME OF SCIENCE (like said Nova show) and are basing it on speculation and fantasy, then this should be immediately pointed out by the community as a whole (the branches that deal with said topic)

Now no one has touched this at ALL. None of you have explained why it is that when these three men went on Nova and made these statements, there wasn't a real outcry from the Science community in stating THAT"S NOT SCIENCE the way they do when Creationists start up.

WHY?


So far I've seen the argument come back as this show was a "casual conversation" and "you are blowing it out of proportion" and this charming statement





Ever hear of PEER Review? You basically are suggesting that scientists are too busy to be bothered to make sure the right information gets out there.

And that might be a pathetically true answer if we didn't see a mad barrage of scientists expending HUGE amounts of energy when they see a Creationist or IDer has got it wrong.

So my statement is true. When the science community sees someone presenting something that is not science as science, but they agree with the fantasy they look the other way.

I've been saying this for pages. None of your answers have addressed this point.

The Nova show producers are well aware that they are giving out misinformation and three respected and renowned scientists willingly got up and made these statements.

So it certainly is going to make me question the integrity of the field and wonder if they are not pushing their own agenda.

True, you are very hostile to anyone who does not immediately conform to your view point. This is pretty evident reading any of your threads, which has me wondering why post them in the first place if you only wish people to agree with you.

Ill ask you again true, because you don't seem to be paying attention to that part of the my posts. One must have the knowledge, to some extent in the first place. So enlighten us all, to you knowledge on early earth. Can you tell us how these things are determined? Can you tell us what rocks they are speaking about? And what properties these rocks give us? Can you tell us why they can make the assumption stated in the journal abstract you posted?

If not, a simple no will be sufficient.

And this is what I would call an ad hominem attack

Actually it was just an observation I have made and thought to share it with.

No I can not. The point of the journal abstract was to show the language choices that are generally used in science compared to the language choices used in the Nova documentary or in the classroom lesson.

But this did not come across clearly.

As I have stated over and over and over and over and over and over and over again my skepticism is IRRELEVANT regarding the actual science. I do not say that evolution is not true, I don't CARE if its true.

What I am addressing is the way in which in the field of Evolution scientists will make declarative statements based on no proof and CALL IT SCIENCE

Its NOT SCIENCE when you speculate about he behavior of an animal you have never seen. Its GUESSING. And even if the guesses are 100 percent correct, its not SCIENCE.

Its not about whether or not they are correct. But keep trying to make it about that so you don't have to address what I have been saying.

While you side stepped the point you could not argue. Odd right? How you have devoted pages to talking me down but the minute you are confronted with evidence you can't argue you start in on the personal attacks.

Its quite amusing actually. Especially coming from someone who I have seen treat other people like idiots for not agreeing with the Wrath of Camlax

So if you have no knowledge, and admit yourself you have no knowledge, THEN HOW CAN YOU JUDGE WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT? HOW CAN YOU JUDGE WHAT SCIENCE IS AND ISN'T WHEN YOU HAVE CLEARLY SHOW TO LACK THE KNOWLEDGE TO MAKE SUCH A JUDGMENT?

That is not skepticism, that is your belief. As Cimber was kind of nice to point out, direct observations are nice, but not necessarily needed. You ever directly observe a photon? Atom? Quark? Lepton? A molecule for that matter? To state the things you have, YOU HAVE TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IS AND IS NOT EVIDENCE AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AT THAT!

I can address your whole point if you wish, but its rather pointless because it does not support what you claim. While informative, the wikipedia information simply confirms that this is a television show, who's producers care about entertainment rather then accuracy. That in no way, shape or form is evidence the "scientific community" is pushing a secret agenda, other than one you invent in your mind.

It sounds like, you need a reminder, TV is for entertainment. A shows producer reserves the right to edit any statements, this is a pretty common waiver form when doing a TV show. Statements etc, can be edited to sound more authoritative then they are, if that what is the producers think will bring in the bucks. You need to take your problem up with the media, or simply realize it is for entertainment.

This is the most ridiculous statement yet! She is not arguing whether evolution is true or not, she is arguing that scientists say things that make it seem like we have absolute certainty that it was just so, when there is NO way NONE that they can know with any degree of certainty. All that is required to have knowledge of that is to read what they have written or said, it does not require knowledge of the field.

