Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken

[Ajackson17]

Dawkins is not that smart IMO. People hear a British accent and a couple big words and they think that person is intellectual. You can add Hitchens, Bill Nye on that list to. What have these idiots discovered or created? Its sad some of these people were/are considered "great thinkers" Dawkins has been called out several times by his own peers

They teach, I don't particular care for them except for Bill Nye he is cool.

 

[Ajackson17]

But I see the ad hominems rolling in though.

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

They teach, I don't particular care for them except for Bill Nye he is cool.

Nye is not a scientist you know that right? Dawkins has an agenda....

 

[Ajackson17]

They teach, I don't particular care for them except for Bill Nye he is cool.

Nye is not a scientist you know that right? Dawkins has an agenda....

Bill Nye has an engineer degree and understands methodology. You do know engineers create the technology right?

Everyone has an agenda

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

I know what degrees he has, but he is not marketed as a engineer his name is Bill Nye the "Science guy" that is misleading especially when you on brought on CNN acting like you are an expert on Climate Change

Bill Nye is what those evangelical pastors are who make people feel the holy ghost just with Science

Bill Nye=Pseudo scientist

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

:s

 

[Ajackson17]

I know what degrees he has, but he is not marketed as a engineer his name is Bill Nye the "Science guy" that is misleading especially when you on brought on CNN acting like you are an expert on Climate Change

Bill Nye is what those evangelical pastors are who make people feel the holy ghost just with Science

Bill Nye=Pseudo scientist

The thing is can his information be vetted and peer reviewed? Especially, by those in weather if he is false, then we can be discredited in that sense, but if he is bringing in proper information than no need to attack him. As I said an engineer knows proper methodology and can be thorough in the research or should be.

A religion is belief in a supernatural being with rituals and etc, it's not a religion or a cult. If your evidence cannot measure up and has no repeatable observations and tests than it's wrong information.

 

[fortyacres]

Science has done more for humanity than religion ever wili/can.

The fact the all you god loving dudes can type all this verbal diarrhoea online is because of science/scientists not some comic-book(that apparently is elastic) that should or shouldnt be taken literally.

 

[zzombie]

Science has done more for humanity than religion ever wili/can.

The fact the all you god loving dudes can type all this verbal diarrhoea online is because of science/scientists not some comic-book(that apparently is elastic) that should or shouldnt be taken literally.

nonsense... the merits of religion are simply harder to quantify because it usually produces a benefit for the individual plus the cultural and artistic benefis of religions are incalculable

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

Science has done more for humanity than religion ever wili/can.

The fact the all you god loving dudes can type all this verbal diarrhoea online is because of science/scientists not some comic-book(that apparently is elastic) that should or shouldnt be taken literally.

I don't believe in GOD, but what has Science created? I understand what you are saying, but how much was created using human imagination and intuition? Stuff Science can't quantify?

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

The thing is can his information be vetted and peer reviewed? Especially, by those in weather if he is false, then we can be discredited in that sense, but if he is bringing in proper information than no need to attack him. As I said an engineer knows proper methodology and can be thorough in the research or should be.

A religion is belief in a supernatural being with rituals and etc, it's not a religion or a cult. If your evidence cannot measure up and has no repeatable observations and tests than it's wrong information.

Metholody has nothing to do with lack of insight on topics not relating to engineering. In that case he because a layman. This has nothing to do with methodology, you can learn that online, by reading or having friends in the field.

Peer Review is broken so that is out the door

 

[Ajackson17]

The thing is can his information be vetted and peer reviewed? Especially, by those in weather if he is false, then we can be discredited in that sense, but if he is bringing in proper information than no need to attack him. As I said an engineer knows proper methodology and can be thorough in the research or should be.

A religion is belief in a supernatural being with rituals and etc, it's not a religion or a cult. If your evidence cannot measure up and has no repeatable observations and tests than it's wrong information.

Metholody has nothing to do with lack of insight on topics not relating to engineering. In that case he because a layman. This has nothing to do with methodology, you can learn that online, by reading or having friends in the field.

Peer Review is broken so that is out the door

How is Peer Review broken? This is coming from independent researchers, coming from various nations and etc. It's a global system, not just at their university or corporation that they work for.

 

[Ajackson17]

Science has done more for humanity than religion ever wili/can.

The fact the all you god loving dudes can type all this verbal diarrhoea online is because of science/scientists not some comic-book(that apparently is elastic) that should or shouldnt be taken literally.

I don't believe in GOD, but what has Science created? I understand what you are saying, but how much was created using human imagination and intuition? Stuff Science can't quantify?

The technology that you and I are communicating through, agriculture is a science, internet is a science, understanding electricity and using it is a science and etc etc. Your whole life has scientific process all over it.

