Mainstream Thinking , meaning the greater than 50% of " scientists " agree . Which varies with the ology , study .
Is science a religion?
- Thread starter Yazata
- Start date
Mainstream Thinking , meaning the greater than 50% of " scientists " agree . Which varies with the ology , study .
Then the people that don't know need to make a genuine effort to gain knowledge and education on the relevant subject.
And of course not everyone can be a brain surgeon, or a pilot, or a cosmologist.
Thinking is near useless when one has no knowledge of a subject, and those with delusions of grandeur, are deluded.
I have a soft heart river, and need to educate fools.
According to the consensus record it was pulled off by showman and promotor Charles Dawson, who was not a scientist even in those informal and laxly credentialed and prank joke days, acting as either willing minion or central idea haver for museum underling Hinton who had a grudge against his boss Woodward. Woodward was the first scientist to be taken in - the conspiracy part had at most two known members, one a scientist, and perhaps only one, if Woodward some managed to fool Dawson the experienced con man
Perhaps you think embarrassed and careless scientists never cover ass to forestall or escape public humiliation.
But how does that explain your choice of 1954? So close to the first peer review via the latest techniques, from that you extrapolate to "science"?
It turned out to be a recognizable fraud or simplistic confusion by most scientists in the field as soon as the evidence was peer-reviewed.
Try figuring out what it is, first. It's difficult to "dismantle" what you can't even paraphrase.
Hint: everything you need is right here.
Btw: imho the pattern of attack here - this odd attack mode pivot starting in the second or third reply (this one says I have an "entrenched position"(1) about something (2), neither of which they clarify beyond establishing that either one signifies some kind of character flaw - goes back a long way, without ever once afaik having led to reason or relevant response from which I or others might have learned.
This is an opportunity, in other words, to instruct and argue about evidence and the use of it, about skepticism, about reason itself in the modern and thoroughly politicized age. A lost one to date.
Last edited:
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
Yes. It's a damn shame you haven't taken that opportunity. I'll start to take you seriously when you retract your dimissal of Arthur Smith Woodward as a "curator". That remark alone revealed your ignorance of the Piltdown affair and ignorance that you seem to think was addressed by reading the wikipedia article.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
A postscript to Piltdown.
Piltdown Man hoax findings: Charles Dawson the likely fraudster
By Katie Pavid
First published 10 August 2016
Doesn't sound like a grand conspiracy by a number of dishonest scientists. Perhaps a naive desire to "believe" that the find was genuine and no modern methods to falsify the claim at that time.
All that really counts is that eventually the "find" was exposed as a hoax and scientific integrity restored.
Unlike the continuing religious creation hoax committed by a vast conspiracy of religious non-scientists out of a desire to "believe".
Piltdown Man hoax findings: Charles Dawson the likely fraudster
By Katie Pavid
First published 10 August 2016
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2016/august/piltdown-man-charles-dawson-likely-fraudster.html
Doesn't sound like a grand conspiracy by a number of dishonest scientists. Perhaps a naive desire to "believe" that the find was genuine and no modern methods to falsify the claim at that time.
All that really counts is that eventually the "find" was exposed as a hoax and scientific integrity restored.
Unlike the continuing religious creation hoax committed by a vast conspiracy of religious non-scientists out of a desire to "believe".
Last edited:
Dismissal? It was apparently one reason he - the one working scientist anywhere near the Hoax at its beginning, when Dawson most needed a scientist for cover - was involved. How is that a dismissal?
Sorry I bothered you. Your claim that a conspiring cabal of scientists was necessary to produce the Piltdown Hoax was my entry point, and apparently the observation that it wasn't produced by a conspiring cabal of scientists is dismissed by observing that Wikipedia supports it - had I known that was going to be the level of argument I would have responded quite differently, and I apologize for my shortsighted mistake.
You have a chance to educate us all, and certainly me in my ignorance. Why waste it on such poorly supported and unlikely irrelevancies as what you think I seem to think?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Do look up the full definition of the term "evolution". If this is not clear to you it is one of the most important questions you can ask. The entire Universe is a product of evolution by natural selection, from the first ordering of planetary orbits, to chemical interactions, to the current Westminster dog show.
It is an evolutionary impossibility.
There is no beginning (creation) of an "irreducible complexity". It all starts at the simple bottom and evolves to the complex top.
So, 97% of all scientists in the world who support evolution are wrong and shameless? Perhaps, if they are wrong, then maybe many other things scientists have discovered are wrong, as well. Perhaps, gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat?
How is it you manage to make that claim? Do you even understand evolution?
Evolution is the name we give certain commonly observed patterns of physical changes in complex systems over time. It's a name for an observed thing.
The Darwinian Theory of Evolution is the current central and foundational theory of biological science, with major implications and explanatory uses in all other sciences and a good share of modern technological innovation - it explains the above mentioned observations, which before its discovery and/or explication had no adequate explanation. They were mysteries, now they are at least partly understood.
Evolution is true . Just not as Darwnist think . Slow plodding along changes . Evolution can be both fast and slow .
The are no "Darwinists", for the same reason there are no "Einsteinists" or "Harveyists" or "Kochists" or "Daltonists".
The Darwinian Theory of Evolution says little about the rate at which it takes place, beyond the pragmatic observation that each Darwinian evolutionary change takes at least one generation to establish itself.
In a bacterium that could happen in 20 minutes.
Disagree ; there are Darwinist .
Highlighted
Darwin is about slow changes .
To your last two statements ; Agreed .