No one has ever directly observed them which is why we keep "discovering" more and more basic forms of matter, because at one point scientists told us, "Atoms are the smallest form of matter there is. We know this although we can't actually even see molecules, much less see an individual atom. we know it from the observations we CAN make." Then later it was, "Atoms are actually made up of mostly empty space with electrons, protons, and neutrons occupying a small amount of that space. But electrons, protons, and neutrons are the smallest pieces of matter there is. We can't actually see molecules, much less an individual atom, so there is no way for us to actually see electrons or neutrons or protons, but through the observations we CAN make we know THIS is true." AND THEN they "discovered" quarks, leptons, etc., and told us "THIS is DEFINITELY the smallest form of matter there is, we promise! When we told you atoms were the smallest forms of matter there was, we told you the truth, because at that time that was what we knew, so scientifically-speaking that WAS the truth, so although tomorrow we may make observations which indicate there are other forms of matter, today THIS is the truth!"

Ok see what you are talking about is taking a conclusive position that X is wrong as a form of skepticism. That's not how I am skeptical.

So I'm making it up that the Nova show was a bunch of fantasy even though the producers said the same thing?




So first you attack me personally when you can't win because you are wrong and now you've resorted to screaming at me. How very very very scientific of you. NOT.


And how about this argument:

YOU HAVE TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IS AND IS NOT EVIDENCE AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AT THAT!


Wow where have I heard that before..........oh yes. In my comparative religion class the other night when our Christian fundy gal stated that a Jew could not criticize Christianity nor could an atheist because YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF.....etc etc etc.


Can I ask you a question?



WHY?


When a scientist says that the earth was THIS WAY 4.4 billion years ago, I don't need evidence to know that he should have said WE ASSUME..... or EVIDENCE SHOWS..... not a declarative statement.

So what is it that I need to know here? What I need to know is twofold


A. I need to know that the person is stating something as a fact.

B. I need to suspect that the person doesn't have evidence of this fact.



So here's one that is easy. God is the maker of the universe.


Now do I need to know how the universe came into being to know that this is not a provable statement? Do I need to know if God exists or not?

Nope. The meaning of the sentence is basically unimportant at this point.

All I need to know is that

A. The person is stating something as fact. CHECK!

B. I need to suspect that the person doesn't have evidence of this fact. CHECK!


Now what I do for myself, unlike some of the people I've seen on this thread, is I go out and investigate for myself, is this something that has been proven? Has this been proven? What evidence do we have? As I continue on this I am in a skeptical process.

I have NOT..........come to the conclusion, that this statement is FALSE and therefor taken a position of SKEPTICISM with regard to the statement.

Rather I am skeptical of the statement until proven otherwise either way.



Now

Take this statement. 4.4 Billion Years ago the planet was a burning ball of molten lava.

A. The person is stating something as fact. CHECK!

B. I need to suspect that the person doesn't have evidence of this FACT. CHECK.

And I go out and investigate. And what I find is that very often scientists will state things as facts when they are not proven.

It doesn't matter if they are true................................its not SCIENCE.

Yes it does. Otherwise you cannot sort out things that are well understood and things that our well thought out theories.

Here we can make a game of it, I have a ball sitting on my lap, what color is it? I have a pen in my hand, what color is it? I am drinking a canned beverage what color is it?

Are these silly claims or true? Is it something that cannot be known with certainty? You have no idea, you need to first have knowledge about my claim, preferably some kind of knowledge that lets you sort through which ones are statements of my opinion and which ones are statements of well understood knowledge. If you do not have this knowledge, you cannot possibly say which is fact, which is understood, which is merely personal opinion.

So yes, the questions are entirely relevant to the conversation.

Tyson says:


To determine whether this is him pushing an agenda you need to know and have a fairly good understanding of what he is talking about. So my questions stand, True can show us this knowledge or you (which I would love to hear from particularly you) is something you have and can make that decision, OR, you can state you lack it and your evidence crumbles as does your statement.



I am not going to sit her an explain the type of experiments done and atomic theory to you. While I see the point you hope to make here, you fail at making it. Atomic theory has been ADDED TOO not taken away from. So while we may say, "We know temperatures or some approximation of some atmospheric gas etc" new evidence will only ADD to that description. Just like with the atom. This is a concept you seem destined to fail to understand. Theories in science only become more accurate with time.

Ok Camlax so your argument is that in spite of what the producers of the show said, the scientists who were speaking DO know what the surface of the earth looked like 4.4 billion years ago?

And they do know what the behaviors of the animals they showed were, in the way they showed were.


You know, its kinda interesting. Because you prove my point.


Even the producers of the show have stated that it wasn't SCIENCE and yet you won't agree that the scientists who spoke in the name of science were wrong to do so.


As I have stated over and over again, when the statement is one that the scientist agrees with he looks the other way even if its fantasy being spoken.

True,

You were very specific in two arguments you pointed out.