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

The technology that you and I are communicating through, agriculture is a science, internet is a science, understanding electricity and using it is a science and etc etc. Your whole life has scientific process all over it.

No its not its imagination. Science is a method humans use to "understand things" when humans discovered fire or built a wheel that was not "science" Imagination, Intuition and trail and error existed before the method/construct of "science" and read my other post about things being created from dreams people had or aha moments. There is a terrible lack of comprehension in these threads

 

[Ajackson17]

The technology that you and I are communicating through, agriculture is a science, internet is a science, understanding electricity and using it is a science and etc etc. Your whole life has scientific process all over it.

No its not its imagination. Science is a method humans use to "understand things" when humans discovered fire or built a wheel that was not "science" Imagination, Intuition and trail and error existed before the method/construct of "science" and read my other post about things being created from dreams people had or aha moments. There is a terrible lack of comprehension in these threads

As strict as the discipline is, there is a series of growing pains and why can't you use imagination and intuition in the scientific field? You just need to confirm those through a series of testing and showing repeatable observations. You are basically debating about nothing. No one is lost in what you are saying, we are simply saying your observations aren't on the mark as you think they are.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131127-secret-to-thinking-like-a-genius

You can envision anything, but you need to have repeatable tests and observations and it has to work. There are methods in how things work, you can make television in any fashion that you want. You have to understand electricity, you have to understand electrical engineering, you have to understand those sciences and much more to develop a television let alone an HD television and 4k. There has to be a method to your imagination to bear fruit.

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

As strict as the discipline is, there is a series of growing pains and why can't you use imagination and intuition in the scientific field? You just need to confirm those through a series of testing and showing repeatable observations. You are basically debating about nothing. No one is lost in what you are saying, we are simply saying your observations aren't on the mark as you think they are.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131127-secret-to-thinking-like-a-genius

You can envision anything, but you need to have repeatable tests and observations and it has to work. There are methods in how things work, you can make television in any fashion that you want. You have to understand electricity, you have to understand electrical engineering, you have to understand those sciences and much more to develop a television let alone an HD television and 4k. There has to be a method to your imagination to bear fruit

When did I say you can't use imagination or intuition in Science? You simply glossed over the fact of possibly hundreds of documented cases of people figuring out how to build or create things by simply seeing it in there dreams or having random aha moments like Einstein did.

In my last post I stated you use trail and error, and stated that some things created do not need Science. This is where reading comprehension comes in to play.

The accusation you made is actually what you are doing

You are basically debating about nothing. No one is lost in what you are saying, we are simply saying your observations aren't on the mark as you think they are.

Also science can't test the imagination or your intuition. The very thing that develop the vision and the method

Don't respond if you have something basic to say its a waste of both our time, thanks

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

http://www.famousscientists.org/7-great-examples-of-scientific-discoveries-made-in-dreams/

 

[Ajackson17]

As strict as the discipline is, there is a series of growing pains and why can't you use imagination and intuition in the scientific field? You just need to confirm those through a series of testing and showing repeatable observations. You are basically debating about nothing. No one is lost in what you are saying, we are simply saying your observations aren't on the mark as you think they are.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131127-secret-to-thinking-like-a-genius

You can envision anything, but you need to have repeatable tests and observations and it has to work. There are methods in how things work, you can make television in any fashion that you want. You have to understand electricity, you have to understand electrical engineering, you have to understand those sciences and much more to develop a television let alone an HD television and 4k. There has to be a method to your imagination to bear fruit

When did I say you can't use imagination or intuition in Science? You simply glossed over the fact of possibly hundreds of documented cases of people figuring out how to build or create things by simply seeing it in there dreams or having random aha moments like Einstein did.

In my last post I stated you use trail and error, and stated that some things created do not need Science. This is where reading comprehension comes in to play.

The accusation you made is actually what you are doing

You are basically debating about nothing. No one is lost in what you are saying, we are simply saying your observations aren't on the mark as you think they are.

Also science can't test the imagination or your intuition. The very thing that develop the vision and the method

Don't respond if you have something basic to say its a waste of both our time, thanks

http://www.livescience.com/54825-scientists-measure-intuition.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701135820.htm
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/how-imagination-works

Why are you getting angry? I'm just simply telling you are trying to have some sort of a debate where there is no need.

 

[Neophyte Wolfgang]

They used questionaires and the first article ( I skimmed it) will read tomorrow did not find out how and why or where intuition comes from

 

[bambu]

It's about time that people are waking up to the fuckery of evolutionary science.....

The entire discipline of molecular biology was created to support their fuckery.....

Scientific Reductionism has been thoroughly refuted.....