"Experts say......"

[rjd970]

I actually don’t have a problem with the theory of Evolution. It’s hard to ignore the premise of Natural Selection. However when clueless lay people lay their narrative on top of the data it gets butchered. Christianity has a self inflicted wound on creationism vs natural selection. I’m a Christian and I believe in divine creation. I also see evidence of natural selection it’s hard to ignore. Issues arise when people force dichotomies on top of the data in my opinion.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "forcing dichotomies"? Evolution by natural selection and divine creation are in fact at odds. If one wants to place the guiding hand of a creator into the evolutionary process, ok, but it certainly isn't needed or warranted.

 

[MurphyVol]

Who the hell are "the experts? When I see those two words on an article, or on a news clip, it is a big red flag.

Qanon, duh

 

[rjd970]

I'll just add this context. As a faculty member at a leading research university we routinely get asked by the media to opine on particular stories. I generally decline unless it is an area I have deep expertise in.

So a typical request might be to weigh in on the effect of the cyber attack on the Colonial Pipeline on some market condition (gas prices, inflation, consumer confidence, etc.). I would refuse this request since I do not study pipelines or short term supply disruptions and do not know the state of the art research in these areas. I could give my opinion but that wouldn't be based on true expertise.

Some of my colleagues follow my approach; others opine on whatever they are asked about.

TL;DR: some experts are experts, some are not

I'm betting this happens more often than not. The media gets the narrative they want and they go with it. Why dig deeper when you strike fool's gold an inch under the surface?

 

[LouderVol]

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "forcing dichotomies"? Evolution by natural selection and divine creation are in fact at odds. If one wants to place the guiding hand of a creator into the evolutionary process, ok, but it certainly isn't needed or warranted.

Not really. Just because God didnt deliver the "final" product at the start, doesnt mean he didnt have a hand in creating it.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "forcing dichotomies"? Evolution by natural selection and divine creation are in fact at odds. If one wants to place the guiding hand of a creator into the evolutionary process, ok, but it certainly isn't needed or warranted.

The bolded are what I deem to be at unnecessarily at odds. We already have several threads where we can go into this and no need to hijack this one.

 

[rjd970]

Not really. Just because God didnt deliver the "final" product at the start, doesnt mean he didnt have a hand in creating it.

I probably shouldn't have asked the question because it could end up derailing the thread, but I would just say if the theory requires the hand of an omnipotent creator it is no longer science. It is theology or philosophy at that point. That is the demarcation line of the dichotomy.

 

[rjd970]

The bolded are what I deem to be at unnecessarily at odds. We already have several threads where we can go into this and no need to hijack this one.

Agreed.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Not really. Just because God didnt deliver the "final" product at the start, doesnt mean he didnt have a hand in creating it.

And that’s more of where I’m coming from since you went there. I have no desire to hijack this thread.

 

[Y9 Vol]

I would be careful with making those kinds of statements. Evolutionary Theory has made predictions that were verified by the fields of genetics, botany, medicine, geology, and even mathematics...technologies and fields that were not around when the theory was postulated. Of course the timeline can't be replicated for testing, but it certainly can be tested on a smaller scale. Experiments with fruit flies, plants, and things like dog breeding all verify what Evolutionary Theory is saying.

Things like ID and other theories, including climate change even, are not standing up to that level of scientific scrutiny. Certainly none are falsifiable, nor able to be confirmed independently across multiple disciplines the way Evolution has.

Competent scientists do understand the limitations, agree 100%. That is why evolution is almost universally accepted when one really understands the scientific literature. At this point, if it is wrong, mother nature has a TON of explaining to do.

“Mother Nature” is made up BS.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Agreed.

Without furthering the derail if you’re interested go read up the Catholic Church’s take on reconciling Evolution and Divine Creation. They are on record accepting Evolution and don’t see a conflict. I’m not Catholic but one thing they are decent at is at least formulating formal stances on major issues.