1. Tyson's, And more clues are embedded within these rocks, fragments left over from the first hours of Earth's life.

I am not sure how you fail to see the relevance of knowledge here. This is different then your argument with god. If you are state that Tyson is pushing an agenda with this comment then you need to be able to tell me what about this comment is false or just a guess other than "There is no way they can know what the earth was like 4.4 billion years ago". That is an argument based on your own ignorance, So ill ask one last time. Please specifically point out, what in this statement is false, and what in the problem with these rocks and fragments.


2. Mojzsis's, Very little is left behind from the Earth's earliest time period, but what is left behind has revealed to us a planet much more complicated than we ever thought.

Again, you stated this was pushing an agenda and fantasy. Then I expect you to be able to tell me what is wrong with the statement in detail, that allows me to know, you understand geology and physics to a degree, that you know this is simply an agenda.

If you fail, then we can be done with this conversation because you clearly have no intent in post said knowledge or providing any evidence that the "scientific community" has an agenda. Rather you just state things like "But they can't know" and "That is faith" and "They have an agenda", when clearly your argument stems from your own ignorance. I am sure it all sounds so faith like to someone who does not understand it, but I suppose so should quantum mechanics, which does not appear to stop you from using your computer.

No, you are putting words in my mouth, stop arguing irrationally. Look, we know a great deal about the conditions on early earth, that is not to say we know it all. You claim an agenda is being pushed. Fine ok, I will be the good skeptic and ask you to provide evidence of this, which you attempted. The problem arises however, you need to have some form of knowledge of the subject to distinguish between what is well known and well described and what is simply an agenda being pushed. You lack this knowledge, or else you prefer to hide it rather than prove your point on the agenda.

Perfect examples Calmax. No, there is no way for me to know whether what you say is true, because I am unable to carry out the necessary observation to ascertain the truth of your statements. However, if I went to your house and found a ball, and because it was the only ball I found at your house I said, "This is the ball you were holding," I would be committing the same ERROR that those "scientists" who say, "This is how dinosaurs walked," or "Because we have observed these rocks form at locations where the temperature is such and such, and because there are loads of these rocks at this depth, we KNOW the Earth was at this temperature 4.4 million years ago are committing. Thanks for the example. I could not have come up with a better one myself.

In other words, NO. Come on you can say it, you can say that they don't really KNOW what the surface of the earth looked like. You won't explode. LMAO. At least I have the courage to be willing to say "No I don't know that."


Here's the evidence that I posted about their theories.








I've proven the points I've made several times in this thread. And yet you ignore or dismiss any evidence that supports my statement to start flexing you SCIENCE MUSCLE about totally irrelevant points. The science in and of itself doesn't per se matter.

What matters is to me is how loudly the Evolutionists will protest about Christian Fantasy stories being touted as a science, but promoting Science Fantasy stories as "well we were just having fun with it !"

And frankly I expected a little more out of a scientist. You've reduced your argument to a hissy fit.

What a joke.

That's a very simple way of putting it. Very true. Camlax breath for a second and try to SEE what the point is before you attempt to thrash it.

Its not very scientific of you.

The problem lies in the fact, you belittle how specialized the information is. Look I'll lay this out for you and true one last time, I have some papers to grade so need to retire. Your dinosaur example for instance, we can say that because of certain anatomical properties that are well understood. Add that in with biophysics and you can figure out how they walk to a very certain degree.

Lets use a simple example in biology.

Lets say you run an experiment where you are testing the activation a bacteria causes in mature monocytes. You design an experiment and test it in mouse cell lines, both in vitro and in vivo. Lets say you run all your western blots and come up with a molecular pathway for what is being activated, now it comes time to publish.

You send in your journal to Nature to be published, can you be skeptical of the results published in the journal? You? No, you cannot, because you lack the specialized knowledge to be. The Nature reviewers may point out numerous things, they may say, well what happens in human cell lines or, how is the pathway regulated or what genes are responsible for activation, etc. Then back the drawing board you go, or you successfully covered all of your bases and now you be published. The reviewers know which pieces of evidence to review/be skeptical about. This is skepticism as a method. They do not simply go, well you did not actually observe these cells with your own eyes or these molecules so your point is mute and it is your own agenda.

The idea is though, you need to be able to sift through whats acceptable and whats not acceptable assumptions. If you lack the knowledge, how can you go about this?


Back to my ball example, lets change the statement a little bit to be more reflective of reality.

Let's say, I have some balls in my house, what color is it?

You are a scientist studying the ball's at Cameron's house. So, you come over to my house and meticulously remove stuff. You find a round object, you test it and conclude it is a red ball. Now you can say, you have a theory that Cameron has a red ball at his house. This theory is based upon the observation you made of the ball, and the hypothesis that Cameron has some balls at his house.

