Why do people get so personal about defending evolution?

[brennan]

Let's take the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. Long thought to be extinct by scientists, they refused to believe or even accept reports of sightings by locals. Dismissed, scoffed off. Oooh, but suddenly an ornithologist hears what he thinks is one and sees a flash of movement. WOW, these things might still exist because one of our bretheren might have seen one!! Who's arrogant?? Who's dogmatic?? Who's way too full of themselves??

Evidence leads to a change of POV? Congratulations, this was science at work.

 

[bhsup]

Are scientists also arrogant and dogmatic when they don't believe in every local who claims to have seen bigfoot or Elvis Presley?

Elvis, no. He's dead and buried.
Bigfoot, maybe. Never been proven to exist, most likely a fraud, but hey...it's possible.
Ivory Billed Woodpecker, yes. Known to have existed into the 1930s, not "officially" sighted for decades, though there were reports of sightings by locals, dismissed by ivory tower pointy-heads who don't live there and wouldn't know what the local saw.

Evidence leads to a change of POV? Congratulations, this was science at work.

My point was they dismissed claims of sightings by locals until one of their initiated bretheren thought they saw and heard something, then they got excited. Basically slapping down anyone else because obviously without that degree one could never possibly recognize an ivory billed woodpecker to save their life. They got excited with no evidence at all, just one of theirs saying they thought they saw and heard one...maybe. Why not get excited when a local said that?

 

[Homie]

I have no interest in going on a wild goose chase through ten pages of you redirecting people to other posts. I'll read the opening post, this page, and part of the last page. Your explanation of why natural selection supposedly cannot be tested in a controlled environment is not there. If you'd like to provide a link, I'll be glad to rebut your post, but the onus is on you to provide your argument.

The argument has been presented already in this very thread. If you don't bother to read it, tough, because I'm not going to be bothered by saying the same things over and over again to people who have not been following the thread.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Come on! I'm not saying scientists say this, people do! I even addressed this with a reply a minute ago. Had you forgot?

So that means that if some people say that evolution is a 100% certainty (even speaking of non-scientists, there aren't many) that makes it arrogant to say it is likely? I am not 100% certain that the moons is roughly 400,000 km from the earth; that doesn't mean it is arrogant for me to say it is likely.

 

[Gogf]

No, what matters is whether or not they're intent on drafting those beliefs into a bill, not what they actually believe.

Well, if someone holds a belief that they are intent on not drafting into law for a constitutional reason, that's fine. But I am of the general opinion that we should be electing politicians based on their beliefs.

 

[Homie]

It absolutely matters! Our politicians have the ability to make laws, and they will make those laws based on their beliefs.

Wheter people, politicians or even scientists believe in evolution or not, how does it effect progress? Really, how would it make a difference in our daily lives?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Let me ask you a question, Homie; what do you think is the explanation for the biodiversity we see on the planet, and how old is it? What is your view on the matter?

 

[Gogf]

Elvis, no. He's dead and buried.
Bigfoot, maybe. Never been proven to exist, most likely a fraud, but hey...it's possible.
Ivory Billed Woodpecker, yes. Known to have existed into the 1930s, not "officially" sighted for decades, though there were reports of sightings by locals, dismissed by ivory tower pointy-heads who don't live there and wouldn't know what the local saw.

Well they obviously can't know what the locals law. Obviously some scientist was looking, though, or he wouldn't have ended up finding it.

My point was they dismissed claims of sightings by locals until one of their initiated bretheren thought they saw and heard something, then they got excited. Basically slapping down anyone else because obviously without that degree one could never possibly recognize an ivory billed woodpecker to save their life. They got excited with no evidence at all, just one of theirs saying they thought they saw and heard one...maybe. Why not get excited when a local said that?

Because people make all sorts of claims all the time. People claim to be abducted by UFO's; for all I know, people claim to see dodo birds. No scientific institution has the time or resources to thoroughly follow up every isolated claim made by a local. I'm sure there would have been a more thorough investigation if there had been more claims.

The argument has been presented already in this very thread. If you don't bother to read it, tough, because I'm not going to be bothered by saying the same things over and over again to people who have not been following the thread.

I already know that the argument is somewhere in "this very thread." I don't care. I have better things to do with my time than dig through what promises to be an exciting pile of posts about "this very thread." If you want to make an argument, make it. Don't make vague references to something else that I could probably find if I wanted to waste my time. Once again, the burden is not on me to provide your argument.

If you have such predictive powers about whether that argument would be needed, why didn't you keep a link to it?

 

[Gogf]

Wheter people, politicians or even scientists believe in evolution or not, how does it effect progress? Really, how would it make a difference in our daily lives?