 

[Wafflestomper]

It is a “ding” against any field of science which relies largely on inference of historical products and materials. Evolution clearly fits that. So does climate change. Competent scientists understand the limitations however lay people do not.

And you are clearly pushing the “settled science” reply, it rings thru clear as a bell in your whole last paragraph. Science is never settled as we learn more we always re-examine our understanding of the world.

It was settled that the earth was flat and even the universe moved around the earth at one point also.

And yes all data and results should be viewed skeptically. Any theory that survives a healthy skeptical examination only adds to its soundness in statement.

I'd have to disagree that I'm pushing the "settled science" narrative, as I explicitly stated previously that I have objections to it as a concept. Thinking that evolution is a strong theory and considering it to be settled science are not the same thing.

That scientists have been wrong in the past does nothing to the theory of evolution at all. It's not even a criticism of it, or even really relevant to anything I said as far as I can tell.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Lol, evolution has not survived jack crap. Evolution is as protected and some rare owl. You go against evolution, you're marginalized. If anything advancement in science has done more to damage that religion.

Can you provide a scientific experiment from a peer reviewed resource that has invalidated it as a theory?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I'd have to disagree that I'm pushing the "settled science" narrative, as I explicitly stated previously that I have objections to it as a concept. Thinking that evolution is a strong theory and considering it to be settled science are not the same thing.

That scientists have been wrong in the past does nothing to the theory of evolution at all. It's not even a criticism of it, or even really relevant to anything I said as far as I can tell.

As I’ve stated since this post I’m not disavowing Natural Selection so if you think that’s where I’m coming from that’s not correct.

The scientists don’t care what the fallout of the data is. It’s a non issue to them and nothing is ever “settled” as anybody can bring any new info they have and debate it.

My radar always goes up any time any body uses language to imply any of these archeological fields of science are decided. There simply hasn’t been enough time to settle anything and we’re learning more every year anyway. By their very nature fields like Evolution and Climate Change will not converge for a very long time I’d guess.

 

[VolStrom]

As I’ve stated since this post I’m not disavowing Natural Selection so if you think that’s where I’m coming from that’s not correct.

The scientists don’t care what the fallout of the data is. It’s a non issue to them and nothing is ever “settled” as anybody can bring any new info they have and debate it.

My radar always goes up any time any body uses language to imply any of these archeological fields of science are decided. There simply hasn’t been enough time to settle anything and we’re learning more every year anyway. By their very nature fields like Evolution and Climate Change will not converge for a very long time I’d guess.

In 500 million years from now when humans are long gone as well as any evidence we were ever here, dogs will be the rulers of the planet. My hypothesis holds as much water as anyone else's does.

 

[volinbham]

there were several threads where this article would fit but this one came to mind first.

Big Tech’s Censors Come for Science

 

[NorthDallas40]

there were several threads where this article would fit but this one came to mind first.

Big Tech’s Censors Come for Science

There it is. The censured article contradicted YouTube’s “settled science” views. Destroy these bastards now.

 

[Vjcvette]

85 percent of what people worry about never happens......
Source....HuffPost

 

[Orange defense]

Who the hell are "the experts? When I see those two words on an article, or on a news clip, it is a big red flag.

Joe Biden’s Chinese experts.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "forcing dichotomies"? Evolution by natural selection and divine creation are in fact at odds. If one wants to place the guiding hand of a creator into the evolutionary process, ok, but it certainly isn't needed or warranted.