Now let's say one of your contemporaries comes over and studies my house. He finds a green ball here. He writes a paper on his tests and adds to the Ball theory that there is green balls as well as red balls.

In essence this is the evolution of a theory. Your first finding, is not disproven nor is your theory, its only amended.


True's hypothesis is, the scientific community pushes it agenda upon people. She states this in a thread about skepticism being a method or a position, this hypothesis. She then attempts to provide evidence that the scientific community has this agenda and is pushing it.

Let's use her example with early earth. We know much about early earth, lots to learn, but we know it fairly well. She state's "They can not have possibly known that its all guesses". Does this sound like evidence that is being pointed out as being incomplete or the wrong conclusions drawn? Or does it sound like skepticism as a position?

She can make this simple by saying what about Tyson's statements are incorrect. Tell us the assumptions that are leaps of faith and guess. Tell us what is wrong with zircons etc. If you can do this, then yes, he is pushing an agenda and I will, or other people (at least at this point they should), accept your claim that Tyson's statements are indeed a reflection of the agenda pushing going on it science. She however, has yet to point anything out other than generalized statements like "This cannot be possible".

And for this to be true, you need to point out these evolution science fantasy stories, rather than just state they are. All you are doing is making a generalized statement of disbelief. You have shown no knowledge of what you are proclaiming is fantasy.

There is a very simple fix to this. If it is fantasy, then point out specifically the problems with it, otherwise you are simply being skeptical of it, because you have a hard time believing it and that is not a method, only ignorance. If you do not wish to point out specifics, and persist in your belief that is fine. Its your belief then and you are entitled to that.

You are a teacher? Oh man!

OK, let's use your modified example of the balls. I agree with what you have posted. However, the problem lies in that what scientists are now doing in regards to evolution and Earth origins, is in effect the same as saying, "We found a red ball, and we found a green ball at Cameron's house, but did not find any blue balls, therefore, we know Cameron does not like blue balls. We also have indication that this house is 15 years old and the balls were already in the house when we arrived, therefore we KNOW these balls have been here 15 years. Furthermore, the fact that these balls have been here 15 years, and we have indications that the material the balls are made of assumes the properties we observed when it is exposed to a temperature of 400º F for a period of no more than 15 minutes, we know that at some point in the last 15 years, the temperatures in this house reached 400º F for at least 15 minutes. Because the balls were found upstairs, and there were no indications of any other items in the upstairs room being exposed to temperatures of 400º F we also KNOW that the balls were made in another room of the house which we were not able to observe."

Now is any of this correct? NO! Why? Because the statements are conclusive, they presume to present known facts. How could this be fixed? Simple!

They could have said, "We found a red ball, and we found a green ball at Cameron's house, but did not find any blue balls, therefore, we know assume Cameron does not like blue balls. We also have indication that this house is 15 years old and the balls were already in the house when we arrived, therefore we KNOW can assume these balls have been here 15 years. Furthermore, the fact that these balls have been here 15 years, coupled with indications that the material the balls are made of assumes the properties we observed when it is exposed to a temperature of 400º F for a period of no more than 15 minutes, we know assume that at some point in the last 15 years, the temperatures in this house reached 400º F for at least 15 minutes. Because the balls were found upstairs, and there were no indications of any other items in the upstairs room being exposed to temperatures of 400º F we also KNOW assume that the balls were made in another room of the house which we were not able to observe."

Are these statements correct now? Yes, they are because they are not conclusive or assertive, they are simply presenting assumptions made based on what has been observed. THAT is how scientists, REAL honest scientists speak about evolution and Earth origins.

Actually no, but the person's lab I a, doing my post doc in is. And because I am a nice guy I help out with tests and quizzes on occasion, that and intro level physics classes sucks up the vast majority of grad students. Now I am feeding a hungry baby doing the 1 handed typing thing, so 1 more post for you!



Forgive my ignorance, can you provide me with one of these statements from a scientist?




Assumptions in science are allowed to be true or known, provide you are checking your assumption, both statistically and conditionally. Let's say with your temperature addition, we see this in not 2 balls, but 1000. Since nothing is ever perfect, lets say in 962 we observe this. And our statistical sampling shows us we have a good distribution, then in our paper we could say "With greater than 95% confidence we know that the temperature at some point in the last 15 years was at least 400 º F.

We can say, we know this with such confidence levels. We have much evidence as to the temperature and atmospheric conditions of the earth to sample. Here you make the mistake that evidence is limited to the point where findings are insignificant, however they are not.



Yes they are for the extremely limited number of balls, but if we have lots then we can see if our findings are greater then chance. And if they are, we need not say, we presume it to be true. We can say it is true, given the understanding of confidence levels and provide we include an appendix with our statistical findings.


