Scepticism towards science

[stalkerzzzz]

finally someone actually taking the time to answer the question. Thank you
Because I don't consider a "that's not how it works" an intelligent answer.
Intelligent people answer with "that's not how it works, this is how it works" Much appreciated Adam.

But here's still what I don't understand, and maybe I'm being thick, but if evolution is still happening (which is what has been stated as fact in this thread via micro-evolution), why aren't there more species like homo erectus still around, and by saying that' I'm not limiting that to primates and humans, but mammal/avians, etc.... It still seems to me that for evolution, which is an ongoing continuous process, there would be more links between species that would fill in the gaps, and they would alive and able to be studied and not just fossils. Or maybe I'm just not as accepting of the "they died out." It seems to me that regardless, all forms would still be able to exist in the world today.

The evidence of micro-evolution can be seen today even in humans. Take for example the wisdom teeth. Since we now have easy access to cooked meals that are easier to chew we actually lost the need to have that extra set of teeth. There are people who don't have those molars anymore, they are underdeveloped or they may be there but they remain hidden for their entire life. It is expected that in the future this set of molars will be gone from the entire population. But you have to understand that this process is dictated be genes. You have to give the gene that inhibits the formation of this set of molars to spread around. Other examples are the length of your body hair, the places where it grows, the shape of our eyes, the color of our skin. These differences exist because of the environments in which people have lived for long periods of time.

I remember watching a documentary about a species of lizard that had wings(a membrane between their legs) which it used to glide around to get from one tree to another. Some of them got to another island where the winds were stronger from what I can remember. This resulted in the wings of that lizard population to shrink because there wasn't a need for the bigger wing size.

A good example to seeing the kind of changes between one population to another is to look at birds. You have species of birds who live on different islands that are somewhat close. Those species of birds look very similar to each other but they have adapted to their specific island. One may have bigger claws while another one has a longer beak. They are all variations of a common ancestor.

[anyaka21]

You clearly have no clue of what you are talking since you probably never heard about how allelic dominance works.

actually no.

But since you went there, if you read my posts, this is what I consider a herp derp fanboi response - or in other words, an unintelligent post.

This is where, if you are intelligent about said subject, would then proceed to tell us what allelic dominance is. Responding with "clearly you don't know" is stupid.
For the way to post actual intelligent coherent responses, see Frozen Death Knight and DarkWarrior42 on the previous page.

Infracted: Please post respectfully

[Unalorian]

actually no.

But since you went there, if you read my posts, this is what I consider a herp derp fanboi response - or in other words, an unintelligent post.

This is where, if you are intelligent about said subject, would then proceed to tell us what allelic dominance is. Responding with "clearly you don't know" is stupid.
For the way to post actual intelligent coherent responses, see Frozen Death Knight and DarkWarrior42 on the previous page.

good try, but ad hominem arguments doesnt work on me

[Usako]

There is a difference between Science and Science-fiction. While scientists are still trying to figure out if it is even possible, while they are still grasping at strings to understand the universe. Everyday we learn something new that sometimes prove what we thought to be true is wrong. We understand so little of our universe from our tiny little neighborhood. At least with science things are generally 99.99% true until proven otherwise. They just don't throw out scientific fact out there without testing it over and over again.

However to me it just sounds like you are upset over the ending of Bioshock.

[Rodna]

actually no.

But since you went there, if you read my posts, this is what I consider a herp derp fanboi response - or in other words, an unintelligent post.

Good job continuing to attack something of which you have no relevant knowledge then.

If only you would actually try to understand science, instead of relying on bullshit and invented definitions nobody else uses and generally spinning lies after lies to argue against science.

This is where, if you are intelligent about said subject, would then proceed to tell us what allelic dominance is.

This is where if you had any shame, you would realise you should pick up a book and educate yourself. Instead of crying about how in your fantasy word science is wrong.

---------- Post added 2013-04-14 at 12:50 PM ----------

But here's still what I don't understand, and maybe I'm being thick

No, you'er being obtuse.

but if evolution is still happening (which is what has been stated as fact in this thread via micro-evolution), why aren't there more species like homo erectus still around

Why should there be?

Or maybe I'm just not as accepting of the "they died out." It seems to me that regardless, all forms would still be able to exist in the world today.

It's almost as though you refuse to accept that evolution happens. Oh wait.

They aren't able to exist today because a fitter species evolved to replace them in their habitat.

