Scientist only want evolution to be true for money?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2014, 10:08 PM
RE: Scientist only want evolution to be true for money?
Edit.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
22-03-2014, 10:13 PM
RE: Scientist only want evolution to be true for money?
(22-03-2014 01:38 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  It's a combination of financial, emotional, and worldview commitment. This is nothing new, though. Said commitments are the factors behind every scientific revolution throughout history. People grow attached to an idea to the point they'll cling to it even when the evidence says it's wrong.

This is where we're currently at with Darwinian evolution. As the saying goes, it's all over but the crying. Thumbsup

If you just replace "scientific revolution" and "Darwinian evolution" with "religion" your statement would be correct.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Alex_Leonardo's post
23-03-2014, 03:58 AM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 04:17 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Scientist only want evolution to be true for money?
Scientists get paid well?

That's news to me.

I'd be comfortably well off now if I didn't pursue science (not to mention that I wouldn't have had to spend an extra four years at university). When I did my first Research Fellowship I was living just north of London earning as much as a bus driver. There were times when I had to call in sick because we had to make a choice about driving into work or not eating.

Unlike a bus driver, we had to move house every year so I could find work. As soon as I started saving up money it would be spent on moving again. In the UK at least you earn significantly less in academia than you do in industry.

But like any job which people want to do, the wages fall because there's greater competition for the jobs in the workforce.

The last academic job interview I had in the UK, it was for a one year contract as complete code monkey, no more interesting than doing anything in industry but at a fraction of the wage. It wouldn't even have helped my academic career because I wouldn't have published any papers. The university was the furthest north of any other university in the UK and so would guarantee having to move again after the contract came to an end. They crammed all the interviews in over two days and restricted the interview to half an hour. I saw the candidate before me being marched out and I saw the candidate after me being marched in.

That's when I decided Fuck it. (And especially fuck Aberdeen university). I realised that I needed to earn more and have more job stability at this stage in my life otherwise I would be left destitute in my old age. So I emigrated to Germany and went into industry. I would love to get back into academia though because I love the work. It's why I am currently mentally exhausted even though I am inbetween jobs. I'm spending all my time trying to write my own paper which is incredibly hard without funding.

My life would be a hell of a lot easier and more comfortable if I didn't want to be a scientist. I've tried to give it up but I find the alternative of being a software engineer rather soul destroying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
23-03-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: Scientist only want evolution to be true for money?
(23-03-2014 03:58 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  My life would be a hell of a lot easier and more comfortable if I didn't want to be a scientist. I've tried to give it up but I find the alternative of being a software engineer rather soul destroying.

That's because God gave you the wrong kind of soul. Yes

Those of us whom God favored are blissfully happy as software engineers. Big Grin

Right, Girly?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
23-03-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: Scientist only want evolution to be true for money?
(22-03-2014 01:38 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  It's a combination of financial, emotional, and worldview commitment. This is nothing new, though. Said commitments are the factors behind every scientific revolution throughout history. People grow attached to an idea to the point they'll cling to it even when the evidence says it's wrong.

This is where we're currently at with Darwinian evolution. As the saying goes, it's all over but the crying. Thumbsup

I notice after shoveling this pile of garbage into the thread, he still hasn't come back to support any of it.

Probably too busy screaming it from a street corner or making banners.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 02:04 AM
RE: Scientist only want evolution to be true for money?
If they can make that much, then they should be driving top gear stuff!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: Scientist only want evolution to be true for money?
Let me add to Mathilda's post. My background is biostatistics and I have worked on many studies and RCTs. I have a very good publications list (humourous aside: my daughter was looking into artificial reproduction techniques and kept turning up articles on PUBMED which had, as author, someone with our shared surname and my first initial. After a while, she worked out who it was).

I've worked with researchers on research proposals including funding applications, both to government bodies and to pharmaceutical firms. These proposals were for studies in The Netherlands and Australia. I expect it's pretty much the same in the UK, the US, Germany etc etc. When you submit a proposal, you must specify who's going to be involved (senior researchers, researchers, doctors, nurses etc) and you must specify how much time each individual will be devoting to the project. Of course, other costs must also be included (hardware, software, travel etc). But how much do the individuals get paid? They get paid their salary. Nothing more, nothing less. You simply can't add on a fudge factor of a couple of million bucks to be spent on some Bacchanalian booze-fest. You get your salary. that's it. You don't go onto double pay just because you (more exactly, the project) landed some money. And of course, much of the time, you get somewhat less than what you asked for - that's if you get anything at all. A lot of grant applications don't even make it to first base.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2014, 05:16 AM
RE: Scientist only want evolution to be true for money?
Yes because typically scientists are into 'science' just for the Ferrari's, private jets and 10 bedroom mansions.

Being in academia myself, and being engaged to a micobiologist, I can't tell you the amount of times I've misplaced the keys for my Lambo. Luckily we have a helicopter on the grounds to shuttle us too and from work.

[Image: oie_9101658pvlrOK2Z_zpsd5fb1967.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fidel_Castronaut's post
08-09-2014, 05:47 AM
RE: Scientist only want evolution to be true for money?
(08-09-2014 05:16 AM)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:  Yes because typically scientists are into 'science' just for the Ferrari's, private jets and 10 bedroom mansions.

Being in academia myself, and being engaged to a micobiologist, I can't tell you the amount of times I've misplaced the keys for my Lambo. Luckily we have a helicopter on the grounds to shuttle us too and from work.

Only one helicopter? My friend, you must be poor. I'm a mere student, and we have three helicopters, four limos (because why not?), over ten thousand butlers (about five per person), every working car ever made (in perfect condition, obviously, and there's enough so that every student could drive the same car and there'd still be some left of that car to drive), a space shuttle, and, of course, our teleporter. We're working on acquiring a better mind-control device that can get through the impenetrable tin foil hats. So far, we've been unsuccessful, but we're close. Those people remain in opposition to our global mind-control scheme, but not for long.

On a more serious note, I have a few questions for these people: Why do you think that "they" pay scientists to lie about evolution just so "they" can win money, rather than simply keeping the money "they" pay scientists? How much do you think it would take to bribe millions upon millions of scientists worldwide? Even bribing just one million scientists would probably mean paying at least one million USD each (or the money wouldn't be enough to keep them quiet, IMO). That's one billion (or trillion, if you use short notation) USD. It's more than the GDP of just about every country on Earth. According to the UN, only 15 countries (out of 193) have a GDP higher than that. If you tried to pay every scientist on Earth that million, it would take almost half the money on Earth to do so (it would take 30 billion/trillion USD, and there's "only" about 75 billion/trillion USD on Earth).
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...l%29#Lists (references to the various lists can easily be found)
http://www.researchgate.net/post/How_man..._worldwide
http://gizmodo.com/5995301/how-much-mone...e-on-earth

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like One Above All's post
08-09-2014, 08:00 PM
RE: Scientist only want evolution to be true for money?
It sounds like to me that people like Millionair Ken Ham who banks 100% of his money and income on creationism thought that it might be a good idea to push his reasons onto others to make their arguments seem weaker.

Scientists who study evolution do far more then that in their fields. If they dropped doing any evolution research, the rest of their work would not be impacted or they can easily shift their priorities. The same cannot be said for Ken Ham. So asserting that HE and others like him are only into creationism for the money would be a far more accurate assumption to make.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: