Pffft... "direct, reproducible evidence of a genetic mutation with functional consequences for an organism" - wow you mean like the white and black moths? Umm big deal? I can't believe this has in the title "Observing Evolution" and how so many nerds here are posting "aha more proof of evolution" comments...
Keep bombarding those thousands of generations with gamma rays folks... the likes of slashdot will help boost your self belief and even funding perhaps...
Sorry I shouldn't just post a sarcastic reply... here's a more polite reply;
"Science is not about the scientist, whether they are infallible, reputable or anything else. "
Sorry I cannot agree with this - whether you like it or not and no matter how you define your holy grail of "scientific method" you're gonna have very fallible humans like us running the show who are prone to bias etc.
"Science is based on rational arguments" - so who is going to make these rational arguments and who's going to judge them as rational? The first sign of irrationality is to think oneself rational! (sorry that statement is irrational too)
"All of the science behind the IPCCs findings are there for you to read. So is volumes of litrature on evolution." Not sure of your point here - I am aware of a lot of work that has been done on evolution in the scientific community of course - why else would I write a post about how science supports it?
"You could contribute greatly to the worlds knowledge by finding errors or extra information that refutes either." I disagree mostly - people will generally believe what they want to believe and they'll find plenty of evidence to support it. I think its better to argue about the foundations of your belief system - which is why I'm posting this.
Until then expressing baseless opinions ultimately sourced from irrational religious belief systems will not win you any arguments or respect on matters of science.
Here you have told me as a matter of fact that my opinions are baseless and derived from irrational belief systems and you have assumed that I want to win an argument or that I am at all interested in gaining respect on matters of science.
In reality you have surely just confirmed my original post with your naked biases and assumptions?
I'm amused to read the various arguments here and allegations of scientists cooking the books to suit their agendas and/or biases in the industry of GW.
When one of us Intelligent Design folks dare to question the methods and agendas of evolutionists its met by shock and disbelief that we could be so ignorant to think that these people aren't just doing whats obviously right and we should just get back to our horse and cart and roaming our flat earth.
Seemingly intelligent people even go so far to accept ridiculous notions as "dark matter has been further evidenced because our current models aren't working" etc etc...
And yeah before someone says it of course both sides of the ID argument have biases and agendas which would direct them even unconciously - its just good to see acknowledged in this forum that even the holy scientist is human.
Slashdot Mirror
Pffft... "direct, reproducible evidence of a genetic mutation with functional consequences for an organism" - wow you mean like the white and black moths? Umm big deal? I can't believe this has in the title "Observing Evolution" and how so many nerds here are posting "aha more proof of evolution" comments... Keep bombarding those thousands of generations with gamma rays folks... the likes of slashdot will help boost your self belief and even funding perhaps...
Sorry I shouldn't just post a sarcastic reply... here's a more polite reply;
"Science is not about the scientist, whether they are infallible, reputable or anything else. " Sorry I cannot agree with this - whether you like it or not and no matter how you define your holy grail of "scientific method" you're gonna have very fallible humans like us running the show who are prone to bias etc.
"Science is based on rational arguments" - so who is going to make these rational arguments and who's going to judge them as rational? The first sign of irrationality is to think oneself rational! (sorry that statement is irrational too)
"All of the science behind the IPCCs findings are there for you to read. So is volumes of litrature on evolution." Not sure of your point here - I am aware of a lot of work that has been done on evolution in the scientific community of course - why else would I write a post about how science supports it?
"You could contribute greatly to the worlds knowledge by finding errors or extra information that refutes either." I disagree mostly - people will generally believe what they want to believe and they'll find plenty of evidence to support it. I think its better to argue about the foundations of your belief system - which is why I'm posting this.
Until then expressing baseless opinions ultimately sourced from irrational religious belief systems will not win you any arguments or respect on matters of science. Here you have told me as a matter of fact that my opinions are baseless and derived from irrational belief systems and you have assumed that I want to win an argument or that I am at all interested in gaining respect on matters of science.
In reality you have surely just confirmed my original post with your naked biases and assumptions?
Thanks for that. I didn't pay him honest.
I'm amused to read the various arguments here and allegations of scientists cooking the books to suit their agendas and/or biases in the industry of GW. When one of us Intelligent Design folks dare to question the methods and agendas of evolutionists its met by shock and disbelief that we could be so ignorant to think that these people aren't just doing whats obviously right and we should just get back to our horse and cart and roaming our flat earth. Seemingly intelligent people even go so far to accept ridiculous notions as "dark matter has been further evidenced because our current models aren't working" etc etc... And yeah before someone says it of course both sides of the ID argument have biases and agendas which would direct them even unconciously - its just good to see acknowledged in this forum that even the holy scientist is human.