---------- Post added 2013-04-14 at 12:52 PM ----------

unintelligent people

For someone who can't even grasp the most basic elements and logics of the theory he is vehemently invention lies and delusions to doubt, you really shouldn't throw this phrase around so much.

---------- Post added 2013-04-14 at 12:53 PM ----------

Yeah, god forbid they ask about something they have no knowledge of.

God forbid people actually ask a honest question, instead of desperately coming up with excuses and fantasies to try argue something for which they have no actual knowledge of.

[MrSerious]

[/COLOR]Btw, I have yet to see a scientist I could consider actually "smart". Most of them work for companies or universities. They get PAID to think which just makes me shake my head every time I hear such a thing. If you are smarter then the rest, then go ahead and outsmart them. Do the Bill Gates and accumulate lots of millions and THEN start doing your scientific studies. THAT'S a true scientist. A person walking along a set path others tell him to take (school->university->tests,tests,tests) can't expect me to take him seriously when he talks about "thinking outside of the box" or "questioning things".

if this isn't some kind of joke then I'm worried people could seriously write this.

[Deleted]

I strongly suggest going to youtube and searching for Richard Feynman. Not only one of the most intelligent people that ever lived, but he has a lecture on there from the '70s that is very enlightening.

[SpacedOut]

Why isn't there any?

Why are is it so easy for people to just accept ANYTHING that starts with "scientist have herpaderped that 75% herpaderp" while every time the word "God" is mentioned it's unreasonable? Hell, they will even quote WIKIPEDIA and feel confident about that.

This came up again after I saw the stupid ending of Bioshock: Infinite. Instead of making something reasonable out of it, they go the good old "multidimension-timetravel" nonsense route. And people seem to love it?! How can people seriously believe in timetravel nonsense and infinite dimensions, but when they hear somebody mention Alaa or God or any other religion they instantly go "nope, can't be".

I love scepticism and I love that people don't blindly follow into religion, but why do they follow blindly into WIKIPEDIA and "scientists have proven...". Isn't this exactly the same thing? Someone else telling you how things are, even though you don't know it yourself?


Sorry for my fury, it's just this entire timetravel nonsense... Everytime I see this mentioned and somebody responding with "timeparadoxon" I get this huge urge to eradicate the entire planet from all...

I'm sorry, but attacking people for believing in the ending of BS:I is stupid. Nobody 'believes' it's true, because it's a freaking story. They might believe in the physics, but not because a video game told them about it. They went and found out about it elsewhere. Here it's just a tool for telling the story, nobody believes in it more than they believe in a game full of gods and magic, like WoW or w/e.

[belfpala]

if this isn't some kind of joke then I'm worried people could seriously write this.

So... basically he thinks scientists should be like Edison? (Note: someone who applied what actual scientists did, and didn't do much science himself).

[anyaka21]

Good job continuing to attack something of which you have no relevant knowledge then.

If only you would actually try to understand science, instead of relying on bullshit and invented definitions nobody else uses and generally spinning lies after lies to argue against science.



This is where if you had any shame, you would realise you should pick up a book and educate yourself. Instead of crying about how in your fantasy word science is wrong.

---------- Post added 2013-04-14 at 12:50 PM ----------


No, you'er being obtuse.


Why should there be?


It's almost as though you refuse to accept that evolution happens. Oh wait.

They aren't able to exist today because a fitter species evolved to replace them in their habitat.

---------- Post added 2013-04-14 at 12:52 PM ----------


For someone who can't even grasp the most basic elements and logics of the theory he is vehemently invention lies and delusions to doubt, you really shouldn't throw this phrase around so much.

---------- Post added 2013-04-14 at 12:53 PM ----------


God forbid people actually ask a honest question, instead of desperately coming up with excuses and fantasies to try argue something for which they have no actual knowledge of.

See Frozen Death Knight and DarkWarrior42 for actual answers to questions that are asked.
Again, your response is in the fanboi herp-derp catagory.

Because, it seems obvious at this point that the knowledge that I was taught back in high school and college is outdated, and God forbid, I actually asked a question. Therefore, answering questions to someone who actually has questions is a good way to educate people. Answering someone with this herp derp does nothing to add to the discussion.

I would actually ask the mods to close this thread, because if this is the way the majority of responses are to questions, then this thread has gone about as far as it should go.

[Chrysia]

See Frozen Death Knight and DarkWarrior42 for actual answers to questions that are asked.
Again, your response is in the fanboi herp-derp catagory.

