[_ Old Earth _] Some people give scientists such power

[SyntaxVorlon]

Man what? What happens is both scientist put up their conclusions for peer review as well as how they arrived at them. If the conclusion for one is incorrect or one didn't follow scientific method, that would be the one that isn't accepted. It isn't opinion, it's facts based on observation. When done correctly both scientists would come to the same conclusion. Facts don't change just because you will them to.

Passing peer review doesn't make it fact.

Peer review establishes the high probability that a claim is correct by checking that it is consistent with known facts and other highly probably claims. In order to show something established by the scientific community not to be fact you would have to point out errors in the peer reviewing process, factual errors that a claim is based in and the incorrectness of the error calculations made by the scientists and the peer reviewers.

 

[Rick W]

Stephen Hawking produced many papers on black holes where nothing escaped the forces of internal gravity. This is still taught today since current texts are not updated to reflect his new findings that such is not the case.

Ah,ah, ah...noooo.
Stephen Hawking was fairly certain information was lost when it went into a black hole, but he was shown wrong. Matter however is irretrievable from black holes, this is a fact that has not changed. And any science teacher who is actually going to such lengths to teach black hole physics is going to bring up the latest findings.

Because science doesn't arrive at a conclusion and say "Well, that's it, no one mess with it ever again." Any and all theories are constantly tested. When new ideas come up, they're tested as well. Science has the ability to change, which has saved untold millions.

Agreed.

I agreed with Quid's post.

Hawking cracks black hole paradox

After nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole destroys everything that falls into it, Stephen Hawking is saying he was wrong. It seems that black holes may after all allow information within them to escape. Hawking will present his latest finding at a conference in Ireland next week.

The point is that what was once considered "fact" by many wasn't, which was also the gist of Quid's post.
"Because science doesn't arrive at a conclusion and say "Well, that's it, no one mess with it ever again."

Peer review establishes the high probability that a claim is correct by checking that it is consistent with known facts and other highly probably claims. In order to show something established by the scientific community not to be fact you would have to point out errors in the peer reviewing process, factual errors that a claim is based in and the incorrectness of the error calculations made by the scientists and the peer reviewers.

So why wasn't Hawking's previous claims found to be in error?
And there's Russell Humphreys' "Starlight and Time" advocating "white holes" as an answer to light in a young universe that passed "peer review" but because it's viewed as "creationist" it's fiercely contested.
Opinion and bias play key roles in what is challenged and how aggressive that challenge is after a successful peer review.

Scientists are men not "Vulcans" having passionate beliefs which determine the intensity of rebuttal or support all in the name of science. Again, what is toted hands-down as fact by "belief" today may very well be proven wrong in the future. And that's the point I'm attempting to make regardless if the belief is in creation, ID, abiogenesis or panspermia.
And we must be careful to make the distinction between science and suggestive conclusion in regard to the data found by science.

 

[Quid]

So you're saying that neanderthals were speparate beasts and were not a forerunner of man. Is that correct? If so, then you're contradicting all other evolutionists who said that apes bred homonids that turned into homo sapiens that turned into neanderthals that turned into some other name and finally turned into humans.

:smt104
Heidi... Humans are Homo sapiens. You obviously don't know anything about biology, and I have never in my life seen a biologist say that. How about, for once in your posts, you cite something? Show me a biologist who's said what you just did.

Edit:

And you said apes can interbreed. Why do you avoid citing a dictionary or biology book that says that? I've cited several that say they don't.

That too. Any reputable source will do.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Stephen Hawking produced many papers on black holes where nothing escaped the forces of internal gravity. This is still taught today since current texts are not updated to reflect his new findings that such is not the case.

Ah,ah, ah...noooo.
Stephen Hawking was fairly certain information was lost when it went into a black hole, but he was shown wrong. Matter however is irretrievable from black holes, this is a fact that has not changed. And any science teacher who is actually going to such lengths to teach black hole physics is going to bring up the latest findings.

Because science doesn't arrive at a conclusion and say "Well, that's it, no one mess with it ever again." Any and all theories are constantly tested. When new ideas come up, they're tested as well. Science has the ability to change, which has saved untold millions.

Agreed.

I agreed with Quid's post.

Yes but I disagreed with your assertion that science is used to show that God doesn't exist. Biblical interpretation is what leads to conflict with science, not religion itself.

Hawking cracks black hole paradox
[quote:051bd]After nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole destroys everything that falls into it, Stephen Hawking is saying he was wrong. It seems that black holes may after all allow information within them to escape. Hawking will present his latest finding at a conference in Ireland next week.

The point is that what was once considered "fact" by many wasn't, which was also the gist of Quid's post.
"Because science doesn't arrive at a conclusion and say "Well, that's it, no one mess with it ever again."

Peer review establishes the high probability that a claim is correct by checking that it is consistent with known facts and other highly probably claims. In order to show something established by the scientific community not to be fact you would have to point out errors in the peer reviewing process, factual errors that a claim is based in and the incorrectness of the error calculations made by the scientists and the peer reviewers.

So why wasn't Hawking's previous claims found to be in error?
And there's Russell Humphreys' "Starlight and Time" advocating "white holes" as an answer to light in a young universe that passed "peer review" but because it's viewed as "creationist" it's fiercely contested.
Opinion and bias play key roles in what is challenged and how aggressive that challenge is after a successful peer review.
[/quote:051bd]
Hawking's original claims were consistent with what was known at the time. We know more now, thus his original claims had to be revised.

What peer reviewed journal did Humphrey publish it in? I sincerely doubt that something so completely in disagreement with relativity would pass review.

Scientists are men not "Vulcans" having passionate beliefs which determine the intensity of rebuttal or support all in the name of science. Again, what is toted hands-down as fact by "belief" today may very well be proven wrong in the future. And that's the point I'm attempting to make regardless if the belief is in creation, ID, abiogenesis or panspermia.
And we must be careful to make the distinction between science and suggestive conclusion in regard to the data found by science.

That is precisely the reason peer review exists, a muslim scientist, a christian scientist, a atheist scientist and a buddhist scientist could all agree with the idea of abiogenesis on scientific grounds, but a buddhist, christian, athiest, or muslim may disagree on the matter of creation. Therein lies the divide between science and religion.

Your position is a radically skeptical one, which I find funny in that you don't apply it to your religion, you say fact as if the definition of fact is something known with 100% certainty. No fact is known in such a way, and we must make due with the 90%+ certainty that science provides.

 

[Rick W]

SyntaxVorlon,
Are you a theistic evolutionist?
Curious.

 

[dad]

It's not really there for belief. Many medicines are developed because of this theory as well as new crops and cattle grown.

Really? Can you quicky list say, just 4 of these many types of mediceines that were developed fron a theory that says we had a common ancestor.
1)
2)
3)
4)
Maybe a little word as to how it was the belief of evolution that exactly did the job here as well, in relation to the meds.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

SyntaxVorlon,
Are you a theistic evolutionist?
Curious.

A touch off, I'm an atheistic evolutionist.

 

[Heidi]

SyntaxVorlon,
Are you a theistic evolutionist?
Curious.

A touch off, I'm an atheistic evolutionist.

Then you have a lot to learn, my friend. :