Forum Overview :: Operation: Hammer Time
 
Re: The pro/con evolution debate is a argument against rhetorical evolution by Jr.Walker 04/11/2003, 2:51am PDT
Chemdem wrote:


Evolution has nothing to do with the scientific community at large being a pack of wolves. They may be polite to your face in person, but if they think that they have found a hole in your pet theory you can bet they will rip you a new one when you present it to the community at large. That is the nature of the beast. University heads and journal editors have no business rhetorically damning a theory unless they have valid research to back up their claim and present it to the community just like everyone else. Using their position to rail against some perceived wrong is a political not scientific tool, and their termination/humiliation is paramount.


Well put, I'm swayed. Well, also because the lack of data for me to point at indicates the strong potential that i have been bullshitted.

Chemdem wrote:


The Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution debate is largely political, which is why you will see more science writers than scientist engaging in the "debate". Scientists have better things to do, like actual science.


I never wanted to drag Creationism/Intelligent Design into my question, I should have been more clear.

The examples I read where more like, "This hammer and spear are have been dated (repeatedly) at 180,000 years old. Since this doesn’t fit into the evolutionary timeline I would love to know why." Also an example of the existence of a Negroid (Africanesque) tribe indigenous to southern central Mexico predating the Aztecs or Inca.

The points raised were that not only did the larger scientific community not welcome these discoveries, but undermined any attempt at real scientific investigation (discrediting, pulling funding and grants or threatening to do so for institutions funding them). The implication being that science is so vested in the status quo that the arbiters of the scientific community are staunching any unique avenues of research into the evolutionary timeline. I don’t assume that proof of a Mid-Pleistocene hairpick would be any proof of God, The Aliens or the Wizard of Oz.

Or else I was lied to and that was all bullshit.


rEtard wrote:

Creationism should stay out of science, unless you want science coming into your church.

BTW, what is this doing in the "Attaq Iraq" forum?
YEAH! ME TOO!
PREVIOUS NEXT REPLY QUOTE
 
Terror no more? by Mr Smoke 04/09/2003, 5:08pm PDT NEW
    Fear not by Ray, of Light 04/10/2003, 1:14am PDT NEW
        Re: Fear not by Jr.Walker 04/10/2003, 9:46am PDT NEW
            Huh? by Beast-God 04/10/2003, 12:39pm PDT NEW
            Re: Fear not by Link Lord 04/10/2003, 1:17pm PDT NEW
            The pro/con evolution debate is a argument against rhetorical evolution by Chemdem 04/10/2003, 2:19pm PDT NEW
                Re: The pro/con evolution debate is a argument against rhetorical evolution by t0ny 04/10/2003, 2:50pm PDT NEW
                    Re: The pro/con evolution debate is a argument against rhetorical evolution by Jr.Walker 04/11/2003, 2:51am PDT NEW
                        Re: The pro/con evolution debate is a argument against rhetorical evolution by foogla 04/11/2003, 5:15am PDT NEW
                            Re: The pro/con evolution debate is a argument against rhetorical evolution by Jr.Walker 04/11/2003, 9:50am PDT NEW
                                Terry Pratchett - Strata (that was 20 years ago, might be called something else) NT by foogla 04/11/2003, 10:43am PDT NEW
 
powered by pointy