Because, it seems obvious at this point that the knowledge that I was taught back in high school and college is outdated, and God forbid, I actually asked a question. Therefore, answering questions to someone who actually has questions is a good way to educate people. Answering someone with this herp derp does nothing to add to the discussion.

I would actually ask the mods to close this thread, because if this is the way the majority of responses are to questions, then this thread has gone about as far as it should go.

It's noteworthy that many science books are written specifically to cast doubt on many proven theories. Particularly in more religious states. There is no national standard for accuracy in text-books, so you will often get mangled theories thrown into factual information. School boards go out of their way to find "experts" in these fields that will bend the truth, either for their personal beliefs or for enough money.

[Varabently]

Why isn't there any?

Why are is it so easy for people to just accept ANYTHING that starts with "scientist have herpaderped that 75% herpaderp" while every time the word "God" is mentioned it's unreasonable? Hell, they will even quote WIKIPEDIA and feel confident about that.

This came up again after I saw the stupid ending of Bioshock: Infinite. Instead of making something reasonable out of it, they go the good old "multidimension-timetravel" nonsense route. And people seem to love it?! How can people seriously believe in timetravel nonsense and infinite dimensions, but when they hear somebody mention Alaa or God or any other religion they instantly go "nope, can't be".

I love scepticism and I love that people don't blindly follow into religion, but why do they follow blindly into WIKIPEDIA and "scientists have proven...". Isn't this exactly the same thing? Someone else telling you how things are, even though you don't know it yourself?


Sorry for my fury, it's just this entire timetravel nonsense... Everytime I see this mentioned and somebody responding with "timeparadoxon" I get this huge urge to eradicate the entire planet from all...

this is one of the biggest fallacies that religions play on the addled minds of normal non-scientific people. Science is another religion, but our side has better cookies (ie, eternal happiness) so you should believe us.

The reality is you don't "believe" science. Belief implies your opinion, or taking something on faith. I don't "believe" in the theory of evolution. I take it as true because it is the best explanation for how the world works based on research and empirical analysis. When people say they don't believe in evolution what they mean is: I don't like that it conflicts with my religious beliefs, so I will ignore the mountain of data to support it.

You are making the same fallacy they are making by saying people "blindly" follow into science. I would rather follow science which is peer-reviewed, rigorously tested, and exists to find out how things work versus religion which expects me to take everything on faith.

Also, are you allowed to post a topic like this?

Edit: I also wanted to say that one of the reasons evolution is so hard to grasp for many people is that humans can't understand long time horizons. Probability either, but that's only partially relevant. It's tough for our brains to comprehend that a 1 in 10,000 chance of occuring mutation could be the first step to making a new species. We think, well 1 in 10,000 that's not very much, but if there are 10,000,000 of those animals procreating yearly, that mutation will almost inevitably occur. VERY unlikely events become expected when you draw out the timeline and increase the sample size.

Edit2: I also wanted to say that skepticism IS science, so it's ironic that people would be skeptical of science, but not religion. That's like saying you don't know if bananas taste good after proclaiming you love bananas. The fact that you are skeptical of science shows that they agree that skepticism is important, but just don't apply it to their own belief systems. Our egos and self-worth are based on our beliefs and the two get intertwined such that questioning our beliefs means questioning our egos, which is a hard-fought battle.

[Dezerte]

Edit2: I also wanted to say that skepticism IS science, so it's ironic that people would be skeptical of science, but not religion. That's like saying you don't know if bananas taste good after proclaiming you love bananas. The fact that you are skeptical of science shows that they agree that skepticism is important, but just don't apply it to their own belief systems. Our egos and self-worth are based on our beliefs and the two get intertwined such that questioning our beliefs means questioning our egos, which is a hard-fought battle.

I believe what you're describing here has a name, namely; cognitive dissonance.

"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect that core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit with the core belief." - a good quote on the meaning of the term.

[Rodna]

See Frozen Death Knight and DarkWarrior42 for actual answers to questions that are asked.

Actual answers were provided repeatedly prior to that point. You just stuck your head into the sand to ignore them until reality overcame you.

Again, your response is in the fanboi herp-derp catagory.

Again, all do you flame.

Because, it seems obvious at this point that the knowledge that I was taught back in high school and college is outdated

You blatantly made up your own definitions, definitions which haven't changed in the real world. That's not being "outdated", that's being completely wrong and acting like an ass when people point out you were wrong - even though the real answers could be discovered with a simple google search.

and God forbid, I actually asked a question.

