Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221750 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

muffy

Glasgow, UK

#107324 Dec 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And *that* is why the personal testimony of millions of people is not evidence for the existence of a God: it is too self-contradictory and tied into the hopes and fears of those having the experiences. That makes the testimonies unreliable as evidence.
When I look at pages like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
and I read that a "2011 study found that 65% of medical studies were inconsistent when re-tested, and only 6% were completely reproducible", or "47 out of 53 medical research papers on the subject of cancer were irreproducible", why should I believe that science is any more consistent?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107325 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
When I look at pages like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
and I read that a "2011 study found that 65% of medical studies were inconsistent when re-tested, and only 6% were completely reproducible", or "47 out of 53 medical research papers on the subject of cancer were irreproducible", why should I believe that science is any more consistent?
think about how hard it is to remove variables from humans...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107326 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
When I look at pages like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
and I read that a "2011 study found that 65% of medical studies were inconsistent when re-tested, and only 6% were completely reproducible", or "47 out of 53 medical research papers on the subject of cancer were irreproducible", why should I believe that science is any more consistent?

It is precisely because of the requirement for reproducibility that science can maintain consistency. The opinion of one individual is not taken as correct until it can be confirmed (or refuted) by other researchers. It is that gauntlet that ensures erroneous results are eliminated.
muffy

UK

#107327 Dec 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It is precisely because of the requirement for reproducibility that science can maintain consistency. The opinion of one individual is not taken as correct until it can be confirmed (or refuted) by other researchers. It is that gauntlet that ensures erroneous results are eliminated.
That's certainly a nice aspiration, but are you confident that that's actually being done? How much confirmation is actually taking place if the majority of published research doesn't contain enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated?

https://peerj.com/articles/148/

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107328 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's certainly a nice aspiration, but are you confident that that's actually being done? How much confirmation is actually taking place if the majority of published research doesn't contain enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated?
https://peerj.com/articles/148/
how much of that published research is accepted as scientifically sound? are you including idiots like Shubee and his fantastic claims of scientific research? it is published...
muffy

Glasgow, UK

#107329 Dec 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>how much of that published research is accepted as scientifically sound? are you including idiots like Shubee and his fantastic claims of scientific research? it is published...
When I quoted "47 out of 53 medical research papers on the subject of cancer were irreproducible", I was referring to the survey done for Nature. I thought they were pretty reputable because I've actually heard of them, but I don't actually know. Are they in the habit of publishing the work of idiots?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107330 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
When I quoted "47 out of 53 medical research papers on the subject of cancer were irreproducible", I was referring to the survey done for Nature. I thought they were pretty reputable because I've actually heard of them, but I don't actually know. Are they in the habit of publishing the work of idiots?
and again, how does one factor out all the variables in humans for such research? should this research not be published? is anyone saying these tests and research are proof of anything?

you seem to have found one little fact unrelated to anything else and are having a party with it...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107331 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's certainly a nice aspiration, but are you confident that that's actually being done?
I expect that there have been some errors made over the years but I would have to answer, yes, I am.
muffy wrote:
How much confirmation is actually taking place if the majority of published research doesn't contain enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated?
https://peerj.com/articles/148/
You have to realize that before anything gets published in a science journal, it is reviewed by editors to make sure it is valid and not some nonsense. Assuming it passes muster, it is then published for the world's scientists to either confirm or shred.
muffy

Glasgow, UK

#107332 Dec 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and again, how does one factor out all the variables in humans for such research? should this research not be published? is anyone saying these tests and research are proof of anything?
you seem to have found one little fact unrelated to anything else and are having a party with it...
You misunderstand. It's not that the results are hard to replicate (though they are, for the reasons you mention). The problem is that the experiments/studies are impossible to replicate because critical information is not published.

We're always told that bad science is weeded out when experiments are repeated by other scientists. If this isn't actually happening, then how much bad science is out there?
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#107333 Dec 5, 2013
How can anyone thing "creation" theory makes sense?

If there was a "god creator' why does all provable facts say there isn't...

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107334 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's certainly a nice aspiration, but are you confident that that's actually being done? How much confirmation is actually taking place if the majority of published research doesn't contain enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated?
https://peerj.com/articles/148/
When referring to reproducibility, it is not the methodology that leads to results that is lacking. It is that the work of other researchers using the same methods don't produce similar results, consistent with the previous research.