Edit: As an afterthought, almost nothing beyond the realm of abstract math is capable of being proved with 100% certainty. You raise these qualms with evolution and geology, do you do so with computer science, quantum mechanics, optical physics, medicine, chemistry, thermodynamics, electro-chemistry, electro-physics, structural engineering etc? Because you use things, everyday, based upon the assumptions and confidence levels of these sciences. My guess is, because of your belief and because of you not using things everyday related to paleontology or geology or evolution, it is harder for you to accept these things. This would actually be a very interesting study for people to do. You realize for something like say, electron location in gates on your mother board are known less accurately then say something like some of the more well studied atmospheric gas abundances of early earth?

I guess this statement is proof that you did not read the examples true has presented.


In the house? Really? OK, scientists are definitely morons if this is how they arrive at knowing something. I know this is not the way they do it, so you may want to re-read what you just wrote.

Ah, but see "knowing" with confidence levels is actually guessing with some degree of certainty. That is NOT knowing as in me knowing that just 18 seconds ago I blew a kiss at my daughter (I was the one who blew the kiss and I was looking directly into her eyes when I did it), it's "knowing" as in, I'm fairly sure that you are a human being typing on a computer keyboard somewhere, but can't be 100% sure because I am not seeing you.

LOL! Oh man, do you not see it? Do you not see that by the way YOU are writing you are actually showing agreement with true and me.



I can't believe you are actually writing this, please tell me you are not a science student. Yes, I do raise similar qualms in some of these areas, BUT so do the majority of the scientists working in those areas, they are not trying to convince me they are 100% convinced that they KNOW what is happening. Additionally in many of those (computer science, optical physics, medicine, chemistry, thermodynamics, electro-chemistry, structural engineering) we can actually carry out observations, and conduct experiments which are repeatable and independently verifiable, something we CANNOT do with any ideas of what the temperature of the Earth was 4.4 million years ago, or with the idea of how a gill system becomes an air breathing lung system.

I saw her present no such evidence, could you or her point it out in detail as to what is incorrect with the statements?



Yep, I guess all of us people who use advanced statistics and check our assumptions against these along with the conditions of said assumptions, we are morons. You got me there Iams, darn.



Bad example to use with a physicist. Technically, you did not know 18 seconds ago, you knew an interval of 18.00000000000000000 to infinity to 18.99999999999999. Certainty is an illusion, read up on your Heisenberg (as I am not about to give you a lesson on QM, at least at this time of night). We delude ourselves to the certainty we know things.

A guess and knowing with confidence are not the same things, they are not even in the same ball park in science. A guess is like "gee I think Iams loves the devil". There is no basis for this. Stop confusing your terms, and the next time you are thinking about making a statement such as this, best check to cover your ass.



No, I see you two arguing that science has an agenda, something you have yet to show evidence for and that it is ok to make assumptions in 1 field of science but not other because those are not supportive of your beliefs. Also, I see a general misunderstanding about terminology. And finally I see two people making generalized statements that are skepticism as a position, nothing to do with a method.



There are no evolutionary biologist or geologist trying to convince you they know 100% what is happening. I am sorry your religious beliefs puts you at a disposition toward evolution and geology, it however changes no point. The majority of the people you argue with or see out there refuting creationists left and right are not scientist, rather informed individuals. Give me an example of EB or geologist stating they knew 100% what is happening.

Also, those scientists are qualified to get down to the nitty-gritty of those ideas and pick at them, you are not. After seeing many of your posts on here since I joined (some great, some not so great) I can tell you, you have no idea what you are talking about with this stuff. If you disagree, prove me wrong by answering the question below.



Iams, you have seemed level headed before, but you have let your own ignorance get the better of you. You are stating things that flat out are NOT THE TRUTH. If you wish to prove me wrong tell me how we come up with temperatures of the earth 4.4 billion years ago. Because frankly you have no idea what you are talking and were you informed you would not make such a dumb sh** statement.

G'night!

One last thought on the subject.

The idea of the topic is great, skepticism as a method. True, is hardly the first to think of such a thing though. We (as in scientists) must use skepticism as a method everyday in our jobs. However, we do not get to show the bias and disregard for knowledge that you two have. I have taken enough statistics classes to satisfy myself forever, along with reading numerous studies on introduction of bias into experimentation. The two of you, for your own purposes (my guess religious), chose two specific aspects of science to bring your biases against. Still I was willing to listen, had you come with some solid evidence and the ability to point out what points are flawed then you would have great ground to stand on. Instead, you came unprepared, showing an obvious tilted view on which sciences you would choose to attack, you lacked even fundamental evidence and the ability to point out what constitutes "junk science" in these fields. All you have done is repeatedly expressed opinion and doubt as to why "evolution and geology" are pushing agendas for your own agenda.

