Jump to content

Accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth


Recommended Posts

Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty in evolutionary biology, however, that is why evolution is called a theory, rather than a law.

 

Oh...MY...GOD.

 

I can't believe anyone who purports to be using science in a discussion like this doesn't know the difference between a theory and a law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

bascule.

It is time you dumped that ridiculous link you have invented between climate scepticism and anti-evolution.

 

The first is a science debate. The second is a religion versus science debate.

There are many sceptical climate scientists' date=' and their scepticism is based on their honest evaluations as scientists, particularly an appreciation of the doubts and uncertainties of certain current climate dogmas.

 

There are, as you have said, a small number of Ph.D. biologists who resist belief in evolution. However, they take this position out of religious conviction. I challenge you to name even one atheist or agnostic Ph.D. biologist who takes an anti-evolution stance. Indeed, there are more religious biologists who support evolution than those who oppose it.[/quote']

 

 

Global warming, as an issue, has a large ideological and political component to it, just as evolution/creation has a large religious component. i.e., there are elements involved in the conclusions that have nothing to do with the science. The parallel is striking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A theory is a logcal framework, or explanation for observed phenominon is nature.
A scientific Law is a generalization based on empirical observation and empirical data that has never been refuted through repeatable experiments. They vary from theorys in there simplicity, theorys being much more complex.

Oh I see, . . . .

Sorry, I used the grade school definition by mistake.

 

Then here is what my last post should say:

Can all of you climate science skeptics answer one question for me?

 

Why don't you apply all the same criticisms you apply to global warming to evolutionary biology?

Yes' date=' there is a lot of uncertainty in evolutionary biology, but evolution, being a theory, is not comapirable to the scientific opinion that humans are the dominant cause of Global Warming.

Current climatological theory indicates that there are many factors that effect the climate. Most of which are uncertain, or not readily understood.

In fact I presented an article from the National Academy of Sciences a short time ago by climatologists that said just that. They said:

likelihood of an (unknowable) internally generated trend component, the model/observed data comparison presented here demonstrates that the observed century time scale global-mean temperature changes are consistent with a dominant anthropogenic influence and secondary influence from solar irradiance increases. . . . This consistency, however, does not prove that there has been a large anthropogenic influence. Given uncertainties in the forcing (both anthropogenic and natural),
Global warming, as an issue[/i'], has a large ideological and political component to it, just as evolution/creation has a large religious component. i.e., there are elements involved in the conclusions that have nothing to do with the science. The parallel is striking.

Both sides are effected by politics and ideology. Those on the fringe extreams have galvanized all the people in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh...MY...GOD.

 

I can't believe anyone who purports to be using science in a discussion like this doesn't know the difference between a theory and a law.

I'm confused. Are you suggesting the theory of evolution is a law? The context of your statement sure makes it appear that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused. Are you suggesting the theory of evolution is a law? The context of your statement sure makes it appear that way.

 

 

No, it was the statement that evolutionary theory was not a law because there is uncertainty about it. That's not what is preventing it from being a law; it will never be a law. It doesn't conform to the properties of a law. Similarly, general relativity will never be a law, and Newton's version of gravity will be, even though GR is more complete.

 

It's hard to defend the attitude of "don't question my understanding of science" with such fundamental errors/gaps as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.