I suppose my question would be, what alternative do you propose we use instead of science to learn and study the natural world.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107335 Dec 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I expect that there have been some errors made over the years but I would have to answer, yes, I am.
<quoted text>
You have to realize that before anything gets published in a science journal, it is reviewed by editors to make sure it is valid and not some nonsense. Assuming it passes muster, it is then published for the world's scientists to either confirm or shred.
And a peer reviewed article is only the first step in making sure that something is correct.

A new idea has to go through a barrage of different tests before it is accepted.

By the time you see an idea taught in public schools it has probably been tested hundreds of times. Creationists don't want to do that. They want to go straight from untested idea to being accepted in schools. That is not going to happen.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107336 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
When I quoted "47 out of 53 medical research papers on the subject of cancer were irreproducible", I was referring to the survey done for Nature. I thought they were pretty reputable because I've actually heard of them, but I don't actually know. Are they in the habit of publishing the work of idiots?
Nature *is* reputable and they do not publish the work of idiots. They publish papers for review by other scientists to confirm (or not) the work of the original group.

You seem to be harboring the misunderstanding that a failure of reproducibility means wrong. It does not. It simply mean that the experiment has not been reproduced with the expected results. In other words, it is unconfirmed.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107337 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstand. It's not that the results are hard to replicate (though they are, for the reasons you mention). The problem is that the experiments/studies are impossible to replicate because critical information is not published.
We're always told that bad science is weeded out when experiments are repeated by other scientists. If this isn't actually happening, then how much bad science is out there?
Tons and tons. If a so called scientists avoids peer review you can bet that it is junk science. Of course that garbage hangs around longer because of they avoid peer review. Real scientists tend to take defeat more like adults. If they are shown to be wrong they accept it and keep looking for the answer.

Testing by other scientists is important because even the best scientist will sometimes show bias for their own work. Peer review keeps scientists honest.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107338 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
...how much bad science is out there?
Here's a prime example:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107339 Dec 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>how much of that published research is accepted as scientifically sound? are you including idiots like Shubee and his fantastic claims of scientific research? it is published...
Wonder if it's KAB's brother.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107340 Dec 5, 2013
cancer suxs wrote:
How can anyone thing "creation" theory makes sense?
If there was a "god creator' why does all provable facts say there isn't...
No they don't.

The simple fact is that "God" isn't scientific. That's not *quite* the same as saying that it definitely doesn't exist.
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#107341 Dec 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No they don't.
The simple fact is that "God" isn't scientific. That's not *quite* the same as saying that it definitely doesn't exist.
Yes god does not exist.


Unless there is new proof no one has EVER seen.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107342 Dec 5, 2013
cancer suxs wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes god does not exist.
And what scientific test did you perform that demonstrated this?
cancer suxs wrote:
Unless there is new proof no one has EVER seen.
"Unless"?

Ah, then you are admitting that there is room for falsification. In which case "proof" gets chucked out the window, as the term implies 100% demonstrated. That's why we leave it only for maths, and NOT science, which requires the potential for falsification in order to make scientific predictions. This is why instead, science uses facts and evidence, not 'proof'.

And I thought we'd already explained this.

:-/
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#107343 Dec 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And what scientific test did you perform that demonstrated this?
<quoted text>
"Unless"?
Ah, then you are admitting that there is room for falsification. In which case "proof" gets chucked out the window, as the term implies 100% demonstrated. That's why we leave it only for maths, and NOT science, which requires the potential for falsification in order to make scientific predictions. This is why instead, science uses facts and evidence, not 'proof'.
And I thought we'd already explained this.
:-/
No one alive has ever seen him or her or felt any god like powers...YOU HAVE ANY PROOF YOUR GOD IS REAL?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? (Nov '14) 4 min Judy 123 1,127
People, TIP YOUR BARTENDERS!!! 7 min Emerald 4
Let's Play Song Titles With Only Three Words,... (Dec '13) 9 min Judy 123 604
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 13 min Crazy Beautiful 220,650
A to Z songs by title or group! (Dec '16) 13 min CJ Rocker 2,107
Let's Play Songs With Four Words,... (Jul '15) 24 min Judy 123 96
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 29 min Judy 123 2,343
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr tom 23,894
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr sugar bear 76,654
What Turns You Off? (Jan '17) 2 hr Yournotgoingtobel... 943
More from around the web