When Leonardo brought up the idea of knowledge he hit the proverbial nail on the head. Your ability to judge goes down hill fast, if you lack fundamental knowledge of what you would judge. You both contend that it is a "skeptical believers" cop out to state you lack this knowledge when in fact it is not. You make statements that, quite blatantly,provide perfect examples of your lack of knowledge to someone who possess any knowledge on the topic at hand. Its like trying to tell your mechanic your twelfth cylinder went out on your civic, he would simply gawk. Possession of vocabulary, does not constitute knowledge. That is why when you say silly things like "They could not have possibly known the temperature of earth 4 billion years ago", you need to us why "they" could not have known it. Sorry, being a skeptic myself, I will not let you off the hook that easy.


Other than the personal bias introduced and turning of "lets get evolutionists they have a sign on their back" mentality, great idea of a thread.

Well, this thread has taken off a bit!!!

I've been thinking more about statements of skepticism and want to ask is it actually skepticism to state you are [skeptical] of something that no claim has been made of?

For example, if someone has states they are skeptical about the theory of large bodies impacting the Earth much more frequently in the past and would like to see evidence that satisfies this. I take it that person doesn't disbelieve the claim, that wouldn't be skepticism, but has dismissed it. This is an example of skepticism, imo.

However, that person then states they are skeptical that science doesn't have an agenda to push itself upon people regardless of inaccuracies in some statements. However, where has science ever claimed this agenda to be skeptical of? If there is no claim, how can one be skeptical of it? So this is not skepticism, this is belief, imo (or maybe cynicism).

I would ask others if they agree with my claim about skepticism above (in my second sentence) and my analysis/reasoning and if they have further insight. I've tried to keep individuals out of this but I'm using these examples because I believe they present what I am trying to explain well.

Being a skeptic on a subject would, I guess, be a position. Choosing to question something rather than let the ideas be shove down your throat is more exemplary of humans instincts and western culture's idealism.

Actually camlax if you go back and read what I've been saying what I've been saying is that I am skeptical about Evolution BASED on the reactions of scientists when I question it. I get the big FLIP OUT......if you want a good example go look at your own posts.

When I say Hmmm......sounds like much of what you are saying is based on assigning a value to an unknown when it could be a variable of a different equation but you don't know........

I get reactions just like you did!!!! Aren't you proud.

I get told I don't know what I'm talking about, and I get a lot of emotion and anger. And this doesn't make too much sense to me.

The emotional reaction is what causes me to think that when it comes to evolution Science has moved away from it being science and are pushing it as the Answer. Frankly, I've said it over and over and over again. Its not about the science of evolution. Its about the fantasy of evolution.


You have consistently put words in my mouth. You have consistently taken it off the SIMPLE path------- I mean Jesus Christ this is such a simple thing to comprehend, why are you sooooooooo confused by it?

Oh I know. Because you are having a knee jerk reaction to someone questioning the sacred cow.


Anyway. Whatever at this point. Anyone wanting me to prove my point only needs to read this thread.



This is what I originally wrote




And immediately there was this reply





So you all have been saying the same thing for pages. And you are all insisting that the only reason anyone would be skeptical about evolution is the above two statements.

You've ranted over and over again.


I am skeptical about evolution because of the way its presented by the science community itself. Now its funny how you've been RAGING about how we need to know what we are talking about and hollering and screaming that we don't know what's true or not etc etc etc

You've stated we have to find evidence and on and on.


But you've IGNORED a very important thing. The thing that I've been saying from the start.

So stop and read this clearly.


If I were to go off and try to find research or information about Evolution (which is what I did) I can't be certain that the person who is speaking about it doesn't have an agenda.

Richard Dawkins for example is a scientist and an evolutionist and he has a very obvious agenda against religious thinking.

The Scientists in the Nova video presented fantasy as fact.

Stephen Jay Gould has a clear agenda against Creationists.


And what I have seen is some of these men making statements that they present as fact when its impossible for them to know it as a fact. I think PART of the reason that they do this is again an agenda. I think they want to be careful not to feed the ID machine. So they over state. The minute they do this its no longer science. The minute they say 4.4 billion years ago the earth was.......RATHER than (which I've stated over and over again) 4.4 billion years ago we imagine, THINK, suppose, assume etc etc. that's science.


Now what's interesting to me is that these people are not checked by the science community itself (You know all that PEER REVIEW) when they take it outside the realm of science.

