Scientific "Community"

[B. John Jones]

And what things have been proven that are "contrary" to truth?

 

Natural selection. You guys don't even have the guts to test a simple scenario: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95395-ridiculous-reproductive-principle-a-testable-hypothesis/

[Daecon]

Have you tested it yourself?

[B. John Jones]

I've answered that in the link. But for amusement, I'll answer again. I'm not a scientist. I see the hand of God clearly in nature. I don't have time to conduct these experiments. People are dying. I try to give people in the science community the benefit of the doubt and trust that they're worth their salt. I'm finding that you tend to skirt around a lot. That's what authentic Christians have to deal with I guess. It's not science. It's human nature.

Edited June 4, 2016 by B. John Jones

[StringJunky]

I see the hand of God clearly in nature.

So did Diego Maradona.

 

Why do you sully your space with us heathens?

[Daecon]

So why do you think other people have the time to conduct your experiments for you instead? You're making the claim, you're the one who has to back it up.

[B. John Jones]

So why do you think other people have the time to conduct your experiments for you instead? You're making the claim, you're the one who has to back it up.

 

Why do ask questions I've answered in the very things you've read about which you're asking? That's why I don't have time for these experiments. My logic is right. Is yours?

Edited June 4, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Daecon]

And why do you think that your logic is right? What evidence has lead you to that conclusion?

[B. John Jones]

And why do you think that your logic is right? What evidence has lead you to that conclusion?

 

I see God--logos, the Word.

I understand all the words but im not sure what you mean. As I understand it you are asking are they strong headed in their opinion but mostly in agreement or in support of each other but disagree a lot and kind and informative about it. please correct me if I misunderstood. I think people can be strong headed but in disagreement so I wouldn't want to link agreement and strongly set in their opinion. i think scientist are mostly in agreement on things that have good scientific proof behind it.they are usually open minded because science is the pursuit of knowledge and knowledge can form an opinion.

Steely-cold vs warm, cliquish vs arms-wide-open; and united vs divergent

Edited June 4, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

I do not really understand the operning question. All I can say is that any science community -- the community is usually broken up into smaller groups -- is made of individuals. And as such some individuals are more welcoming than others.

 

What these communities do not like is people who know nothing about their work telling them how it should be done. In my experience, people who moan about the science community being closed and so on are really in this 'quack camp'. Usually a scientist will if asked a question respond. What they won't do is read a 100+ page Microsoft Word document telling them that their life's work is totally wrong.

[Daecon]

Or worse, a 3-word document saying much the same thing. "God did it."

[Strange]

You all agree on bad logic.

 

 

I assume you are characterising it as bad logic, because people disagree with your simplistic and naive attempt to characterise science and scientists.

 

Your "scale" is meaningless and bears no relationship to the real world. Attempting to explain that to you is not "bad logic".

 

Natural selection. You guys don't even have the guts to test a simple scenario: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95395-ridiculous-reproductive-principle-a-testable-hypothesis/

 

 

Natural selection has been tested. It works.

 

The sort of external effects you describe have been tested (see Lamark) and don't work.

united vs divergent

 

 

Unified? How many Christian churches and denominations are there?

Yes, I have have a beef with modern science, because it uses bad logic to "prove" things contrary to truth.

 

 

As this is a science forum, you should provide some evidence of this.

 

As long as you have a model you agree on to test by, you can prove what you want. That's how logic works.

 

 

That is not how science or logic work.

 

The point about science is that the model is tested by comparing it against the real world (the one created by your god). If the model matches the real world, then it is considered a useful model. If it doesn't match the real world, then it is not a useful model. That's about it. Sounds like reasonable logic to me.

[John Cuthber]

 

Why do ask questions I've answered in the very things you've read about which you're asking? That's why I don't have time for these experiments. My logic is right. Is yours?

You have not answered them

If you don't have time to find out, by experiment, what actually happens in the world then you will continue to not know what happens. Your choice, but don't come here and pretend to be all knowing.

 

Even if your logic is correct (Which I doubt), you start from the wrong axioms and thus your conclusions are flawed.

 

And religious divisions have caused a lot more wars than scientific ones have- so which group does the evidence show to be divisive?

(hint- it's not science)

[swansont]

This is what I'm talking about. You guys always do this. You use bad logic to avoid or mask the thing at hand. It's clear that stringjunky was trying to claim a so-called false dichotomy due to my apparent assumption that there could not be dissent in unity. Whether he was correct or not, it has nothing to do with THIS question, that being that the scientific community, as stringjunky stated, is both "stone-cold and unified." The objection had nothing to do with that statement. You all agree on bad logic. That's the problem with modern science. You do it all the time. Bad logic and good logic are very logical. That's why it works for you.

StringJunky was using the kind of phrasing YOU demanded. It is disingenuous to then use a quote of that as if it's representing the position being taken.

