Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
That is the most funny response I have read in a while. I know scientist do work. That is obvious and I am a researcher too.
Really? May I ask at which institution or university? What is the main topic of your research?

My point is science is not objective in this western culture with a monetary system where the rich rule. Journals are peer reviewed based on agendas owned by people. Understand how many patents are on inventions that threaten the wealthy and their power base? Thousands of inventions shelved.
We will never achieve perfect objectivity, but utilizing practices such as peer review helps us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Peer review actually aids in making sure that those who are trying to advance an agenda do not have an easy time at it.

Patents and inventions are a completely different topic, and not one I care to discuss right now.

You know the most frustrating thing about talking to someone like you? You have to state obvious things into oblivion until time is just wasted because you just can't accept things as they are.
I'm "stating the obvious" because you don't seem to have any understanding of how science works despite your claims that you're a researcher who does work in "the scientific field." Like I said earlier, I'd like to hear about your work.

I'm sorry you don't like the term evolutionist. It's probaly because such a thing is embarassing to have to admit. Science doesn't debate religion, or it wouldn't be science.......lolz
I don't see why it would be embarrassing to admit that I accept what is a solidly supported natural phenomenon. I don't feel any kind of embarrassment, though I do feel like you're trying to weasel your way into my psychology even though it's not at all relevant. And for that, you should feel embarrassed. It's not respectful.

Excuse me for restating the obvious, but I don't like the term because it is often only used by those who are pushing an anti-biology agenda.

You should maybe check out a few books.
It would be better to read a paper in a journal if I'm looking for somebody's work in biology. I know what kinds of books are written by people who deny evolution (even if they have a history in studying it, i.e. undergraduate and/or graduate degrees from accredited institutions). They don't often have anything of use in them.

How about to learn about biology in order to understand things better, that is generally what education is for. Evolution does not have any monopoly on anything, it's just a pushy religious idea that superstitious people want to try and put in the scientific community to hold back it's progress.
The thing about working in biology while rejecting evolution is that you can't actually do any work. I mean, you could, but your results wouldn't make any sense and you likely wouldn't get anywhere. All you would have is data and no way to interpret it.

I can stop you right there, if you are not using basic logic and common sense. You do not belong in any scientific field. You must use it.
I didn't say you can't use common sense. I said you cannot wholly rely on it. Not all solutions are intuitive.

Intuition has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. But if it did intuition would definitely say evolution is wrong anyway.
Intuition is practically the same thing as common sense.

I'm talking about how does a tree evolve without a seed. Picture not having any trees. There is no seeds to go with it. How does a seed suddenly generate it's DNA without even a tree. How does a chicken birth itself in a egg without a chicken. Your idea is pretty ridiculious.
Things like plant evolution are covered in an introductory class. Refer back to your class notes if you still have them. If not, look up plant evolution. If you really are a researcher, it is truly embarrassing that you're asking me these questions.

I am in the scientific field and I'm using the term ok. Many others do too. Like it or not, you have a belief in it.
Which field? At which institution? I'm calling your bluff.

You don't have to define it. We know what it is.
Your posts suggest otherwise.

Why does homosexuality still exist with natural selection.
Because heterosexual couples keep having kids, and because whatever causes homosexuality is probably not strictly related to pure genetics.

Why isn't the earth uniform in life why is everything so diverse natual selection should make everything the same thing.
Natural selection shouldn't make everything "the same thing." Life on Earth isn't uniform because certain organisms fill ecological niches better than others. Thus, you get diversity.

But if you have nothing to begin with how can you even select from anything. I don't think I can make up a more nonsensical theory if I tried. Maybe you have never thought about how insane it is cause you just go by what authorities want you to believe.
I'm not arguing that life had "nothing to begin with."

Mutations are errors, and the reason they arn't harmful is those types of errors are not even significant enough to even be measured as anything cause when we pass on our genetics it's the same.
Errors do not necessarily equate to damage, is my point. The reason some aren't harmful is because amino acids do not require just one combination of nucleotides. For instance, there are 6 codons that code for serine. There is room for error.

you make less sense than I do
Only because you don't know what you're talking about.

you don't need to keep saying it, just respond to the things you do understand. Or just, ask some questions.
If I say I don't know what you're talking about, then perhaps you should rephrase your question/statement.