Actually they arent, IMO anyway. The problem, or 1 part of the problem, is that those with an "anti- God" agenda have carefully and intentionally snuck abiogenesis under the self made, unquestionably beyond reproach umbrella term EVOLUTION ... which they give the same reverence Christians reserve for God. In the textbooks, curriculums, and instilled at liberal minded universities into public school teachers. Couple points as brief as i can:

1. Abiogenesis isnt evolution. Hell, it isnt even science. One must abandon the scientific method itself, as well as logic and reason, to believe that life accidentally occured from rain supposedly washing over rocks on Earths surface for millions or billions of years....when modern scientists under PERFECT conditions in labs can add all the necessary amino acids, even sequenced the same as living things DNA have never, ever made life from inanimate materials despite trying every possible stimuli such as heat, electricity, radiation, chemicals etc...life cannot even be INTENTIONALLY created on Earth under perfect conditions....but fools believe somehow it is "science" to believe it happened accidentally from rockwash, despite it not being observable, repeatable, or peer reviewed (holy grail these days lol)...abiogenesis will end up like the "big bang" , flat earth, geocentricity etc etc

2. Science, and many types of evolution theory such as micro, variation in species etc are not at odds with Christianity. Even the commonly held heathen beliefs regarding Noahs story are ill conceived...God told Noah to place 2 of every KIND of animal in the Ark such as 2 dogs..not 2 of every breed of dogs or type of wolves...just 2 canines. Context always matters...God said elsewhere in the Bible that " animals shall bring forth (reproduce) according to their KIND... 2dogs can make puppies. Even a ýùùùuwolf and a dog can. They are the same KIND of animals. A dog and a cat cannot. They arw different KINDS of animals . My aunt and uncle are both UT educated virologists/microbiologists with masters degrees. They are devout Christians with no inner conflicts between science and their faith.

Not really. Just because God didnt deliver the "final" product at the start, doesnt mean he didnt have a hand in creating it.

. Agreed. Hope ýou are doing well bro.

I probably shouldn't have asked the question because it could end up derailing the thread, but I would just say if the theory requires the hand of an omnipotent creator it is no longer science. It is theology or philosophy at that point. That is the demarcation line of the dichotomy.

This is the EXACT reason that abiogenesis is a religion all its own...not science at all. Well said friend. Most Christians know that it actually takes MORE faith to believe that lifè and all of the amazingly complex designs in living things and matter in general Accidentally happened and or created itself from literally nothing in the vacuum of space....than it takes to believe a Creator intentionally made this universe and everything in it...often with striking similarity in design...such as tiny atoms with electrons orbiting the nucleus being just like stars in our galaxy have planets orbiting around them in much the same way....or the "golden ratio" being present in everything from sea shells to flowers blooming to a million other examples in both flora and fauna on this planet...common designs point logically to a common Creator, not a million random traits or characteristics just accidentally ending up looking the same...

Self described scientists always balk at the word Faith when it comes to their beliefs....it takes an enormous amount of good old fashioned faith to believe that everything in this infinitely complex universe happened by accident, after of course all the matter in this universe magically produced itself from an enpty space .....do i need to elaborate? Oh, and now we know the big bang was BS as well since the expansion of this universe os actually accelerating in every direction ....anyone doubting publicly the BB theory would have been mocked and scorned just 2 years ago by these same experts..

Well i didn't intend to write this novel, but i cant sleep so....

 

[FLVOL_79]

Are they experts though? For example. I saw a report about the extra federal money ending in some States. Many "experts" said that it is not a good idea. Why? There are many different opinions on this.

Same thing about the masks. Why in the he'll do we wear them outside and after we get the shot?

Debatable. Journalists will add the "Expert" tag to anyone who knows something they don't. They themselves can be called "experts" if they focus their core reporting on a certain industry, say science and technology for example. Lets not forget the "Experts" who said you didnt have to wear a mask, then you did, then you had to wear 2...

 

[Wafflestomper]

Most Christians know that it actually takes MORE faith to believe that lifè and all of the amazingly complex designs in living things and matter in general Accidentally happened and or created itself from literally nothing in the vacuum of space....than it takes to believe a Creator intentionally made this universe and everything in it...often with striking similarity in design...

By comparing the two, you makes it sound as if Christians have put a probability on the likelihood of God existing and choosing to create everything. I'd be interested in hearing how they've come up with this probability.