 

Your original premise is akin to a loaded question, like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and demanding a yes or no answer. (And speaking of bad logic, you will find this type of inquiry in most lists of logical fallacies)

[Arete]

Natural selection. You guys don't even have the guts to test a simple scenario: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95395-ridiculous-reproductive-principle-a-testable-hypothesis/

 

 

I am a scientist, and I work in experimental evolution. Natural selection is easily observed and quantified. For e.g. Exposing a virus to heat shock leads to a mutation which changes the protein structure of the capsid to improve thermal stability. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003102

 

Selection leading to the creation of new species has also been directly observed. E.g. apple maggot flies http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/speciationmodes_05

 

Disbelief in natural selection is up there with disbelief in a round earth.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Arete

[CharonY]

 

 

I am a scientist, and I work in experimental evolution. Natural selection is easily observed and quantified. For e.g. Exposing a virus to heat shock leads to a mutation which changes the protein structure of the capsid to improve thermal stability. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003102

 

Selection leading to the creation of new species has also been directly observed. E.g. apple maggot flies http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/speciationmodes_05

 

Disbelief in natural selection is up there with disbelief in a round earth.

 

Heck, simple selection for auxotroph mutants after exposing colis to mutagens is covered in undergrad practical courses.

[StringJunky]

Disbelief in natural selection is up there with disbelief in a round earth.

It's square, cos it's on the internet:

 

[B. John Jones]

 

 

I am a scientist, and I work in experimental evolution. Natural selection is easily observed and quantified. For e.g. Exposing a virus to heat shock leads to a mutation which changes the protein structure of the capsid to improve thermal stability. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003102

 

Selection leading to the creation of new species has also been directly observed. E.g. apple maggot flies http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/speciationmodes_05

 

Disbelief in natural selection is up there with disbelief in a round earth.

 

It's unfortunate that your best specimen tend usually to be the most inferior organisms--rats, viruses, maggots and flies.

 

As far as the round earth comparison is concerned, if Einstein is correct, then space is probably a plane, in which case, earth is a point in a plane, not a sphere, and certainly not string's brilliant cube.

Edited June 5, 2016 by B. John Jones

[swansont]

 

It's unfortunate that your best specimen tend usually to be the most inferior organisms--rats, viruses, maggots and flies.

 

As far as the round earth comparison is concerned, if Einstein is correct, then space is probably a plane, in which case, earth is a point in a plane, not a sphere, and certainly not string's brilliant cube.

 

 

The depth and breadth of your misunderstanding of science is indeed profound. Biology and physics covered in such a short passage.

[Daecon]

It's unfortunate that your best specimen tend usually to be the most inferior organisms--rats, viruses, maggots and flies.

And why, exactly, is that "unfortunate"?

[B. John Jones]

 

It's unfortunate that your best specimen tend usually to be the most inferior organisms--rats, viruses, maggots and flies.

 

As far as the round earth comparison is concerned, if Einstein is correct, then space is probably a plane, in which case, earth is a point in a plane, not a sphere, and certainly not string's brilliant cube.

 

 

 

 

The depth and breadth of your misunderstanding of science is indeed profound. Biology and physics covered in such a short passage.

 

My intent is not enmity. What are your 2 reasonable answers?

And why, exactly, is that "unfortunate"?

 

Science gets most of it's "answers" for human medicine largely by testing rats, as though their biology can be compared to humans. They arrive at things that work, monetarily, for barons in medicine.

[Daecon]

What does your ignorance of human trials in medicine have to do with evolution by natural selection?

Edited June 5, 2016 by Daecon

[Arete]

 

It's unfortunate that your best specimen tend usually to be the most inferior organisms--rats, viruses, maggots and flies.

 

As far as the round earth comparison is concerned, if Einstein is correct, then space is probably a plane, in which case, earth is a point in a plane, not a sphere, and certainly not string's brilliant cube.

 

Ignoring the fallacious goalpost shift for a minute - the Framingham heart study demonstrates that natural selection is acting on a human population to, among other things, lower systolic blood pressure and delay the onset of menopuase. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1787.short

Edited June 5, 2016 by Arete

[B. John Jones]

I thought the thread was about the scientific community?

 

Well, so far the scientific community here seems cliquish. Did you know that Newton was once so lost in thought that he stumbled into a well? (So I hear.) I admire him for that. Today it seems that strict adherence and convention prevent dreams and imagination, which fueled some of the greatest inventions of history.

[ajb]

Well, so far the scientific community here seems cliquish.

Well, we have no rules about who joins, just rules about posting here. We are very open to new members.

 

Also, you cannot equate this forum with the scientific community. I am not sure there really is such a thing, science is now broken up into many smaller branches.

 

Did you know that Newton was once so lost in thought that he stumbled into a well? (So I hear.) I admire him for that.

I have not heard that. But we know Newton had social problems and did show strange behaviour.

 

Today it seems that strict adherence and convention prevent dreams and imagination, which fueled some of the greatest inventions of history.

I do not think this is true. It is true that not all science papers really present new ideas, but some do. Imagination and creativity is vital in research, but this does not mean that 'anything goes'. There has to be some methodology.

[B. John Jones]

Well, we have no rules about who joins, just rules about posting here. We are very open to new members.

 

Also, you cannot equate this forum with the scientific community. I am not sure there really is such a thing, science is now broken up into many smaller branches.

 

 

I have not heard that. But we know Newton had social problems and did show strange behaviour.

 

 

I do not think this is true. It is true that not all science papers really present new ideas, but some do. Imagination and creativity is vital in research, but this does not mean that 'anything goes'. There has to be some methodology.

But any methodology that segments faith-evidence, and human testimony related to faith-evidence, as not acceptable evidence, and admits every human testimony based on that methodology, is prejudiced.