Well, it obstructs research into important scientific fields. Astronomy, geology, biology, medicine, and psychology, to name a few, would be hurt badly by a lack of understanding of evolution.

 

[brennan]

My point was they dismissed claims of sightings by locals until one of their initiated bretheren thought they saw and heard something, then they got excited. Basically slapping down anyone else because obviously without that degree one could never possibly recognize an ivory billed woodpecker to save their life. They got excited with no evidence at all, just one of theirs saying they thought they saw and heard one...maybe. Why not get excited when a local said that?

Peeks on wiki:

Could be something to do with the fact that several dedicated expeditions to track down the elusive bird coming up with zip, there being no confirmed sightings for 70 odd years and there still haven't been.

Nice example...

 

[Homie]

So that means that if some people say that evolution is a 100% certainty (even speaking of non-scientists, there aren't many) that makes it arrogant to say it is likely? I am not 100% certain that the moons is roughly 400,000 km from the earth; that doesn't mean it is arrogant for me to say it is likely.

It is the absolutism at which it is declared that is arrogant. History itself shows how arrogant people have been at declaring something absolutely, positively, 100% correct, and later been proved wrong.

So is claiming something is likely and claiming it is 100% certain the same thing? I think not. I'm not going to repeat myself again. The only reason I did so now is because I know you have been following the thread, and because you usually strike me as an honest and intelligent poster. But I don't know what's up with you today, so seem to be misunderstanding the simplest things I am saying.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No, that is not it at all. You make a claim (that people habitually claim that the theory of evolution is 100% correct with no room for error) and I am disputing that claim.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, if someone holds a belief that they are intent on not drafting into law for a constitutional reason, that's fine. But I am of the general opinion that we should be electing politicians based on their beliefs.

I'm of the opinion that people's responses to my posts should make more sense.

 

[Gogf]

I'm of the opinion that people's responses to my posts should make more sense.

You said that beliefs don't matter unless politicians are "intent on drafting them into law." I don't really agree: I think we should always elect politicians based on their beliefs.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You said that beliefs don't matter unless politicians are "intent on drafting them into law." I don't really agree: I think we should always elect politicians based on their beliefs.

So merely for semantic's sake? So you can say "none of our politicians are misguided by a faith I don't believe in, whether they bring that part of them into the Chamber or not?"

 

[Homie]

Let me ask you a question, Homie; what do you think is the explanation for the biodiversity we see on the planet, and how old is it? What is your view on the matter?

I believe God make the planet and everything on it, and I believe the earth is approximately 6k years old, and yes I believe so because I believe in the validity of the Bible, a time-tested document. Scientific theories come and go, but the word of God stands firm.

I expect alot of silly attacks from ignorant people because I made this decleration, and those attacks will be ignored. I choose to ignore them because I have repeatedly responded to such attacks before, without any good coming from it.

Furthermore, people say don't mix science with religion. I say I don't think God cares about those categories, he cares about truth. If He says something, it's because it's true, regardless of the category you put it in. The Bible is not a textbook meant to teach us about nature, nor does it. But it does record a lot of history, because that history is important. Genesis is recorded history, like the Chronicles and the Gospels.

 

[Gogf]

So merely for semantic's sake? So you can say "none of our politicians are misguided by a faith I don't believe in, whether they bring that part of them into the Chamber or not?"

No, because I think people make decisions based on their beliefs. It is virtually impossible to keep them out of the chamber.

 

[Homie]

Well, it obstructs research into important scientific fields. Astronomy, geology, biology, medicine, and psychology, to name a few, would be hurt badly by a lack of understanding of evolution.

Really, how so? And how would this hinder the progress of civilization?

 

[Gogf]

I believe God make the planet and everything on it, and I believe the earth is approximately 6k years old, and yes I believe so because I believe in the validity of the Bible, a time-tested document.

Well, since you believe in the literal truth of the bible, I have a couple questions for you:

How did Noah have time to make sure there were two members of 10 million species on his ark? They certainly didn't evolve after the flood.

My friend insists on working on the sabbath. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or can I just call the police?

I want to sell my daughter into slavery, as the bible sanctions in Exodus 21:7. Who pays better, Egyptians or Chinese?

Scientific theories come and go, but the word of God stands firm.

So does the word of Homer.

If He says something, it's because it's true, regardless of the category you put it in.

Does he say it because it's true, or is it true because he says it?

 

[Homie]

I already know that the argument is somewhere in "this very thread." I don't care. I have better things to do with my time...

And I have better things to do with my time than digging it up for you. Surely, that should be obvious.