What causes me to be skeptical is that this is not science any more. Science is supposed to be sorting out questions not presenting Answers. This is why you can say to Iams in his post about the molecule, that's how science works. It keeps going to find more and more questions to answer.

I remain skeptical about evolution theory because the people presenting these theories are biased and bring up Creationism and God quite a bit. I am skeptical because there is a very clear anti religion agenda in the community with regard to evolution.

Now I see it, I've investigated it. To me its a no brainer. But camlax if you think I'm wrong in presenting Dawkins and Gould and others like them this way perhaps you can provide evidence of your own how these two men are clearly objective and not at all emotional when it comes to dealing with the theories of evolving life on earth?

Whoops did I say evolution. YES Yes I did because as I have stated I don't doubt evolution. I will remain skeptical about the field though because I no longer think it operates according to the rules of science.


Bottom line, Based on the conduct of the Scientists I no longer have confidence in the professional integrity of the field. And so I remain skeptical about it as a method. Sorta like waiting. I have not taken a position against it, I just don't trust it completely.

True,

Could you answer for me please what science is pushing evolution to be the answer for and why you think this is not so. Not because some scientists make inaccurate statements, but because of the claim you think science is making about evolution and all the evidence that has been presented.

You see, skepticism isn't disbelief. If you haven't taken all the evidence presented into account then you can't say it hasn't satisfied you...and I'm sorry, but statements made by scientists on public service programs designed to have a mass appeal (i.e. be understandable to people who may have little to no scientific knowledge) is not "all the evidence". Believe me, it's out there but you do have to maybe read some books, maybe attend some lectures, maybe even read some dissertations.

To be honest, pointing out a few mistakes, inaccuracies and generalisations is not really enough to qualify as skepticism of such a well researched and documented subject. The amount of literature out there regarding evolutionary theory/science is huge and I don't think using a few examples from mass-media productions is a very good example of what you are trying to say. I understand you don't disbelieve evolution (at least I think you said that earlier), but this adherence to a fantasy about some "science community conspiracy" is doing you no credit whatsoever.

Anyway, would you like to return to the focus of the thread, which I have tried very hard to stick to, that being what skepticism is and whether people understand how it works. If you notice my last post just above this one I've tried to ask more questions in the hope of understanding what skepticism is. Definitions are all very good, but I believe example and realisation are more helpful in this regard.

Edit


I suggest you just reread my earlier posts.


Because oddly its pretty clear to Iamsson what I am saying.


So I don't know why you are so confused by it.

True,

Are you trying to wind people up deliberately so they will resort to the same methods you do?

I'm sorry, but I'm trying to have a reasonable debate and discussion here. You started an interesting topic and there is a lot of good example on this thread to highlight what skepticism is and what it isn't.

If you wish to be childish and ignore people, well I can't stop you spitting the pacifier but I would have hoped you would be more reasonable and adult about debate and discussion.

Perhaps, if you don't wish to debate any longer you should leave the thread to those who do? Or maybe ask the mods to close it?

Leonardo is that a threat? You are going to try to get the thread closed?

No I just have stated the same thing over and over again for the last 6 pages.


Iams understands what I mean and yet you keep asking me to present my case. Every time I do you ignore it. Or dismiss it and ask for more evidence.

So since you have not addressed or understood my point I'm going to pause until you do.

I have presented a good deal of idea and information. You've chosen to ignore it each time.

I suggest that you go back and read what I have already posted and what Iamsson has already posted because I'm kind at a loss what it is you are not understanding.

A child can understand this point. So all this confusion is really baffling to me. It strikes me as you being deliberately obtuse because you want to 'win" the debate.

I don't discuss with people who operate in trying to "win"


Try reading it again and telling me back what you think I am saying.

I never threatened anything, True, so please don't make it seem like I did. I was taking your statement of "I give up" and assuming you no longer wished to participate in this debate. My suggestions were on your behalf, not mine.

Regarding your evidence.

You stated



post #158

Now, I asked a couple of posts ago...



So would you please like to respond to that? How can there be evidence if there is no claim? You state you have evidence of an agenda, but science does not claim an agenda therefore you cannot be skeptical of this.

You can be cynical, suspicious, have belief etc...but you cannot be skeptical. I hope you see what I am trying to say and how it is relevant to the thread, the OP and the thread title you wrote. I'm sorry that you have made this a one on one question. I had hoped to simply ask my question in a general sense, but using examples from this thread that made my point clear.

Since you insist on bringing up earth 4.4 billion years ago I thought I'd drop in a plug for a documentary I watched last night:

http://www.cbc.ca/geologic/eg_can_shield.html

The Canadian shield is one of best examples of ancient earth anywhere in the world. Some of the rocks are dated to 4.3 to 4.5 billion years old, and they do show evidence of the conditions at the time of their creation, so if you are truly interested it's an excellent show even if you just watch it for the beautiful scenery.

