So far today I've asked some basic questions about evolution.
I've already addressed the most direct problems with the answers (the ones worth taking seriously), now for the most common problem that I saw:
Reading of facts into evidence.
So I have to ask, is evolution tested in isolation (ever)? Are all new discoveries tested under the umbrella of evolutionary supervision or is there ever any neutrality?
Why do so-called scientists feel that it's okay to read into a new discovery facts that aren't there but are only assumed to be true, and doesn't this automatically obviate a rejection of conclusions due to lack of control?
2007-03-11 08:22:07 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Classic experiment demonstrating evolution in isolation. Yeast were grown in a medium that was very low in an essential nutrient. The flow of nutrient kept the number of yeast constant, as some were washed out of the test chamber. A more efficient gathering or utilization of the nutrient would result in more yeast in the chamber which could be measured by the cloudiness of the medium. Two events went according to the experimental design. A third, clumped yeast which were not washed out as easily, was not according to design, but was reported as it was.
Why do Creationists need to lie about the scientific method?
2007-03-11 08:41:18 · answer #1 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, considering that religionists will shut their eyes to everything they do not want to believe, what objectivity do you want to have in "new discoveries"?
Heck? What are the new discoveries?
These are the very people who burnt "scientists" up for saying that earth revolved around sun and not otherwise.
Hmm. That was objective.
2007-03-11 08:32:47 · answer #2 · answered by shrek 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Scientific method demands objectivity as is proven by the fact that valid challenges to evolutionary theory come solely from within the scientific community rather than from creationists.
2007-03-11 08:25:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Darwinism is based on guess-work ;their assumptions are harm-full.By comparison they are in the era where the earth was assumed flat by consensus.Mention ID and they go into a fit.They are driven by politics not by science,by rigid ideology;not evidence.
2007-03-11 08:50:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
being the devils advocate - do creationists understand neutrality? - do they know that their believe system is purely a theory system! where is the evidence of all that is preached?
and why do they call it Intelligent design? where is that intelligence if it is only a theory without progress?
2007-03-11 08:36:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you understand the meaning of your question? I don't. Those so-called religionists still have so-called problems with so-called language arts. So-called scientists just have so-called reality to so-call deal with.
2007-03-11 08:31:29 · answer #6 · answered by Dances with Poultry 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What new discovery do you keep blathering about??? Is this all hypothetical?
My goodness, we get it. You already have a perspective. You think one way about scientists and nothing anyone says here is going to change your mind.
No matter what respondents post, it's GOING to reinforce your preconception somehow. We got it. Thanks.
2007-03-11 08:24:41 · answer #7 · answered by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Tell us about the new discoveries.
2007-03-11 08:25:47 · answer #8 · answered by S K 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dr. Planck says the moment you observe something you change it.
He's a RANDOMIST!
2007-03-11 08:39:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't matter.
Praise God, and rise into new heights of excellence.
You choose your destiny.
This is the law.
2007-03-11 08:28:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