The reason you are seeing so much hostility is that you don't ask questions with the honest intent of trying to learn. You questions are coated in thinly veiled attempts to argue against science using ignorance, not to mention the massive amounts of flaming science and scientists you do from start to finish.

When approaching a topic on which you are so obviously ignorant, a honest person would refrain from actually trying to argue about. You, on the other hand, filed your posts with "this shows/demonstrates that you/scientists/science is wrong/ignorant".

because if this is the way the majority of responses are to questions

You brought it upon yourself.

[Spectral]

When approaching a topic on which you are so obviously ignorant, a honest person would refrain from actually trying to argue about.

Right. It's not possible to simultaneously argue a topic while also asking basic (or off base) questions about the same topic.

[Bepples]

Lets take the theory of Evolution. Evolution is a fact, we see it every day, and we've observed it as a species during our existence. We've seen animals change their behavioural patterns, we've seen pets evolve from once vicious beats, and we see the world itself, evolving around us, so the theory of Evolution (and all aspects of it) are generally true.

However, the theory of evolution revolving the existence of man, is, as far as we know, false. Something that is taught in schools, currently has not actual proof or physical evidence to support the claim that it ever happened.

Huh? Firstly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there is no evidence of something (by the way, there is evidence of human evolution), doesn't mean that it is "false", merely it is "unproven". Regarding the theory of evolution, it has been so well proven thus far by paleontological evidence in other instances that it is pretty safe to apply it to species for which transition is as of yet not identified (eg. Bats).

[quoteHyve;20793540]We've managed to mind evolutionary stages of ancient creatures and plants from the Dinosaur period, we've found proof that certain other species around the planet have evolved, and we've even found proof that we have evolved from our primitive ancestors (Homoerectus). What we haven't found however is any proof that we've evolved from Primates.[/quote]

Let's take a look at the scientific classification of humans:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
As you can see, we are part of the Primate order. Humans ARE primates, we are not a separate group.
Besides, there is plenty of evidence to show that Humans are descendent of earlier primates.
Apidium (36-32 MYA) => Aegyptopithecus (33 MYA) => Proconsul (27-14 MYA) => Pierolapithecus (13 MYA) => Ardipithecus (4.4 MYA) => Australopithecus (4.4-2.0 MYA) => Homo Habilis (2.5-1.5 MYA) => Homo Erectus (2.0-1.0 MYA) => Homo Heidelbergensis (0.6-0.2 MYA) => Homo Sapiens (0.2 MYA-Present)

[ashblond]

I also understand the point about God, but I also don't understand the full on "there is no God because there is no proof" argument either. Because let's face the simple fact that the basics of God has Him/Her/It existing outside of time and space, and therefore can't be proven to exist. Add that you also can't prove that He/She/It doesn't exist either so the argument is moot and becomes an insane cyclical raving of lunatics that is based on beliefs either way.

Can't we all just get along.....

Human's knowledge is always limited. People used to believe the earth was flat, the earth is the center of the universe and the sun circles around earth etc.... which were all proved wrong with the evolution of human knowledge.

By no means that i think science is the only solutions to everything. Maybe there will be better theory other than science in the future.

It is not science itself that matters, but its method. Asking some unsolved questions to a scientist, he will answer "we don't know yet", instead of "because it is the will of God".

Human's knowledge was, is and will always be limited. And "I don't know" is the correct answer. And I don't simply explain things that i don't know with "the will of God"

[anyaka21]

Actual answers were provided repeatedly prior to that point. You just stuck your head into the sand to ignore them until reality overcame you.

Actually, I'd suggest you go back and look. As said, answers that are "that's not how it works" really isn't an answer.

Again, all do you flame.

I don't think I've once flamed or called anyone names, or anything. I've said that most of the responses weren't really responses and shared my opinion of those responses.

You blatantly made up your own definitions, definitions which haven't changed in the real world. That's not being "outdated", that's being completely wrong and acting like an ass when people point out you were wrong - even though the real answers could be discovered with a simple google search.

I haven't made up my own definitions. Everything I know about science was because it was taught to me. Add that, as I have said, my knowledge is apparently about 20 years outdated. And as has been noted here many times, science changes. What was once thought to be true, 20 years later, the definition changes. No, that's not a bad thing, just it is what it is.

