Originally posted by converge
Originally posted by Rintendo
A lot what we consider "fact" is still just a theory. Evolution, for example is considered "fact" by a vast majority of people claiming to be skeptics or debunkers and yet there are over 500 scientists from universities such as Harvard and JHU who have gone on record as "sketical" of Darwin's theory of random mutation. Does it make it wrong? No, but it proves that the jury is still out.
I know this is somewhat off topic but this is a gross misunderstanding of Evolution.
Evolution and Darwin's theory are not the same thing. Evolution is a fact, it has occurred, it has been observed. Theories on how exactly Evolution works and why are just that, theories, and one of them (the most notorious) happens to be Darwin's.
Find me a scientist at Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, or Stanford that will call evolution a "fact" instead of a theory. They will say that it is the only possible means and highly probable, however, they will not call it a fact because they cannot recreate it in a test environment and because it still requires an alteration of existing principles. Only laypeople will do that. Scientists, real ones, are far more careful than the average person.
Now, that is not to say that we did not evolve. What we are talking about here is not "evolution" but honest skepticism versus debunking.
You can debunk evolution, but honest skepticism will allow you to look at the theory and say "highly probable". You still have to make a few leaps here and there, and (snicker) go on faith, but it is still highly probable.
The same is true for UFO-logy. People are trying to debunk it, not be truly skeptical. Skepsis is questioning for the purpose of understanding a subject better. Debunking is an attempt to disprove.
No evolutionary scientist minds skepticism. Skepticism helps them get to the truth quicker. They do mind "debunkers".
Here is the difference.
Debunker: Scientists are not in consensus on evolution, therefore you cannot call it "fact" until you gain consensus. You do not have 100% certainty. You are talking about something that happened a few billion years ago. Recreate it in a laboratory and then I will believe you!
Note: a conclusion is made that it cannot be true without 100% consensus. It also requires the Randi mantra that "extraordinary theories require extraordinary proof".
Skeptic: You say that "chance" is only one of the two key players of evolution, that the other, "natural selection", is decidedly not random and easily proven. Please explain further how there is an evolutionary pathway composed of small iterative steps that can be accepted or rejected by natural selection. Isn't the problem parallel simultaneous change? That is, several changes must be made at the same time to make a new useful structure. How many genes have to change in coordination at the same time? The odds of simultaneous change is a conditional probability calculation where the probability goes as (1/P(i))**N where P(i) is the probability of event i happening and N is the number of genes.
Note: If I were the scientist hearing that, it would give me food for thought. They are not stating that you are wrong, they are asking you specific questions.
So...in my analogy here is how it happens in the UFO-logy world.
Debunker: (paraphrasing Bill Nye in response to a video from the 60's showing something using a beam of light to destroy a missile then darting off) Snark tone in effect Okay, well, that's something, but to call it a UFO is a huge leap.
Note: Doesn't UFO mean "unidentified"? Notice he doesn't ask questions he just declares and uses snark.
Skeptic: Were there any other military tests occurring on that same night? What was the speed of the film? Do we know from FOIA about technologies in test during that period of time?
Note: Questions are being asked, no conclusions are being made.
Debunker: (again, paraphrasing Bill Nye about the Phoenix lights) Well, but we know the military put up flares that night. That must be it.
Note: Conclusion being made. The military's version was taken at face value and hundreds of individual accounts of people who saw a "craft" were discounted.
Skeptic: Did people see a craft or just lights? Do we have any pictures that show an outline of a craft, or are the pictures all lights in the sky?
Note: Questions are being asked, no conclusions are being made.
My point, and I keep hammering this home...it hurts NOTHING to leave a subject open-ended, and everything to jump the gun on what is "fact". It hurts no one to keep researching evolution. It hurts no one to keep researching UFOs. It hurts everyone if scientific discovery is hampered to make people feel "safe".
I hope you see what I mean. I am not arguing for "Creationism". Personally, I am not invested in "how" we got here. I'm more concerned with what we're doing with our lives now. It's fascinating to watch on television and I loved my geology classes, but what interests me is that period of time between 4000 BCE and 100 CE. Evolutionists and Creationists can fight it out without me caring about their outcome either way.
However, I want research to continue in every single field of science. Discovery is fun and the process of discovery helps everyone in every field. As we refine our studies and experiments all of the research community benefits.


Or, no and yes. 