 

[rjd970]

Actually they arent, IMO anyway. The problem, or 1 part of the problem, is that those with an "anti- God" agenda have carefully and intentionally snuck abiogenesis under the self made, unquestionably beyond reproach umbrella term EVOLUTION ... which they give the same reverence Christians reserve for God. In the textbooks, curriculums, and instilled at liberal minded universities into public school teachers. Couple points as brief as i can:

1. Abiogenesis isnt evolution. Hell, it isnt even science. One must abandon the scientific method itself, as well as logic and reason, to believe that life accidentally occured from rain supposedly washing over rocks on Earths surface for millions or billions of years....when modern scientists under PERFECT conditions in labs can add all the necessary amino acids, even sequenced the same as living things DNA have never, ever made life from inanimate materials despite trying every possible stimuli such as heat, electricity, radiation, chemicals etc...life cannot even be INTENTIONALLY created on Earth under perfect conditions....but fools believe somehow it is "science" to believe it happened accidentally from rockwash, despite it not being observable, repeatable, or peer reviewed (holy grail these days lol)...abiogenesis will end up like the "big bang" , flat earth, geocentricity etc etc

2. Science, and many types of evolution theory such as micro, variation in species etc are not at odds with Christianity. Even the commonly held heathen beliefs regarding Noahs story are ill conceived...God told Noah to place 2 of every KIND of animal in the Ark such as 2 dogs..not 2 of every breed of dogs or type of wolves...just 2 canines. Context always matters...God said elsewhere in the Bible that " animals shall bring forth (reproduce) according to their KIND... 2dogs can make puppies. Even a ýùùùuwolf and a dog can. They are the same KIND of animals. A dog and a cat cannot. They arw different KINDS of animals . My aunt and uncle are both UT educated virologists/microbiologists with masters degrees. They are devout Christians with no inner conflicts between science and their faith.




. Agreed. Hope ýou are doing well bro.




This is the EXACT reason that abiogenesis is a religion all its own...not science at all. Well said friend. Most Christians know that it actually takes MORE faith to believe that lifè and all of the amazingly complex designs in living things and matter in general Accidentally happened and or created itself from literally nothing in the vacuum of space....than it takes to believe a Creator intentionally made this universe and everything in it...often with striking similarity in design...such as tiny atoms with electrons orbiting the nucleus being just like stars in our galaxy have planets orbiting around them in much the same way....or the "golden ratio" being present in everything from sea shells to flowers blooming to a million other examples in both flora and fauna on this planet...common designs point logically to a common Creator, not a million random traits or characteristics just accidentally ending up looking the same...

Self described scientists always balk at the word Faith when it comes to their beliefs....it takes an enormous amount of good old fashioned faith to believe that everything in this infinitely complex universe happened by accident, after of course all the matter in this universe magically produced itself from an enpty space .....do i need to elaborate? Oh, and now we know the big bang was BS as well since the expansion of this universe os actually accelerating in every direction ....anyone doubting publicly the BB theory would have been mocked and scorned just 2 years ago by these same experts..

Well i didn't intend to write this novel, but i cant sleep so....

Nobody said a thing about abiogenesis and nobody is sneaking anything. Evolution doesn’t address how life started nor does it matter to the mechanics of the theory. It only explores what happened after.

 

[rjd970]

By comparing the two, you makes it sound as if Christians have put a probability on the likelihood of God existing and choosing to create everything. I'd be interested in hearing how they've come up with this probability.

This is a very good point and question.

 

[OrangeTsar]

My favourite recent boilerplate MSM phraseology....
“claimed without evidence “
“Republicans pounced”
“threat to our democracy “
“Mostly peaceful”
“Systemic racism “

 

[OrangeTsar]

Nobody said a thing about abiogenesis and nobody is sneaking anything. Evolution doesn’t address how life started nor does it matter to the mechanics of the theory. It only explores what happened after.

I see evolution as “God’s paintbrush” FWIW. Our entire biblical view of God always shows him working through a process, why would creation be any different?