Example: When I was taught in high school about macro-evolution, at least the way it was taught to me was a massive change in a species over a short period of time. That definition has be changed and expanded. But it is what it is. I've noted the correction and understand it better now. Note however, that only 1 person provided a link where about 6 or 7 people prior just noted, that's not how it works, but failed in providing the how.

The reason you are seeing so much hostility is that you don't ask questions with the honest intent of trying to learn. You questions are coated in thinly veiled attempts to argue against science using ignorance, not to mention the massive amounts of flaming science and scientists you do from start to finish.

note see the response just above, also note one the quote is me actually giving credit to someone for a coherent intelligent response that actually helps me learn.

[/quote]When approaching a topic on which you are so obviously ignorant, a honest person would refrain from actually trying to argue about. You, on the other hand, filed your posts with "this shows/demonstrates that you/scientists/science is wrong/ignorant".[/quote]

how is one supposed to know they are actually ignorant on a topic if it isn't actually discussed. If a question is asked, and a response is given, as has been stated previously of "that's not how it works", how is that supposed to help me in my ignorance. In fact, responses like that tend to do the opposite. They tend to make me that that person really doesn't know what they are talking about.

And TBH, where have I ever said that science is wrong. I've said that I don't think a lot of science done today is beneficial because I think it is mainly done on a for profit bases by companies who want the next great cure, who want to hold onto oil as the primary form of fuel until they discover that next best cleanest fuel that they can make a massive amount of money on.

I took quite a few journalism classes in college and that has led me to not only have an open mind but also to be highly skeptical when people claim something is true and factual. So yeah, I tend to question a lot. But it seems that when you attempt to question in a topic like science, as soon as you actually bring forth a question, the outcry of "zomg, religious fanatic" get's thrown on you.

You brought it upon yourself.

I'd suggest you go back and reread the last 20 pages and rethink that.

[belfpala]

I'm just going to say:

Sometimes I see people say things like "haha, the science I learned 20 years ago is wrong!" and they use it as evidence that science is flawed.

No. That's evidence that science works.

[Rodna]

Actually, I'd suggest you go back and look. I don't think I've once flamed or called anyone names, or anything.

Actually, I'd suggest you go back and look - at yourself flaming everyone who informs you of the FACT that you are wrong "fanboi" and "unintelligent" or "ignorant".

I haven't made up my own definitions.

Micro is that minute changes happen over billions of years.
Macro is that huge changes happen over a much shorter period.
...
It's funny how you say that I have no understanding of the subject when this shows clearly that you have none.

Add that, as I have said, my knowledge is apparently about 20 years outdated. What was once thought to be true, 20 years later, the definition changes.

Honestly, just stop. This is a desperately transparent lie and you know it. Your professed "knowledge" isn't outdated - it is not true today and it was not true 20 years ago. This extends beyond your complete and utter misunderstanding of macro/microevolution and covers pretty much everything you said about evolution. Blaming "definitions changes" for being called out on that bullshit is a clever move, though. Unfortunately, your stubborn insistence on being "skeptical" even after your ignorance has been pointed out to you, means everything you say reeks of denialism.

You have no grounds upon which to be skeptical when you lack the most basic knowledge and understanding of the subject.

Example: When I was taught in high school about macro-evolution, at least the way it was taught to me was a massive change in a species over a short period of time. That definition has be changed and expanded.

No it hasn't.

how is one supposed to know they are actually ignorant on a topic if it isn't actually discussed.

One is supposed to actually be willing to recognise their own ignorance and be willing to learn. Instead of spewing denialism garbage like:

your lack of understanding of macro evolution defies logic

Your notion, evolution having nothing to do with the big bang, while correct, also demonstrates that you missed the point.

you don't really understand the argument but are being completely unscientific

And you actually proved how wrong you are in one sentence by saying the "how exactly".

They tend to make me that that person really doesn't know what they are talking about.

I think this thread has very clearly established that pretty much everyone knows more than you.

And TBH, where have I ever said that science is wrong.

You ranted at length at how people doing science are doing it wrong.

I've said that I don't think a lot of science done today is beneficial because I think it is mainly done on a for profit

Where's your facts?

So yeah, I tend to question a lot.

Funny how you don't question your own utter ignorance even though a 3 second google search would have proven you dead wrong on evolution.

as soon as you actually bring forth a question

Maybe try not to wrap your questions around scientist bashing and flaming people for pointing out your facts are missing/logic is insane.