Rewrite this in baby speak for me please because I'm not understanding at all what you mean.

Being skeptical to me is a method of investigation. I think you are playing semantics by way of winning a point or something.

What is it that you are asking. If you want to ignore Dawkins for example who is referred to as Darwin's bulldog by the Evolutionists themselves then fine.

What is the point in asking me to diagram something that is common knowledge that even when I do diagram it you pooh pooh it as "no big deal" and casual conversation etc etc.

Let me ask you a question. Do you state that Richard Dawkins does NOT have an agenda against Creationism?

Is that what you are stating? And what about Gould? Do you state that Gould does NOT have an agenda against Creationism?

Because they themselves clearly state that they do.

I'd also like to point out completely OFF TOPIC that some of the reason why I don't post evidence is that if something is very well known, its very easy for you to confirm or deny what I am saying. I don't like "googling" proof. That's not how I operate in thinking.

I'm not trying to PROVE TO YOU that I am skeptical about evolution, why is it that you want me to? I know where I stand. You can think differently and that is fine.

But for me I am skeptical because I think its not really about science in a lot of ways. I don't trust the integrity of the field any more and it causes me to question everything that comes forward and to carefully examine what is said.

Basically I'm sorta on PAUSE. Does that make more sense?


You know I just realized something very important.

You all are asking me for proof suggesting that I don't know what I am talking about. But in fact you don't. Its pretty common knowledge that Gould and Dawkins as figureheads take on Creationists and turn Evolution from a science into an agenda.

Its very common knowledge.

So you pretending not to know this or demanding piles of proof is odd to me.

Just friggin' wiki them if you need to.



ETA

Yes I know Gould is dead so please don't digress into yet another irrelevant argument.

Thanks Shaft that looks very interesting. I will check it out.

You know I just caught this. And this is a COP OUT. You can't argue the point so you are suggesting that I have religious reasons for wanting this to be so.

Bull.


People who know me well on here know I have argued this from DAY ONE on this site as a freaking atheist.

So nice way of copping out there.


And this




Yeah I know that this is a great topic. And for all your posturing as the great and mighty scientist thinker, who needs to denigrate my idea for starting this, I've never seen a scientist start a thread like this. So walking the walk and talking the talk are two different things.

I guess having spiritual values and beliefs make me incapable reasoning.

Does Dawkins speak for the whole scientific community? Are Dawkin's statements those of sciences statements because he is a scientist? Do any of the people you have named speak for all of science? Science does not have an agenda true, only people. Like you and Iams, it seems.










There is a simple way to solve this. Simply point out which parts of their statements are incorrect. If someone makes a statement like "The temperature ranges were blah blah blah", say why this is information they cannot know.

You're correct it is simple. If they have an agenda and you want to prove it, point out the guess in their statements and WHY they cannot know this. That would be skepticism as a method, otherwise you are just simply saying, it does not sound believable to you so you will choose to disbelieve it.

I have to agree Leonardo. You can't be skeptical of something that is not there.

I think under the purview of the thread, certain bodies have claimed to be using skepticism as a method but are not. You cannot be skeptical of a claim that does not exist, just as you cannot be skeptical of something that you cannot point out why its worth being skeptical of it. A simple "They cannot have known" does not satisfy this. If you are going to evaluate someone's claims skeptically and rationally then your response should be detailed as to why these things cannot occur.

And YES Dawkins is a figurehead of the evolutionary field of science? Are you really that willing to ignore reality for some pampered ideology?

These men are the voices of evolution. And yet you refer to them as "casual conversation" or "just one man"


I'm not saying they can't KNOW it. I'm saying they can't prove it. And so they need to say it carefully.


You know its gone in circles so let me just flat out tell you something that is NOT about skepticism but about fact.

YOU are WRONG.

These scientists went on a show and stated in a factual manner things which were then referred to as GUESSES by the producers of the show.

You all can yell and holler and go on and on about how I need to scientifically disprove their theory before I can be skeptical that the field is no longer a science only field.

But you are wrong. Agenda HAS crept into the world of Evolutionary theory. And I'm not the only one to notice it. It doesn't matter if the science is right or wrong. Science by its own definition does not act the way these men do. Gould is referred to as "America's unofficial evolutionist laureate"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould


Other scientists have criticized him as well




You are treating evolution like a sacred cow. And you are using childish and ridiculous attempts to discredit my skepticism.

You need to ask yourself why it matters so much that someone is not willing to jump to accepting it.

And you can piss off as far as I am concerned. Telling me that my reaso